Bill C-15 (Historical)

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations

Part 1 enacts the Northwest Territories Act and implements certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement. It also amends and repeals other Acts and certain orders and regulations.
Part 2 amends the Territorial Lands Act to modify the offence and penalty regime and create an administrative monetary penalty scheme. It also adds inspection powers.
Part 3 amends the Northwest Territories Waters Act to make changes to the jurisdiction and structure of the Inuvialuit Water Board, to add a regulation-making authority for cost recovery, to establish time limits with respect to the making of certain decisions, to modify the offence and penalty regime, to create an administrative monetary penalty scheme and to make other changes.
Part 4 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to consolidate the structure of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, to establish time limits for environmental assessments and reviews and to expand ministerial policy direction to land use planning boards and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. This Part also amends the administration and enforcement provisions of Part 3 of that Act and establishes an administration and enforcement scheme in Part 5 of that Act, including the introduction of enforceable development certificates. Moreover, it adds an administrative monetary penalty scheme to the Act. Lastly, this Part provides for the establishment of regional studies and regulation-making authorities for, among other things, consultation with aboriginal peoples and for cost recovery and incorporates into that Act the water licensing scheme from the Northwest Territories Waters Act as part of the implementation of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to match the entertainment value of that speech with my question.

The Northwest Territories chamber of mines and the Government of Northwest Territories released their “Northwest Territories Mineral Development Strategy”, in which they recognize the importance of regulatory improvement. They said:

By creating a strong regulatory framework that clearly outlines consultation requirements, processes and timing, companies will have increased clarity regarding regulatory process expectations. [...] The GNWT needs to support the timely completion and lead the effective implementation of Canada's Regulatory Reform Action Plan.

I know the NDP opposes responsible resource development. I know that they oppose everything this government proposes by rote, but would she agree that it could perhaps support the Government of Northwest Territories to put forward a plan for regulatory improvement, or does she oppose that consensus government as well?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague opposite did not listen to the beginning of my speech because I spoke about economic development a great deal.

Yes, the NDP is in favour of economic development, but not without considering the resulting social, economic and environmental obligations. That can be done by consulting the people. By modernizing the existing rules, we can develop this sector in Canada's north, in partnership, of course, with private companies that can invest in it. That is the point we have reached and it is why we believe that it is time to modernize. That is our goal for Bill C-15.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fantastic speech.

I think that this will be a lot more interesting than the Minister of Finance's budget presentation later this afternoon. I was not fortunate enough to be present yesterday for the first part of my colleague’s speech, but I found the second part to be extraordinary.

Can she go over the highlights I missed in the first part of her speech, the points that my hon. colleagues in the House—especially those opposite—need to hear?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

There are three key messages that the House should take note of in the NDP's request. I am pleased to see that the members opposite are paying closer attention now.

For decades, the people living in the Northwest Territories have been trying to get powers similar to those of the provinces. The NDP agrees with the transfer of powers and supports the Northwest Territories in its efforts to take over certain federal responsibilities in the north.

The Northwest Territories is in the best position—as every province and provincial or municipal authority can appreciate—to know how its resources should be used. The Northwest Territories should have the final say. We are asking the government to support that.

We will ensure that Bill C-15 meets the expectations of northerners and, in committee, we will look at some of the concerns raised about the Conservatives' plan to have the bill include changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

That is the NDP's message: yes to economic development, but jointly with northerners. Otherwise, it will not work.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who is always so passionate and eloquent.

She spoke about collaborating with and listening to first nations people and residents of the Northwest Territories and the desire to expand resource development.

There are many fine examples across Canada. However, there is still a little bit of work to be done in the Northwest Territories. We would like the Conservative Party to be eloquent and collaborative with respect to what remains to be done.

It is important to work with a territory's people because that allows them to adequately feed and house themselves. First nations across Canada are demanding that these basic needs be met. In Bill C-15, there is just a little more work to be done as far as the Northwest Territories are concerned.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank my colleague.

Nation to nation dialogue demonstrates respect. You cannot say that you agree with a nation if you do not respect that nation. Respect is a key word. It is something that other nations can understand, and not just first nations. We want this Conservative government to fully recognize what it means to be a nation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour, as always, to rise in the House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and speak again to Bill C-15 on the devolution of powers in the Northwest Territories.

At the outset, certainly the New Democrats support the principle of devolution, and I will speak a bit about the importance of devolution in a country as large and diversified as ours. However, we are concerned about clauses 136 and 137 of the bill, which would fold the regional municipal planning boards into one. We believe those changes would not be in the spirit of the negotiations with the people of the Northwest Territories and first nations. This is an outstanding problem that needs to be addressed. We can do good devolution, but we need to ensure that the voices of the people are properly heard.

My own region of Timmins—James Bay is larger than the United Kingdom, but there are many isolated fly-in communities. There are attempts under way to develop hydro resources and copper and diamonds, yet we also have communities that live in intense poverty, a veritable fourth world. Some of my communities are called “Haiti at -40°C”.

When we go into these communities, we see that the federal government has done a very poor job in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities and in basic credible management to ensure that development occurs. If we were to talk to people in my region from the mining sector and first nations, we would hear one common voice asking, “Where is the government? Why is the government not doing its job at the table?”

We are trying to get development off the ground in a community that has no doctors, no grade school, and 20 people living in shacks. If a mining company is attempting resource development where people will be hired, we have people who have not been able to graduate. We need the federal government at the table doing its job. We also need the province doing its job. This is why I think that with the issue of devolution in the Northwest Territories, we have to look at it through the lens of how to ensure that development is equitable across the vast terrain of our country where we have smaller populations.

I will give a few examples of the failure of vision in how things have been handled.

The Ring of Fire is a massive mineral resource development project in the northwest of my riding that could impact development for generations to come. Members will remember when the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka was appointed. He was going to be the special point person and the Conservative government was going to make the Ring of Fire happen. The Conservatives were going to be the champions of the development of the Ring of Fire. Well, they all ran away from that one; we do not hear a peep out of them. We also saw how the provincial Liberal government completely botched it.

When we go into the communities, there is frustration because of the extremely high level of poverty. If we asked people in those regions about mining, they would say they understand that mining is going to happen, but it has to be done right with environmental protections and proper consultation.

Consultation is not just a matter of a fiat from Ottawa telling all the little people how they are going to live; it is about respecting the land and the traditions. Without the federal government or the province at the table, this multi-billion-dollar project is sitting on idle.

In my region, simple projects could have been moved ahead through devolution of authority. For example, Attawapiskat has been without a grade school for years. Children are being educated on a toxic brownfield, but the current government walked away at the eleventh hour on a long-term plan to build a school. The then minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl, said at the time that building schools for children was not a priority. The community was ready to build that school. This was a big project, and the community had financing through a bank. This was innovative. This was grassroots. They had bank financing and all they needed was the federal government to sign a tuition agreement. We could have had a new way of getting schools off the ground, but we had a belligerent government and a closed-minded bureaucracy, and that school was not built. This led to the whole push for Shannen's dream, which ended up at the United Nations with Canada being shamed on the international stage about its basic legal obligation to build schools for children.

As for the outcome of the Attawapiskat housing crisis, in 2011 we had a plan to build 30 new rent-to-own houses in the community. They were not asking for handouts from the government. This was a community that had gone to the CMHC. They were ready to move forward. All they needed was a ministerial guarantee to sign off. The minister refused to sign and those 30 houses were not built.

However, it was not just the current government that dropped the ball, it was also the provincial government. In communities on the James Bay coast, we do not even have the land base to expand the community, despite the fact we have growing populations, because the province sits and claims the land. There is no one up in those regions on the James Bay except the Mushkego Cree, yet Queen's Park has the temerity, the gall, to say it is all provincial land, that they need its sign-off. Why is it not signing off? We will never see the province show up at the table when these simple things need to be done, so our communities are stuck in a catch-22 between a belligerent and incompetent federal government and a provincial government that believes its citizens of the James Bay region, because they are Cree, are somehow not citizens of Ontario. As a result, simple projects do not move forward.

We have the same problem with policing, just as they do in the far, far north, with our Nishnawbe-Aski police service that represents all the peoples of Treaty 9. I was at the funeral of the two young men who burned to death in the police detachment in Kashechewan in 2006. To call it a police detachment is incorrect; it was a shack out of which the police were delivering services. Two young men were trapped in there and burned to death, horrifically. Out of that inquest, light was finally shone on the substandard conditions that police face in these regions, with high levels of PTSD and young police officers killing themselves. There is no support from the federal or provincial governments.

One the issues we had was the need to ensure that we just had basic, proper police units. In Kashechewan the government did not want to put in fire sprinklers because it would cost money. It would be illegal anywhere else in the province of Ontario to have a public building without sprinklers, but they got away with that on a reserve because the feds were not going to worry about it and the province was not going to spend the money, and two young men burned to death.

We now have a situation in Fort Hope where plans to build a proper police detachment to ensure security for the police officers, as well as the citizens, has been derailed by the current government after multiple negotiations. It has simply abandoned it.

We hear from Chief Elizabeth Atlookan, who has written the government, saying that “It is imperative that construction of this new detachment commence immediately as costs for the transportation of materials will increase as the end of the short winter road season”.

In writing to their member of Parliament in Kenora, she says, “I request you to do everything possible to secure funding for the construction of this new detachment”.

These are communities that live with very narrow building windows, where if we do not get the sign-off to get this police detachment soon and we do not get those supplies up the road, then we will lose another year. In consequence, the police and communities are left at risk, and the cost to the taxpayer goes up and up.

It is the serial incompetence of the government in managing files in the far north that has led us, time and again, to see good projects sit on someone's desk and not be signed off on until the price has gone up 30% or 40%, because every year it gets harder and harder to move supplies up.

This is the situation that we face in our region, so is the lens that we should apply to the issue of devolution.

We support devolution in the Northwest Territories. This is a good, important step. However, taking the regional-municipal water and planning boards and folding them up, despite the opposition of first nations and the concerns raised, is another example of the government just not getting it. It does not understand that if we are to do proper development in Canada, we have to do it credibly and do it in consultation with people. People are not against development, but they want it done right. When we have a good program like devolution, I am very sorry to see the government undermining it and throwing a monkey wrench into it by playing around with the development of the water boards in the region.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Timmins—James Bay, who is always concerned about the socio-economic situation of first nations.

I would like him to explain why it is so important to us in the NDP and others to hand over powers to the Northwest Territories and to have it take charge of its own development.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the New Democrats and the Conservative government. The Conservatives believe that the territories is their land and that the first nation people living there are somehow to be treated as colonized people. That is why they have stripped away basic protections for the environment. That is why they treat the first nation community as basically a hostage population.

On the other hand, New Democrats believe that our relationship with first nations in this country was a primary relationship forged by Champlain. This new country was to be based on respect between the peoples of this land. The Conservative government has done so much to undermine that sense of respect.

If there is to be resource development in the 21st century, it has to be done in consultation with the people whose land it is, and who have a right to participate but have been marginalized for far too long.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech here today. He is always concerned about the rights and well-being of aboriginal people, as we have seen in recent years with one of the communities located in his riding.

In the member's opinion, how important are consultations with first nations when decisions are being made that might affect their lands? How important is that in the process the government is supposed to follow when coming up with bills or new programs that could affect first nations? How important are consultations with first nations?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the obligation to consult is a constitutional obligation. Attempts to get around this have been beaten in court every single time. That is a basic fact. If development is going to take place on first nation land, then consultation is a must.

It is also about common sense. I saw this at ground level when I worked with the Algonquin nation in Quebec and now I see it with the Cree communities and Ojibway communities. The people on the ground know the facts. For so long they have been treated as outsiders on their own land. If we sit down and talk with communities about how development should occur, then we are going to develop plans that are much better and more sustainable.

In the long term, stronger local economies will be developed when people who used to be marginalized participate in the economy. We see enormous potential in the young people in all of our communities. For far too long they have been kept outside the door as though they were completely unwanted. When we start to include them in the economy, then we will become the country we were meant to be.

Under the Conservative government we are reverting to a colonial mentality, which in the end it will hurt our economic output and hurt development. Mining companies have told me that they are tired of the government's attitude about fighting. They want to move forward on proper development and want to do it with some kind of long-term plan.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech and I have a question.

The regional land and water boards were created by the Conservative government to give the aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories a say in land use planning and water use. I am therefore trying to understand how eliminating these provisions will serve the interests of the people affected.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, witnesses told us that they were not heard on this issue. Regional water boards are crucial. We can have devolution but we need to maintain that voice at the local level, particularly over the issue of water, because water is not only sacred, it is vital for ensuring a sustainable environmental future.

Again we are seeing the government continue its attack on water protection across this country. This is a retrograde step.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak on Bill C-15, an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other acts and certain orders and regulations.

I had the pleasure to speak on this bill at second reading before it went to committee. Although I am not a northerner—I am from the south, from Vancouver, and I represent a very urban community—I must say that I did relate to many of the issues in this bill and the concerns that were expressed about it. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the NDP member for Western Arctic, who has done an incredible amount of work not only on this bill but on the issue generally of the devolution of powers and support of the Northwest Territories. As someone from an urban riding, I appreciate the vastness of the territory that the member represents and all of the communities he has to communicate with to find out what concerns there are on the ground. It is really quite phenomenal, and that I cannot relate to in a geographical sense.

I know that the member for Western Arctic has been painstaking in his journey and his consultations with people. When he speaks to us in the House about Bill C-15 and the concerns about it that he took to committee and the amendments that he tried to get, we know that it comes from the grassroots. It comes from consultations with local communities and individual constituents, and that is why we are here: to bring that kind of information and that grassroots approach into the House.

Therefore, when a bill like this comes forward—an historic bill, something that we have been working toward for many decades in terms of devolution, and something that New Democrats have certainly supported for decades to ensure that the Northwest Territories can take over federal responsibilities in the north—it is very disconcerting when local voices are not heard. Unfortunately, I think this is what happened with this bill.

New Democrats supported the bill at second reading. We thought that the bill, in terms of its general principle and its thrust and its journey of devolution, was a very important milestone. We were very hopeful that when the bill went to committee, there would be a thorough examination and that particularly the government members of the committee would come to an understanding that this bill had too much in it. For example, it would make amendments to the Mackenzie Valley agreement that are very problematic and that people in local communities were expressing a lot of concerns about.

I want to thank the NDP members who were on the committee: the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan; the member for Manicouagan; the member for Western Arctic, whom I have spoken about; and the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. These members worked very hard.

There were only four meetings in which the committee looked at the bill, but it is quite interesting to note that one of the meetings was a nine-and-a-half-hour meeting in Yellowknife. That is very telling. It shows that the committee travelled to the north and listened to witnesses who came to the committee. I have never heard of a committee hearing witnesses for nine and a half hours.

The fact that it was done in the local community tells us that there was a lot of interest in the bill. Obviously there were witnesses who wholeheartedly supported the bill without reservation, but, having read some of the transcripts and having spoken to the member for Western Arctic and others, I know there were people in Yellowknife and in the Northwest Territories who expressed their concerns about the consequences and impacts of this bill.

I want to quote one of the witnesses, Mr. David Bob, who is the vice-president of the Northern Territories Federation of Labour. When I read his comments, I thought he succinctly outlined some of the problems with this bill.

He said:

Bill C-15 should really be split into two distinct bills that can be debated and voted on separately. Combining devolution legislation with amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a tortured exercise and one not worthy of a government wishing to be transparent and democratic. While some may quibble over the details and outcomes of devolution, that part of the bill will probably earn general consent from the people of the NWT.

The part of the bill that completely disrupts our existing regulatory system, however, is sure to elicit substantial adverse reactions. The intent of devolution is to transfer greater authority over land and resource decisions to the north and northerners, but we do not believe this would be achieved by the proposed changes to the regulatory regime contained in part 4 of the bill.

As I have said, that is a revealing quote from a key witness on this bill that has now come back to the House. I think the NDP submitted 11 amendments. The Conservatives did not submit any amendments. Two of the NDP amendments were approved, but it is really disconcerting to see some of the fundamental questions about the bill covering too much by going into the Mackenzie Valley agreement and that it will cause a lot of negative consequences in the local community.

That is unfortunate. Overall, the NDP is still in support of this bill at report stage. We are going through that debate now and then we will go onto third and final reading, but I hope there will be a measure of thoughtfulness once the bill is passed, as I am sure it will, and that there will be a willingness on the part of the government to review this devolution and listen to the concerns of northerners, and that with the practicalities of implementing the devolution and transfer of those powers, the needs of the community will be heard.

Today I was at the Standing Committee on Health, and this issue came up again. Unfortunately, it is all too familiar to us to see what is happening with devolution. We see the federal government wash its hands and say it does not have anything to do with health care anymore and might transfer its programs and services to the Assembly of First Nations or other organizations, but the resources are not provided.

There is still a responsibility for the federal government to provide those resources once the transfer has been made. We see this in health care. I am sure we will not see an acknowledgement in the budget today that the provinces and territories have been shortchanged $36 billion in health care. It is a provincial delivery system, but there is a federal responsibility.

In terms of Bill C-15, which is before us today, unfortunately it is the same old story. Devolution in this circumstance is warranted, it has been asked for, and it is something that we support. However, it is critical that the federal government listen to the local community and not just do the legal transfer. There is more to it than that. The federal government must provide the resources required so that the authority, in this case the Northwest Territories, can carry out its legal responsibility under the agreement.

Those are the observations I have at third reading. I thank my colleagues on the committee who went through the bill, who gave it due diligence, who listened to people, and who made amendments. Unfortunately, most of them were not supported.

We still support the bill, but I can say that we will be vigilant. We will watch this. We will continue to work with northerners and with people in the Northwest Territories, particularly aboriginal first nations people, to make sure the bill is not just a legal document but actually has a positive impact on people in local communities.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although my colleague did not sit on the aboriginal committee, obviously she familiarized herself quite a bit with the file. It was quite obvious.

I would like to quote from Dehcho First Nation, which put the following into their brief:

These dramatic amendments are being forced on the Dehcho territory and people. We were not approached to develop a new regulatory system in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect. Rather, we were told what was going to happen, asked to comment, and our comments were pushed aside. This is not consultation, as it utterly lacks the meaningfulness and good faith of a genuine dialogue. Nor does it show any semblance of accommodation.

Again, I think this speaks to how we have seen over and over again that when people have come to comment or have made submissions, they are basically pushed aside. These are the people who are actually on the ground.

Maybe my colleague could indicate how important it is to listen to witnesses, to balance everything, and to go from there when we are making legislation and changes to legislation. In this particular case it is with respect to the land and the water use. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.