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.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The honourable member just broke the hearts of an awful lot of Canadians who thought they would only have to listen to me for a maximum of two hours. So be it. We are where we are. Good thing I made a pit stop on my way, and we'll see where we end up.

We last left off, Chair, talking about of course our motion. I had assured you that I was very much aware of your mandate as the chair to ensure that my comments remain within the parameters of the motion. I've had some people over the last few days ask why I am not talking more about the bill, and the answer to that is, the second I start talking about the content of the bill, you're going to be all over me, Chair, because at that point I would no longer be talking about the actual motion that's in front of us and would have sort of slid into debate.

Being respectful of your mandate and knowing that you want to keep us all on track, I will endeavour...and have laid out my thoughts in a way that I think continues to respect the rules and the boundaries upon which we can speak to any given motion.

So, where to begin. Such an embarrassment of riches in terms of things to talk about. I think the first thing I'd like to do maybe is talk a little bit about the mandate of the committee, because the motion, of course, is always predicated on the work of the committee.

An understanding of the mandate and the rules of the committee is an important part of understanding the essence of what we're trying to do with our motion. And I remind everybody that our motion is actually very straightforward, and the part of it that is giving the government the greatest amount of trouble is the part where we talk about talking to Canadians, going out into the communities and giving people a chance to have a say about their election law in a way that's meaningful. We believe, in the NDP, in the opposition, that we should be getting out of the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble, and that we should be giving Canadians an opportunity to voice their concerns. And many concerns there are, and I'll get to that part later.

I will be speaking about some of the roles of the committee chair. I will also be talking about what took place not long ago in Yellowknife, where there was another piece of legislation. The discussion, in some ways, Chair, is that the House of Commons, as a rule, normal procedure, doesn't necessarily travel on every bill. It's more commonplace when we do studies.

But the fact remains that although it may not be the usual process, it is not unusual to the extent of being rare or an extreme stretch of the rules that a committee would travel on an actual bill. Of course, we have the evidence of Bill C-15. Just at the end of January, on January 27, specifically, they were in Yellowknife holding hearings—wait for it—on a bill. So any argument that what we're suggesting is an extreme aberration or is stretching the rules or the credulity of members in terms of what's normal is specious. It is in fact a permitted, useful, important tool for committees to travel on certain bills when it's necessary.

I remind the members of the government, through you, Chair, that we already tried to do this in a way that was amicable, that would involve everybody with the least amount of politics, and the government refused. What I'm referring to is when we asked that the bill be sent directly to committee after first reading, and the government—again, you know the kinds of games they play—got up and made speeches: “Well, clearly, the NDP doesn't want to debate the bill because they've already made a motion, or indicated they wanted to send it off to committee.”

Once again it's the government playing fast and loose with the truth.

The reality is that it is a mechanism that is in place to permit members of the House of Commons, through their committees, to start discussing a bill without as much politics. Here's why.

Normally what happens is that the first reading, as a rule, is pretty perfunctory; you stand up, read the bill, it's accepted, there are a couple of formalities, and boom, it's in the system. The second reading is where we're voting in principle; it's at second reading where the parties tend to start locking in. The government stands behind their bill; they're not going to stand up at second reading and start talking about problems with the bill or things that need to be changed, that will happen at committee. They're not about to start that kind of a discussion on a bill without recognizing that they have to stand behind the integrity of their bill. After the second reading, that's when it goes to committee. The problem is that we've already locked in politically; the opposition parties have been pressed by the media about whether they are in favour of this. People get asked if they're in favour of a bill sometimes before it's even finished being introduced to the House. Are you in favour of it, or are you opposed to it? It's the nature of politics in the modern-day communications era.

What happens is parties move quickly, oftentimes without the opportunity to do the kind of in-depth research that one would like to, especially if it has you going, later on, that the position we took in the beginning now that we understand it a little better we have to massage it, and so on. There's a whole political thing around that, and it's the normal way of doing things, and it serves us well in most cases. There are times, however, and this should have been one of them, when...much like we finally are doing on Ukraine, after the embarrassment for the government of being so petty last week as to send a non-unity delegation to a country that needs to be united. We will not let them forget that; it was a sad moment in this government.

I hear you, Chair. Thank you.

We're past that now and we're working together. That's my point; now we're where we should be as a House on the question of Ukraine. Whether we stay there or not depends on how we go forward. But I know that we're all going to do everything we can to stay united around that. Why? Isn't it political? Of course, it's political, it's hugely political, it's arguably the most political question on the planet right now. But the fact remains that some things are so important that we have an obligation, as difficult as that is—it seems easy from the outside—and we need to get above that. From time to time, we have to have the ability to rise above the politics of the moment for a bigger cause. In this case, the cause is the freedom that Ukrainians are fighting for in terms of their country. In this case, what we're talking about is revamping all of our election laws.

Chair, it seems to me that if ever there was a useful time for the House of Commons and the members to act in a unified way, and to try to find a set of rules that everyone can live with.... I use the example of the Olympics, and I think it's a perfect example. No one country set the rules for the games at the Olympics. It wasn't the host country, it wasn't the biggest—being the United States—it wasn't those that won the most medals, it was everybody, and everybody got a say and everybody knew the rules were fair when they went into it. It's clear, not only from the bill...and we see that now, and we'll see it more as we get into it, but we also see it in the way the government acted, Chair. The first chance they had in the House of Commons on this bill after they neglected to consult with any of the political parties and even the Chief Electoral Officer.... How outrageous to bring in an election law. It's insulting to bring in a new election law, and the Chief Electoral Officer was not even consulted. It was pretty clear to us from the get-go that this government was not interested in trying to rise above politics, in trying to have a fair, level playing field for everybody.

They talk about that when they talk about trade issues. They don't want to talk like that when we talk about our election laws.

So it was pretty clear to us, Chair, right from the beginning, that this government's only intent is that by Canada Day they want this law. Quite frankly, they're prepared to take any criticism that I can give, that my colleagues can give, that the public might give, that the media may bring down on them. They are prepared to pay that price in exchange for an election law that tilts the rules in their favour. That's where we are.

Our attempt to bring us back to where we should be, if that can be done this late in the game, was to use a mechanism...in fact, the mechanism was so effective federally that when I was at Queen's Park we brought in a similar rule to have that tool available to us. I can remember specifically that we were dealing with mental health reform. We used that mechanism. It was the first time ever. Norm Sterling, a good Progressive Conservative from Ontario, deserves credit. For the longest time he liked this rule, and when he finally became the House leader he brought it in. He adopted it from the rule that we have here. Again, that rule is that once the bill has been introduced at first reading, rather than then moving to second reading—and as I said people start putting political skin in the game—and having to vote, that you send it off to committee before anybody's locked in on anything. Why? Because it gives everybody the latitude to talk about going in any direction because they haven't pre-locked themselves into a position, either deliberately or inadvertently, by virtue of the words that are chosen at the time.

Councillor Brad Clark in Hamilton was the minister responsible. He wasn't minister then, he was parliamentary assistant, but he did such a good job that in the next round of promotions he was promoted from a parliamentary assistant—as they are called at Queen's Park as opposed to parliamentary secretaries here—to a full minister, the Minister of Labour. He did a great job. The process worked. It de-fanged all the politics. It neutralized everything and then when the bill landed, clearly the government was saying by virtue of their words and their actions that they wanted to see if they could build collectively as good a bill as possible, given the issue: it was mental health. There was no desire to play politics with mental health. There was a need to make things better, to fix some things. Everybody felt that commitment, and it was good work.

I still think one of the reasons Brad got into cabinet was because I, and my good friend the late Dominic Agostino, an absolutely outstanding elected representative, were so good at praising him that we convinced the premier. To be fair, part of it was we wanted a regional minister. We didn't have one in Hamilton. The closest was Burlington, and we didn't consider that to be hometown, and we really wanted and needed a minister from the area, so we had an ulterior purpose. Nonetheless, we still couldn't have done it if councillor Clark, then parliamentary assistant Clark, hadn't done such an outstanding job. So we thought this was a great opportunity for this bill. That was our attempt to get the government to agree to send it here after first reading.

That would mean, Chair, that rather than getting all caught up in the politics, where we are right now—we're into the politics of things—rather than that, we would have gotten right into the issues. Why? Because we still had, if we needed them politically, the tools available when you eventually report back to the House, and you still have a second reading debate.

You still have a second reading vote, and you can still send it back to the committee if you want, with instructions, or you can accept the report and forward it to the minister. All of the options that were available before are still there. You don't give up any of them, but what you do is, you send it to a committee without all the politics, in the hope that making a good law would be the priority.

So how should this have been done? There should have been consultations with the opposition parties. There would have been, if it were a minority, I guarantee you. There should have been consultations, as there were in the past, Chair. This is not something new.

In the past when these kinds of changes were considered, the first step would be to talk to the opposition parties and let them know what you're planning, let them know that this is what you're going to do, and make it a collaborative effort. The second thing you would do, one would think, is ask the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada to come in and give you a briefing on what they think. Remember, still no politics.

I know that work can be done, because we've done it before. In fact, I just happen to have with me some of my notes from that work. You'll remember this, Chair. This is like a blast from the past. You probably have one yourself, framed on the wall as a souvenir of all those years when you chaired this. Remember these?

Remember this? This is a spreadsheet. What's fascinating about this is that it's headed up as “Mapping of the Chief Electoral Officer's Recommendations”. That report was on political financing. This gives you—you can see how it's laid out—what it's about. For the value, it says “trust” and then the subject matter, the current status of the law, the recommendations, and the desired outcome.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Gwich'in people from the Northwest Territories, who request the House of Commons and Parliament assembled not to approve Bill C-15 or amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, as they feel this is an infringement on their comprehensive land claim agreement.

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to a bill, which, as I mentioned earlier, on first reading seems very simple and straightforward but reveals quite a bit about what the government has been doing over the last number of years and its failure to act correctly in this matter.

Even when the parliamentary secretary answered my question, it is clear that he chose to ignore the fact that in the first period of time the number of applicants were three times over what was originally anticipated. He only talked about the last four months of the program, where the number went over by 45,000 applicants.

How does government work when the process it is entering into with the expectation of 8,000 applicants blossoms to 24,000 applicants? The government simply seems to ignore that fact. Only when the second phase of the application process came in, with 45,000 applications being put on the table, did the government wake up and realize it had some issues with what it was trying to do. What a careless way to run a government. How careless the government is with its business with the first nations people of this country.

I want to get that point in because it was left undone by the parliamentary secretary in his comments in answer to my first question.

What we have is an interesting bill. There is a problem with the huge application process for registration for joining the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation membership order. In my own home community, membership lists of first nations, of Métis people, are very complex issues, and that is when we are dealing with 1,000 people. When we are dealing with 500 people, the complicated nature of these membership applications is quite clear. The government has known for 40 years that this is not an easy issue to deal with.

When we set this thing in motion, we had a failure. Let the government admit that it created a failure with the process it put into place. The first step toward fixing it would be to admit the failure.

Now a bill has come forward to fix some of the issues we are engaged with here, not to determine the nature of what has happened, but simply to find a way to reduce the government's exposure on this issue.

First the Conservatives want to have a system on any of the previously accepted registrations for this band. They have gone through a process with five individuals, two from the first nations, two from the government, and one independent person, who have examined the first 23,800 applications that were made. They were accepted and put in place. The minister now wants the opportunity to take those off that list as he sees fits. Further, he does not want to have any responsibility for doing that. He wants to walk away from that clean.

The minister indicated that he is worried about the taxpayers of this country being liable for the mistakes that the government made. The taxpayers are liable for the mistakes that elected representatives make on their behalf. That is part of government. That is the way the government should operate. That is the way that government has a responsibility to operate.

It is interesting. When it comes to liability, we have made many international agreements over the last 20 years, through the Liberals and the Conservatives. They have guaranteed multinational companies with the right to sue the government if any of the provisions they enter into when they come into this country for investment purposes are changed through government legislation. The Liberals and the Conservatives signed agreements internationally that the government is under obligation to allow itself to be sued, and we have seen many large suits come of that to date.

On one hand, the government is fine with protecting the opportunities to sue for liability on the part of multinational corporations. Now we come to the 23,800 citizens of this country, who under a due process were given registration for Mi'kmaq claims.

I am not saying that all of these people would have a case for damages if they were to be taken off of the list. I am not saying they would even bother to do that. I am saying that they took the time to put the application in. They felt that they had a right to be on the list because they put their application in. They were accepted. Many of them would have made decisions about their life and their time based on the decision that was made by the tribunal about their participation in the Mi'kmaq membership order.

Someone has made a decision. They may have changed their lifestyle. They may have relocated to a different community. They may have established a business in an area that could be considered reserve land in the future, with tax benefits. They might have done one of a hundred things that would have put their life in a different direction previous to the decision that was made by the registration tribunal.

There it is. On one hand, we have a government that is quite willing to sign international agreements to allow multinational corporations to sue us at any time that we change a law here in Parliament, but on the other, it wants to put a law in place to make sure that Mi'kmaq people do not have the opportunity to sue it for something it has done wrong to them.

What kind of logic is that? What kind of equity is that in the system? Why do citizens of this country have substandard rights compared to multinational companies?

I find that the parallel between the two is indicative of the nature of the Conservative government, and the nature of our country, in some respects. We have been governed by the Liberals and the Conservatives for many years, and they have permitted this type of differentiation to go on.

That is the philosophy that we are dealing with here. As with the first reading and second reading of any bill, we want to talk about what the philosophy is going forward. There it is, folks; that is what is happening here.

What do the Mi'kmaq peoples think about this? The Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland was set up to try to deal with what is going on with this bill and the process of registration. It is not impressed with this legislation.

I would like to quote from The Western Star, a newspaper from Atlantic Canada, about Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act. It said:

While the federal government is saying the bill will be an assurance that everyone applying to become a member of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation will be treated fairly and equitably, there are concerns that the proposed legislation’s real purpose is to protect the federal government from being sued by people who feel they are not being treated fairly or equally.

[Mr. Hector] Pearce is vice-chairperson of the Mi’kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, a group which was formed to fight for the rights of those who feel they are being wronged in the process of enrolment in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.

“Once I started reading it, my blood started to boil a little bit,” said Pearce after reading the wording of Bill C-25. “We’re not shocked but we are very disappointed with the legislation. This government has put up so many roadblocks to this Qalipu registration process that nothing surprises us anymore”.

Of course, not only is he concerned about the bill; he is concerned about the process that was followed earlier. Every Canadian would be a little concerned about a process that the government initiated when it thought it was going to get 8,000 applicants and then part of the way through the process that number was exceeded by 300%.

One would think that the government would have taken some action to ensure that what it was doing was correct and working in a good fashion. Now that it has received 100,000 applicants, of course, it has to do something. It has been forced into it. It realizes, too, that is has created some liability for itself if it starts limiting the nature of registrations. If 100,000 people want to be registered and 23,000 people in Newfoundland have already been given membership in this band, one would have to say that maybe some of the qualifications should be changed so that more people are not put into this registration process. We are going to see a backtracking on the registration process and some new rules.

We should remember that this process is subjective. The government itself said it. It said that the registration is determined by people's heritage, but also by their contribution to the community and Mi'kmaq society. That is very subjective. Throughout my time in northern Canada, I have seen membership lists that have been fought over on that basis for years and years. Those are very difficult, time-consuming, and subjective ways of determining membership.

Once we get past the idea that people have the blood heritage of the Mi'kmaq in relationship with others in a similar location in the country and they have rights of membership, and we get into the area where they have to show they have been active participants in the community and the community accepts them, those things become very subjective, difficult to determine, and very likely to be the cause of some dispute, which may lead to liability.

Those are things that the government ought to realize going forward. It has put itself in a position where many people are going to be disappointed with the results of this work that is going ahead right now. It has made choices, and those choices are going to come back and haunt it. What it should do, very clearly, is to reduce its liability for its mistakes and ensure it can make any choice it wants with the 23,800 people who have already been registered and the 70,000 people who have put their names forward for registration. This is a very difficult issue.

New Democrats want to take this issue to committee because we want to come to some kind of understanding of what has happened. That may be part of what can be done. I am not holding my breath over this because I saw the action on Bill C-15. The government made some changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories which took away constitutionally protected parts of land claims agreements. That process is now going to court. The lesson that the government is learning is that it should take away the opportunity for first nations people to go to court over things that are inherently their right to do.

Land ownership is something that people have a right to in this country, and first nations, through their processes, have a right to land and resources. What is being said is that the government is going to arbitrarily determine who has a right to that land and resources through this membership process. If we told private citizens in Canada that we were arbitrarily going to determine whether they have a right to the land and resources that they think they do, I suspect that would not sell very well to Canadians.

Canadians understand that with heritage and the ownership of land through that process of one's ancestry, if it has not been legally taken away from them, they have some rights to it. This is something the government has to operate with carefully. It is taking a very strong step toward this limited liability, which is something it would never think of doing to multinational corporations that exist outside the country but is quite willing to do to the citizens of Canada.

This is an interesting proposition. We will take it to committee. We will have a chance to give it a good, thorough airing, I hope. With the Conservative majorities we have had, the committee has had a tendency to slow down accepting witnesses, The committees have been abysmal in their ability to open up to have the type of examination many of these issues take. I will once again give the instance of Bill C-15, where one day was given to the people of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife to give their evidence in front of the committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They went to Toronto for Bill C-10 and for Bill C-15 they did go to the Northwest Territories, look at that. If I'd looked further, I would have known ahead of time, but I figured I could take that risk that they might have gone.

They could have gone, I suppose, to Ukraine, Pond Inlet, North Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, but given that the bill affected people who live in the Northwest Territories, I guess you could see why they had this strange idea that maybe they would give the people affected by the bill....Let's see, how does this go? The people affected by the bill get a chance to say something about it and give their opinion, yes.

Wow, that's pretty radical. I'm surprised that didn't make headlines, that Bill C-15 has a committee studying it, and it's about the Northwest Territories devolution and they're going to the Northwest Territories. Wow.

I guess by extension there's a bit of an argument. I know it's a stretch, but there's a bit of an argument that....Let me see if I can follow this, it's complex.

There's a bill affecting the people in the Northwest Territories. So the committee studying that bill actually went to the Northwest Territories and heard from the people affected by the bill. I think that's how it goes. It's complex, but I tried to stay with the bouncing ball.

This is where it gets really crazy, Mr. Chair. It's so stupid. I can't believe I'm going to say it, but here's the thought. Perhaps by extension, if we went to the Northwest Territories to study a bill that affected people who live in the Northwest Territories, we might take a bill that affects all Canadians and their ability to vote out to Canadians to give them their chance to have a say. How's that for a radical thought?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I remind my honourable colleagues there are statements in the House, there are debates in the House, they can call a news conference....Anytime they want to suggest that Mr. Shedletzky is part of a circus or a gong show, I'd love to be there and I can guarantee you Mr. Shedletzky will be there also to respond to the notion that ordinary Canadians giving their comments on an election law is a circus. So there you go. There's your chance because this is what Canadians are saying.

I don't know, maybe they'll be uncovering some big plot to show that there's some group somewhere in Canada that's planning the overthrow of our democracy. I worry maybe that there's a secret terrorist plot to kidnap you, and hold our committee and the bill hostages until such time....I'm worried that maybe that's there because I'm trying to find a reason why the government won't travel. They seem to be afraid. I'm concerned about that. You might want to check and see if they have security information that they're maybe not sharing with you that they should in terms of your personal safety because the government is just so frightened to go out there. There must be some real reason.

We've already established that it's not the amount of money involved; it's not like we don't do this, and other committees have travelled. I actually have a note that reminds me of that and I'll make that point in a moment.

It's not the time because as we speak right now we haven't even begun the suggested study period that we put forward. We have ample time to work through this process, this idea of whether Canadians get their say or not.

I'm reminded that committees have travelled in the past, this is not breaking new ground, although it's not something we do every day. It's not that unusual and I'd be shocked if it was. Taking a bill out to the people to let them have their say, one would have thought it could have crossed somebody's mind before now.

I'm reminded that there's a current study on Bill C-15 on the Northwest Territories. I don't know this. It's risky to do this and my law professor colleague will probably smack me one, but I'm willing to bet that they might be going to the Northwest Territories—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I would like to address briefly some comments from my colleague across the way, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, and ask that he do his best to not take the word of whomever is feeding him this information. On the day that the bill was tabled, I appeared before the media and said that I was reading it. I had not yet read it all. However, I had read enough of it to be extremely worried about where it was heading and whether it was going to structure things in a very unfair way. I asked the media to be on the outlook for the details. It was the next day that I came out against the bill, after many hours of reading it. Therefore, what my colleague has been fed by way of a line is completely inaccurate.

I would like to address the motion rather than the generalities of the bill; we have already had the second reading debate on it. I want to put it in the context of our request for cross-country hearings to be part of the procedures and house affairs committee study. There have been no public consultations in advance. We had a debate with the minister about how much he consulted, at all, in advance, especially with Elections Canada. We believe, in listening to the Chief Electoral Officer, that it did not take place. Certainly there was no consultation beyond a “hi, hello” session with the critics or the other parties. Therefore, it is all the more important now that we consider the public input side for something as fundamental as this piece of legislation.

It is hard to characterize the Canada Elections Act as anything other than one of the most fundamental statutes in our system. It cannot get anymore fundamental without it being a constitutional document. It is all the more crucial because tradition and convention have been flouted in the context of the bill. In the past, it has been very much the case, majority government or not, that all parties, including opposition MPs who may not belong to parties, are to be involved in some kind of inclusive way before a bill hits the House. That is in order that there is some degree of consensus and buy-in on changes that, by definition, should be consensual and non-partisan. That is not what has happened here.

That is all the more reason that the government and the minister need to be woken up to the concerns that those of us who have had a chance to read the bill have been raising, and that day by day, week by week, more and more people are becoming concerned about. That will only be fully apparent to the government if the committee is able to have some hearings outside of the Ottawa bubble.

I would also like to make a final link: If we had a fair voting system, this unfair elections act would never have hit the floor of the House. If we had a system where proportional representation was built in, we would not have a single party running a majority government. It would be rare in our history that a majority would be generated because it is so rare that one party gets 50% of the vote. The circumstances would be very different. The tradition, the convention, that parties should be consulted and work together on the Canada Elections Act would have been forced upon this government, assuming that it was the government, with fewer than 50% of the seats. If we had a proportional representation system, we would have had a more collegial consensus approach as to how the bill was generated. The concerns that we have been articulating and debating—and I must credit the minister for coming out and continuing to offer his point of view—would have occurred in advance. A lot of the problems in the bill would have been cut off at the knees, if the government were serious that it had no intent to do x, y or z.

We just heard from the minister that the whole question of being able to call former donors is not going to be abused because any calls have to be for the purpose of that. I would like to hear the minister then say, here and now, that he would accept an amendment that says “for the sole purpose of calling former donors”, and that any other aspect of that call would itself be illegal and/or part of the campaign expenses. That would have been sorted out in advance, if we had been involved in this at an earlier stage.

The minister himself did not bring this up in his speech, but it has been brought up on several occasions by colleagues across the way that we do not do cross-country hearings for studies of bills. That is supposedly a truth. That is not a truth.

In recent memory, the relevant committee went to the Northwest Territories with respect to Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution bill. Why? Although it is a piece of text that has to be studied as a piece of legislation, the context in which that bill is going to take root was important to that committee. With respect to Bill C-10, a bill on firearms control, the committee travelled to Toronto. These were for studies of bills.

Members on the opposite side of the House say that they only ever travel for policy studies. That does not help either. There is so much fundamental social context involved in the policy decisions made so far in this piece of legislation that it is important to hear from Canadians in their local settings, whether it is aboriginal communities on reserve, people in transitional situations in downtown cities or urban areas, students on campus, or Canadians who might not otherwise have a chance to testify before a parliamentary committee and are not used to tuning in to CPAC. These Canadians might nonetheless come to a committee hearing to listen and learn, whether or not they are testifying.

This legislation is fundamental legislation, and I think the minister realizes how fundamental it is. There are reasons that this legislation needs to be grounded in a broader consensus and with buy-in from Canadians at large. That is quite apart from the fact that other parties were not involved in bringing it forward.

I would also like to draw attention to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who has spoken about the irony of a House committee travelling as far as Ukraine to study democracy there, including having public hearings. Yet, somehow this is being resisted tooth and nail in our own country.

I have been a harsh critic of the bill, ever since I spent a lot of time reading it in one day because we were having a debate on it on the very next day. I am concerned about every one of the replies that the minister has made. I am still concerned that without amendments those replies do not do the job.

Canadians can read what I have to say on my own website, something that I admit is provocatively entitled “The Unfair Elections Act is a Con Game”. They can read about the over two dozen concerns that I have, none of which have been obviated by any of the minister's arguments, despite his best efforts. I am not going to go into those details.

After hearing from many Canadians, my current concern has only been deepened. These Canadians are not just experts in the field of electoral law or electoral processes, but Canadians who have taken the time to read bits and pieces of the legislation and are drawing something new to my attention. If the social knowledge of ordinary Canadians can produce that kind of feedback to me, my guess is that the benefits of cross-country hearings would also produce insight for every member of the procedure and House affairs committee.

I want to end with a quote from Jessica McCormick, national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, who is in Ottawa, and who hopefully would be on the list for Ottawa hearings. She gives an example of what the effects of the bill would be, which I think members can extrapolate as to why we would benefit from going around the country, at least as part of hearings. She said:

Canada has amongst the lowest youth voter turnout when compared to peer nations. The effects of Bill C-23 will make it harder for youth to vote by complicating the voter identification process and eliminating public awareness campaigns that encourage youth to vote.

Bill C-23 serves to cement the notion that politicians do not care about the issues that effect youth. It is our firm belief that the Bill will contribute to a decline in voter turnout that the provinces and peer countries are actively attempting to reverse. The decline is clearly a threat to a healthy democracy and must be meaningfully addressed, not encouraged.

It is that kind of input that I would be looking for, not just here on the Hill in parliamentary committee, but also across Canada through cross-country hearings.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his presentation. However, I could not help but reflect as he spoke at the beginning of his speech of when Newfoundlanders joined Confederation, which is in a lot of ways the opposite of devolution. I know a lot of friends in Newfoundland and Labrador who think that if the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not been put in charge of the cod stocks they might be fishing still, and I happen to agree with that.

However, in this case, in the context of devolution, which is supported by all sides of this House, we are seeing an additional piece, which makes Bill C-15 not unlike an omnibus bill. It is a completely different package of changes that would basically undo treaty negotiations.

I have cited other opinions from the Tlicho First Nation earlier in my speech today, but this started with Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus and four other chiefs voicing how they regard the changes to Bill C-15, and I quote:

…the very kind of sharp dealing and dishonourable conduct in the implementation of a modern treaty that the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared it [the federal government ] may not engage in.

I would ask my colleague for some comment.

Is it not a terrible shame to be put to a vote on something we all support, devolution, but include this unconstitutional affront to first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech in support of Bill C-15, which has been a long time coming.

I too want to salute Premier Bob McLeod and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We heard from him when I was in Yellowknife with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We also heard from many stakeholders, including the premier, who said clearly that, “We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interests, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development”.

The member spoke about making sure that this does not just benefit corporations and resource development companies. According to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, resource development is the biggest employer of aboriginals in the Northwest Territories, with over 50% of the mining workforce being aboriginal.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that in addition to devolution, it is important that we give the Northwest Territories a regulatory regime that is modern, efficient, and effective and would allow for continued investment in the Northwest Territories. This would not only benefit the government and the people there but the aboriginal community as well.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my burgeoning fan club from all sides of the House of Commons.

I want to talk about this act from several aspects. The key aspect is with respect to the ownership of one's destiny and being the principal beneficiary of one's own resource.

We have had several issues in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the past 20 years, starting with the Atlantic accord and then going through its revisions.

Federal jurisdiction belongs to the offshore areas of oil and gas exploration and so forth, so the royalties came into the federal coffers. It was pointed out that because the oil and gas exists off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the same applies to Nova Scotia, that it belongs to those provinces and to the benefit of the people of those provinces. That is what we mean by being the principal beneficiaries of those resources.

Revisions have been made over the years. There were a lot of battles, even within the House of Commons. In 2004-05, then once again in 2007-10, we saw the battles that raged. However, at the end of the day, both Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians became the principal beneficiaries of their own resources.

There is a great sense of nationalism for any country that would endeavour to do that. It is one thing to allow a portion of a country's population to have more autonomy politically, but to do it in the sense of economic nationalization is good too. It allows people to manage their own resources and to be the principal beneficiary of their own resources.

That brings us to Bill C-15. Here we have a devolution process that does just that.

There are discrepancies that we want to talk about. Naturally, there is a to and fro in the debate. That is the natural course of things.

Our party has certain issues with some of the matters contained within the legislation, as do other parties. That is why we are here and debating this. I am happy to speak to Bill C-15 for that very reason, to ensure that the principal beneficiaries of the resources are fully compensated.

Bill C-15 is 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, which I will talk about a bit later, and other acts and certain orders and regulations.

The devolution of responsibilities in the Northwest Territories is cause for celebration, especially for the people of the north. They will have a much greater say in the future of their lands and resources by becoming principal beneficiaries.

The act will see the transfer of responsibility for resources and water, as well as public lands, from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories. It continues the work started decades ago to give the people of the Northwest Territories the governance that they deserve. We can all think back to the work of former Liberal prime minister Lester B. Pearson, and his government, who established the advisory commission, otherwise known as the Carruthers Commission, and the development of a government in the Northwest Territories.

The commission consulted with people across the north. It concluded in its report that they deserved to have their government established in the north, not in Ottawa, where it had been until then, so that the people could play a more vital role in their government and its ability to represent the people of the Northwest Territories. This established Yellowknife as the capital and moved the territorial seat of government to that region. Decades later, Yellowknife has continued to blossom as the seat of government for the Northwest Territories, thanks in part to this important step. We can be proud that today business in the Northwest Territories is booming. I should know because several of my friends who I grew up with in Newfoundland and Labrador make a good living in the Northwest Territories.

There is a new generation of young Canadians living in the north who are ready to be the leaders of today and the future. Those are the words of the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is also our critic for the north. She also said we must do everything we can to ensure that all territories have the tools and governance they need to empower young Canadians to be part of the economic driver of this country, as the north has become.

She continued that we want to make it easier to conduct business in the North and to have business invest in the North. This in turn would create jobs and generate higher tax revenues, which devolution would provide to the Government of Northwest Territories, as one would expect, and to participating aboriginal governments as well. As a result, they could work to improve social programs and the social safety net, invest in local culture, attract new tourism and trade, and draw new people to the area.

While we are optimistic about the future of the Northwest Territories and its devolution agreement, which we are debating today, it is important to ensure that this act lives up to what it has set out to do under the guidance of the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, and his government, as well as the many aboriginal governments and their leaders. These individuals have spent years working to gain a concrete devolution agreement and to ensure that it meets the needs of northern Canadians. Unfortunately, the current government has let down the people in our north on many occasions in the last number of years. Because of this, we need to ensure that this act has the consensus support of the people of the Northwest Territories.

The often deplorable conditions on aboriginal reserves and the total lack of social support for many communities has been sad and, indeed, unacceptable. I think of the Kelowna accord and the potential it had to bring positive change to aboriginal peoples across Canada for economic development, education, health care, and housing, and that it was this Prime Minister who turned his back on the accord.

Bill C-15 needs to properly address the needs of aboriginal peoples with respect to proper governance and decision-making over resources and, of course, water. We need to have an open dialogue with those living in the Northwest Territories so that we start righting so many of the wrongs they have had to live through over the years.

One thing that is certain and has come up within this debate and caused us concern on this side of the House is that we need to take a look at the consolidation of multiple land and water boards, and what is called in this legislation “the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act”, which is a big part of this devolution act. This has the potential to play a major role with some of the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. As currently proposed, they are losing seats on their boards in an effort to streamline the boards into one superboard and make it easier for businesses to thrive. It is imperative that we find the right balance to continue to give a strong voice to the various aboriginal governments, while at the same time fostering economic growth in the entire region.

Indeed, all parties at the table here would like to see more growth and success for the region. Since the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a major part of this legislation, Bill C-15, we need to ask why such a large portion of this bill dealing with the local amalgamation of land and water boards is part of the devolution agreement, and why it does not stand on its own as a separate bill. I sincerely hope this act receives the attention it deserves for granting more responsibilities to the local aboriginal governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories and that this Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act does not overshadow the achievements of other parts of the bill.

Another area of concern is the revenue formula for the territorial and aboriginal governments. The financial benefits from resource developments are numerous and should not disproportionately go toward the federal government. This is especially true for a number of reasons, the primary one being the challenges that our territories face and our provinces do not. Given the small number of inhabitants, spread-out communities and vastness of the land, the Government of the Northwest Territories needs adequate amount of revenue from resource development to meet these unique challenges. Certainly that is a point of interest, because provinces over the past 10 years have managed to put themselves in a “have” position primarily because of revenue from natural resources.

As for the roads, they are getting worse because of increased traffic. We can also talk more generally about the infrastructure there. Over time, of course, it is getting worse. The Northwest Territories is experiencing a similar strain on its infrastructure as a result of the mining and the resource boom. Therefore, the revenue from these resources must adequately compensate the government for its increased infrastructure costs, because of the exponential increase in the resource development in these areas.

When it comes to lowering the costs of travel in the north, there must be room for governments to assist people. People often must travel great distance to access the health care and important services they need. We need to address these dire issues, and the Conservative government needs to recognize this when establishing the revenue sharing agreement on resources.

I am also concerned about the issue of offshore resource development and shipping. With the discovery and potential of massive resource deposits off the coast of the Northwest Territories, the federal government must be clear on whose responsibility it is when it comes to developing these resources and ensuring that adequate environmental regulations are in place and in force.

While this bill spends much of its text discussing the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, it does not spend enough time discussing the resource development of non-freshwater regions of the Northwest Territories. With the increase in shipping and the development of offshore resources in the north, I am concerned about a lack of focus in this bill. Since the government is addressing land and water issues in this devolution bill, it is only fair to also include the necessary clauses with regard to the offshore issues.

Now is not the time to avoid addressing these very important issues. We know for a fact that circumpolar traffic has increased substantially with the demand for oil and gas reserves outside of the traditional areas these reserves have been found, because we are now discovering more fields in Canada's north. As a result, there is increased traffic of large freighters in these areas, and not just from Canada but from places such as Norway and Russia, through to Iceland, Greenland, and Alaska.

I remain hopeful that the minister and his department can resolve the concerns my colleagues have about this bill, given that we would all like to see the Northwest Territories achieve successful devolution.

During the last Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin we reached a concrete framework on devolution in the Northwest Territories. We had a timeline of a few years to get the deal done and in place. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long to finalize the agreement, particularly given the overwhelming support for devolution and the success that Yukon and Nunavut territories have had following their own devolution agreements.

Nevertheless, I welcome today as the beginning of the end of this long journey. Together, with hope and hard work, we can work out any issues quickly and move to brighten the future for the people, the residents of the Northwest Territories, so they too can be principal beneficiaries of their own resources.

We would like to thank the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, as well as his government for the hard work to get this devolution agreement organized. I would also like to thank the many aboriginal governments and their leaders who worked tirelessly with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government to find a solution that will benefit everyone in the north.

This is truly a moment that we all can be proud of for the residents of Northwest Territories, for the residents of the north. With crumbling infrastructure and the need to meet the promises made to protect our social safety net for the people of the north, we must make sure that this devolution process is one that does not hinder the development of the people, how they live, and their standard of living.

Environmental guards must be put in place. Many other measures must be put in place so that we can have a successful devolution and both levels of government can manage this directly. Again, we thank the Government of Northwest Territories for doing this.

Just as a final note, I had mentioned resource revenue-sharing earlier. A lot of the arguments that we have heard in the House and elsewhere, including other legislatures across the country, all 13 of them, are about resource development as a cash grab or something that is extra or beyond, the cream of the crop or the gravy over the main meal, something that is an add-on to the services we provide to our people. That is not the case.

To become a principal beneficiary of one's own resource is to provide the fundamental programs by which we live as citizens. We all know, with a great deal of bias and rightly so, that we live in the best country in the world. That achievement is not just a measure of gross domestic product. It is not just a measure of how much we export compared to what we import. It is the measure by which we sustain our communities, whether they are working or have jobs, yes, and whether they have the ability to succeed and create more, yes, that is fundamental too. But it is also fundamental to look after our neighbours and our communities, such that our communities will benefit from all the resources.

We have seen time and time again major international corporations come within our jurisdiction, whether on the land or offshore. They have come here to fulfill their own goals for corporate profit, for their own standards of providing more value to their shareholders.

We must remember that the goal for the principal beneficiary is not a quick profit for a shareholder or to invest more in other oil, gas, or mining developments around the world. The goal is for the principle beneficiary to increase the standard of living within the community, including having a better hospital, affordable daycare, a better community for children. This is not just about boutique tax credits for people who feel that is the be all and end all for creating a better community. It is about bringing a community into a better light for all its citizens to share in.

This is what we go through to make sure that the devolution of an essential power from Ottawa goes to a particular region. I spoke earlier about Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The devolution process is an element of good governance. Good governance filters through to the basic degrees of society so that society can benefit, so that society can provide a better community for its own children.

Sometimes we get caught up in the minutia or intricacies of a deal, for instance, whether one particular environmental assessment will hinder or benefit a community. That has to be within legislation. We have to do this right, because it will be hard to fix when it is done. Therefore, we must have a complete debate in order for that to happen. I thank all my hon. colleagues for doing this.

The devolution process is an exercise in ensuring that the average citizen in the smallest community in the Northwest Territories is as large a principal beneficiary as the average citizen living in Yellowknife, just as it would be for the entire country.

We congratulate the aboriginal governments. They too want only the best for their communities. They do not want to see any giveaways taking place. They do not want to see any giveaways that would feed only into a corporation that gives itself a bigger profit.

We need to make sure that these people are involved so that they too are not the only principal beneficiaries of the economic benefits, but the actual stewards of the environment, thereby making sure that no footprint is left that would be detrimental to the environment and the beautiful landscape in the north. More beautiful than that would be a standard of living they can give to their own children, which to me would be a lasting testament of what we consider to be the devolution of power, one that would benefit the smallest community in the Northwest Territories as well as the largest.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our friends across the aisle would do well to take some notes on land occupation, because the lack of support and the general outcry can be felt and heard here in Ottawa, from first nations groups that are more sure of themselves and increasingly bitter. Furthermore, the government will have to negotiating with them on a day-to-day basis. It should therefore pay attention to these matters related to Indian identity, on the one hand, and on the titles that apply to the lands and land occupation, on the other hand. That is the crux of the issue, the name of the game, and the government should take note.

In short, this government would do well to focus more on winning the approval of first nations members and not simply go and negotiate and ratify agreements with band representatives. Once again, let me clarify, they are elected under the Indian Act. Their responsibilities, their “Indianness” and their jurisdiction are limited to reserve lands. The Indian Act is limited to reserve lands, and I cannot emphasize this point enough, even though, technically, this kind of reasoning does not necessarily apply to the Northwest Territories or Bill C-15 today. However, this is a recurring theme. These things warrant discussion and the entire Canadian population needs to know.

When I am in Manicouagan, I personally tell members in my own community that the band council has no authority over traditional territories. When agreements are ratified, the transparency of which is sometimes negotiated, I tell the members of my community that it is important for them to take a stand and that the government should seek their consent; they should not just be satisfied with an agreement ratified by the government and the band council only.

In short, if the government is interested in promoting dialogue and creating a more harmonious environment for dealing with aboriginal issues and disputes, it would do well to focus on these concepts, including the use of traditional lands, which is a key component.

I submit this respectfully.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as my last speech on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Today I will talk about the capacity for alienation of the collective heritage in terms of aboriginal rights and the practical outcome of the ratification of modern treaties and agreements between the crown and the first nations. I spoke to this bill at second reading about three days ago, so it is still fresh in my mind.

Bill C-15 provides an opportunity to talk about a number of topics that are too often ignored or that remain obscure to the Canadian public. The prerogatives that are exercised in relation to traditional territories, as well as these matters and clarifications, will help elucidate why certain groups raise objections when the government decides to sit down with a band and sign an agreement or document that could potentially alienate or be detrimental to other communities.

The case we are talking about today has been challenged by other bands. The Canadian public has noticed a lack of homogeneity, and that is true. Dissent and overlapping claims can lead to opposition when an agreement is ratified with a group or a band. That is not limited to this situation with the Northwest Territories. We see it all across the country, which is why it is necessary to focus on this today, so that we can shed new light on the issue.

I want to point out that this particular piece of legislation was negotiated and there was consent. There are no doubts about this in the case of Bill C-15 and the associated agreement and regulations. A number of stakeholders in committee said as much and spoke about economic growth. We must always keep that in mind. Above all, we are talking about an economic agreement and initiative. There is no question that this was negotiated and there was consent. However, there are a number of other similar vagaries and problems that we can examine.

Our support at third reading also shows that we recognize that this economic initiative is based in negotiations. However, this leads me to the issue of overlapping claims and overriding prerogatives.

I often talk about a quasi-proprietary title. This points to the fact that first nations members—even though the title is often collective, it is in fact divisible—enjoy prerogatives in relation to given territories. In this case, we are talking about traditional territories, and the same is true for me and for the Innu and Naskapi communities of Manicouagan. Traditional territories come with prerogatives for first nations members.

When bands are called on to negotiate, there may be a sort of disavowal on the part of community members. It is always important to keep in mind that Indian bands are products of the Indian Act. In my informed view, that is why negotiations and agreements ratified by bands lose legitimacy to a certain extent when members do not fully participate.

It is also important to keep in mind that those titles and prerogatives are divisible even though they are collective. That is why this government should always both consult and seek approval. It must do more than just consult, because consultations are quite restrictive. So far, the Conservatives have demonstrated a rather limited view of consultation, which boils down to taking notes at the bottom of the page and covering up issues that have resurfaced, in order to move forward with their economic development agenda.

When there is consultation or, rather, when it is looking for approval, the government—or future governments, because I hope that this will be considered by whoever governs next—should first and foremost look for approval from the public, from first nations members as individuals, through a referendum or other democratic means. This would limit opposition and there would be more support from the public. It would be easier for the public and first nations members to support a given initiative, and it is clear that certain initiatives in 2014 do not have that support.

Opposition to economic initiatives, even joint ones, that have an effect on the prerogatives of third parties illustrates the need for the government to recognize the pre-eminence of the quasi-proprietary title that first nations members have to their respective traditional territories. I will also discuss the highly contentious and recurrent nature of the overlapping occupation of territories, and I will talk about the collective, but also divisible, nature of prerogatives that are exercised in relation to the territory.

In light of the prerogatives that are exercised in relation to territories—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for a very insightful speech on Bill C-15.

One of the things the member mentioned was the way in which particularly the Conservative government tends to ignore local input. For instance, I wonder if he sees some parallels with the way the Conservatives ignore local input and local priorities in the way the rail service in his area has been treated. I wonder if he sees any parallels with the bill before us on that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Manicouagan.

I rise today to debate Bill C-15 at third reading. It is definitely an honour to have the opportunity to express the views of my constituents and my party on this bill.

We worked very hard on this bill at second reading stage in committee and at report stage in the House of Commons. We are now at third reading stage, and we have repeatedly pointed out that this bill has some shortcomings.

However, there are some very worthwhile elements. The devolution of power should have taken place a long time ago. I am very pleased that this bill will finally give the people of the Northwest Territories the rights that people in the provinces do not give a second thought to. The fact that they will be able to share in the wealth more directly than before this bill was introduced is reason to celebrate.

I would like to quote Robert Alexie Jr., president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, to emphasize one element of the bill. He said it better than I could.

He said, “We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning”. He is absolutely right. It is a very exciting time to be in the Northwest Territories, and devolution has certainly been a very long time coming.

We have not seen devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories for decades. The last time we saw it was in the 1980s, when we had an agreement where we were going to devolve certain jurisdictions: education, health care, transportation, and renewable resources, in this case specifically forestry and wildlife. At that point, we transferred some powers. The debate then was that perhaps the Northwest Territories was not prepared to go ahead with devolution, just not ready. My reading of what was happening at that time was that, in fact, it was more than ready. It was just that the federal government benefited from the fact that it received a lot of the revenue stream from the exploitation of the natural resources.

This bill before us today would go, in a large measure, to addressing that problem. The Northwest Territories would now be receiving 50% of the royalties for the mineral exploration and other surface exploration of natural resources that will happen, and that is a reason to celebrate. The minister himself said that this is going to lay the foundations towards greater economic prosperity for the Northwest Territories, and he is probably right.

However, the minister made some statements that do not really measure up to where we should be. Because he had discussions with corporate citizens, he said that corporate citizens want to see the changes as fast as possible; corporate citizens have been pushing for not only the devolution, but also modifications to the water management boards. That is the issue that is really sticky. There are some serious difficulties with this element of the bill. I find it abhorrent that the federal government, knowing that it has a duty to consult and that it has a duty to accommodate, tells me that the most important thing here is that a company such as Dominion Diamond Corporation is pushing the bill forward, and that is an important aspect of the bill. It certainly is, but so is the fact that many first nations have told us, on many occasions, that the water management boards are working just fine and that they would like to leave them as they are. This bill would modify that, and that is not respectful of those first nations.

I believe that, when it comes to respecting the direction the Supreme Court is giving us, the government has lost its way. I do not think the Conservatives fully understand what the Supreme Court has said on many occasions: that the duty to consult is not simply to set up a web page and not simply to go and hear people, but also to listen to them and find a way, as best as possible, to accommodate them.

Corporate citizens themselves have said that they believe that the water management boards, as they stand, are beneficial. Many times, the Conservatives make modifications that are poison chalices. They propose changes, saying to corporate citizens that they would make exploration and economic prosperity more accessible, with growth rates that would be larger. All of these things may or may not be true.

The point here is that we need to find consensus on the ground. We need to address the needs of the people in the Northwest Territories. It is their land and their resources. It is up to them how they are going to be exploited. It is up to them to tell us how we should be helping them move forward with economic prosperity. It is paternalistic to the extreme that the House of Commons, over and over again, will tell people in other areas of the country how they should be doing their jobs, especially in areas that are their own jurisdiction.

The recent example is the budget, in which the federal government simply does not want to negotiate a jobs program with the provinces, a skills training program that is acceptable to the provinces. Instead, the government says to take it or leave it because it knows best. There is a reason the separation of powers exists in this country, and it is that we know that local people on the ground, generally speaking, know best. We should be helping them build on that knowledge. We should not be imposing our ideological views, and the government, unfortunately, over and over again, seems to think that ideology trumps anything else. That is the wrong direction to take.

However, that said, the benefits of devolution are clear. The people on the ground are going to get many benefits out of this bill. This bill would address needs and requests that have been made of us over years and years, and we are finally in a place where we can bring some of those aspects forward. Those are the elements we need to support in this bill.

We know that the Northwest Territories knows best how to manage its resources. This bill, in large measure, would help it manage those resources and keep the benefits of that management and of being able to attract the kind of exploration and exploitation of its natural resources that the people themselves want without having to request that Ottawa ask for modifications in their name. The fact that they would be able to do it for themselves is something that most Canadians take for granted. Locally, at the provincial level, we do this all the time. In the territories, such as the Northwest Territories, they have not had that privilege, and that is abhorrent. This bill would address that. I am very pleased with that.

We need to be in favour of devolution in the House. It is important that we support the bill at this stage, knowing full well that there are difficulties with it and that we need to continue the dialogue with first nations in the Northwest Territories.

We have a long way to go. New Democrats presented ideas in committee and they were rejected. We presented ideas in the House of Commons, to all members in the House, and again those proposals were rejected. There has to be a better sense of dialogue. We cannot keep imposing our views on the territories. This is not going to benefit them in the long run. They know, much better than us, where we need to go.

When it comes to the water management boards, I will quote, for instance, Jake Heron, who is a Northwest Territories Métis nation representative. He stated:

It’s very frustrating when you are at the table and you think you’re involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously.

This is not dialogue that we should be hearing. We should be hearing that there is a partnership and that the government is in full and respectful consultation with the first nations. Oftentimes, we simply do not get that sense.

The member who spoke before me, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, said it very well when she brought up the comments by Ms. Zoe. I will bring up a quote from Bob Bromley, who is an MLA in that area. He stated:

The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. ...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation.

These words concern me greatly. We should not be moving forward with that aspect of the bill knowing full well that there is so much opposition back in the Northwest Territories.

Devolution is an important step. We need to address that step. It has been too long in coming. We need to move forward with it. I am happy that this bill would address that. I just wish it were not full of poison chalices.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “dishonest”, but perhaps I misheard it.

I am not going to assert anything based on my own opinion. I am relying on the words of the first nations themselves. To answer the minister's question, I would ask how he can approve this bill when Bertha Rabesca Zoe, whose title is law guardian of the Tlicho government, in reference to Bill C-15, said:

Our input is being ignored, our interests are not being accommodated, and the changes to the regulatory scheme in the Amendments will, if implemented, fundamentally undermine the balance struck in the Tlicho Agreement about how we will have a say about the most important issue—the use of our lands and the effects of those uses on our way of life.

I look at the words she has written and I see a future court case. The accommodation of interests are requirements of the law. The Conservative administration is setting a course to chaos in resource development. Where it wants to creating a steamroller, it has created a road wrecking team.