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.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is sad is that the term “reconciliation” has become a buzzword under the government. I take this to heart.

Many members know I have stood in the House, time and again, and have said that my wife and children are first nations. It is troubling for me when some members stand in the House, put their hands on their hearts and say that it is in the best interests of reconciliation, not just with respect to Bill C-88 but also Bills C-69, C-48, C-68 as well as the surf clam scam that took place earlier in this session.

The only part I will agree with in the hon. parliamentary secretary's intervention was when at she said there was enough blame to go around. Nobody should be pointing fingers, saying one group is better than another group. Reconciliation is about creating a path forward. It is not about pitting a first nation against a first nation or a first nation against a non-first nation. It is about how we walk together moving forward.

What I am about to say is not related to all members on both sides of the House. Some members truly understand this. However, time and again some Liberals will stand in the House and say that they support reconciliation or that this is all about reconciliation. Then a heavy-handed policy comes down or words are said, which we call “bozo eruptions”, and there is regret afterward.

I will go back to how we started the spring session. The first female indigenous Attorney General in our country spoke truth to power, and we saw what happened to her.

Bill C-88 is interesting, because it looks to reverse the incredible work our previous government did in putting together Bill C-15.

I will read a quote from our hon. colleague across the way when she voted for Bill C-15. She stated:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

The parliamentary secretary has offered a lot of excuses today as to why she voted for it, such as she was tricked or voted for it for a specific reason. It is easy for members to stand after the fact and say, “I could have, would have, should have” or “This is the reason; my arm was twisted.” However, if we do not stand for something, we will fall for anything. That is what we have seen with the government taking up the eco-warrior agenda to pay back for the 2015 election. That is why we have Bills C-68, C-69, C-48 and C-88.

The parliamentary secretary wants to talk about how Bill C-88 would empower our first nations. Let me offer the House a few quotes.

Mr. Merven Gruben, the mayor of the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, stated:

Tuk has long been an oil and gas town. Since the first oil boom, or the whalers hunting whales in the late 1800 and early 1900s, we have grown up side by side with industry. We have not had any bad environmental effects from the oil and gas work in our region, and we have benefited from the jobs, training and business opportunities that have been available when the industry has worked in Tuk and throughout the north, the entire region.

Never in 100-plus years has the economy of our region, and the whole north, looked so bleak for the oil and gas industry, and for economic development, generally. All the tree huggers and green people are happy, but come and take a look. Come and see what you're doing to our people. The government has turned our region into a social assistance state. We are Inuvialuit who are proud people and who like to work and look after ourselves, not depend on welfare.

I thank God we worked very closely with the Harper government and had the all-weather highway built into Tuk. It opened in November 2017, if some of you haven't heard, and now we are learning to work with tourism. We all know that's not the money and work that we were used to in the oil and gas days that we liked.

He further states:

Nobody's going to be going up and doing any exploration or work up there.

We were really looking forward to this. There was a $1.2-billion deal here that Imperial Oil and BP did not that far out of Tuk, and we were looking forward to them exploring that and possibly drilling, because we have the all-weather highway there. What better place to be located?

The Hon. Bob McLeod, the premier from the Northwest Territories, said that the moratorium was “result of eco-colonialism”.

I speak of the moratorium. The Liberals want to talk about all the work they are doing in standing up for the north and the indigenous peoples in the north. It was just before Christmas when Prime Minister travelled to Washington, D.C. to make the announcement with the then United State President, Barack Obama. There had been zero consultation with northerners, despite consistent rhetoric about consulting with Canada's indigenous peoples. Prior to decision making, the resolution was made unilaterally from the Prime Minister's Office.

The indigenous peoples and the people from the Northwest Territories had about an hour's notice with that. Wally Schumann, the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Minister of Infrastructure for the Northwest Territories, stated:

I guess we can be very frank because we're in front of the committee. When it first came out, we never got very much notice on the whole issue of the moratorium and the potential that was in the Beaufort Sea. There were millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in bid deposits and land leases up there. That took away any hope we had of developing the Beaufort Sea.

Merven Gruben said:

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word...

Our hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, in response and to pre-empt my speech, called us the government on the other side. We are the government in waiting. We will be government in October. She said that the guys across the way would criticize the Liberals for caring too much about the environment. That is incorrect. We criticize them because they put the priorities of the environmental groups like Tides, World Wildlife Fund and like Greenpeace ahead of the local stakeholder, the indigenous peoples who are saying that they are tired of being poster boys for these eco-groups.

If my colleagues do not believe me, I will read some quotes.

Calvin Helin, chair of Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council, said “What the chiefs are starting to see a lot now is that there is a lot of underhanded tactics and where certain people are paid in communities and they are used as spokespersons.” He also said, “Essentially (they are) puppets and props for environmental groups to kill resource development” and “It’s outrageous and people should be upset about that…the chiefs are....”

Also, Stephen Buffalo, president and CO of the Indian Resource Council said, “Since his government was elected in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly—

Third Reading

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I have a speech, but I think I will start by trying to answer questions and concerns that have been brought up. If I do that, then members could vote unanimously for this bill.

The first thing members have been asking is why there are only five more hours to debate this bill. For a lot of bills, that would be a valid question, but at this particular time we have had Conservative after Conservative getting up and not talking about the bill. We heard a lot about Bill C-48, Bill S-6, a letter from premiers not related to this bill, Bill C-15 and a northern moratorium.

I have been here awhile, and last night I witnessed an amazing situation. One of the Conservative speakers, in a 10-minute slot to speak on this bill, spent nine and a half minutes talking before they got to the bill, and then answering three questions by not referring to anything in the bill.

If the public wonders why Parliament has decided to call time allocation on this bill, it is obviously because the Conservatives have nothing more to say. We have heard the same arguments over and over again, and they are not valid. I will go through them one by one right now.

I am not sure why a party would want to stretch out a debate on a terrible injustice that it has caused, and it has done this a number of times. It is strange. Why would they want to put that in the light? Why would they not want to fix that injustice by supporting this bill? One of the members mentioned that he was not here at the time that it happened, so in good justice, he could support the bill.

People have asked what we have been doing for the last four years and why we did not debate this bill earlier. Some of the people in the House now have actually asked this question. This Liberal government has passed something like 85 bills. I think some members' constituents would like to ask them where they have been while these very important 85 bills were being discussed and debated.

One bill in particular was in the exact same situation as this one. It was Bill C-17. Again, the previous government had unlawfully, either technically or in spirit, abrogated a modern treaty, a constitutionally protected treaty, and tried to pass a law that got around it. That was certainly disrespectful.

Some may ask why Liberals did not get more things done, and a good example was what happened when Bill C-17, related to the treaty, was ready to pass. There was a grand chief, chiefs and aboriginal people here in the galleries. It cost thousands of dollars for them to get here from the Yukon. What did the Conservatives do at that time? They called a dilatory motion that the next speaker be allowed to speak, and then the bill could not be done. Some members ask why things are not done, yet they continue to do tricks like that.

This particular bill broke a constitutionally protected treaty, as I said earlier, a land claim. The members opposite have asked—and it is a good question for the ones who were not here before—why Liberals voted for that bill. This question has been brought up a number of times. The reason is that the part of the bill in which the law was broken in spirit or in technicality was snuck in in a much larger devolution bill.

The devolution bill transferred the remaining federal powers to the territorial government. That was a tremendous move, and that is why the party supported that initiative. Unfortunately, even though the people affected by this wanted this taken out and some parliamentarians tried to get it out, the Conservatives pushed ahead with the bill, and that is why the other parties voted for it.

Another concern the Conservatives have noted a number of times is that there are two parts to the bill. I think the member for Northwest Territories corrected them and said there are three parts. Nevertheless, they said there is part 1 and part 2, and there was no consultation regarding part 2. That is not true at all. When we consulted, we consulted with all the local governments involved regarding the entire bill, both part 1 and part 2. Shortly, I will read to members some of the things they said, because the opposition has suggested they did not support both parts of the bill.

The bill concerns the Sahtu, the Gwich’in and the Tlicho. When the Tlicho signed its constitutionally protected land claim and its self-government agreement, I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs. At that time, unfortunately, we had to fight against the Conservatives to get that agreement signed. At least the Conservatives can now make peace with that wrongdoing of the past and support the bill.

I will read some comments of support, because the Conservatives have said that indigenous groups did not support part 2 or the bill.

Grand Chief George Mackenzie, from the Tlicho Government, said, “We urge the community to move swiftly and decisively to ensure that Bill C-88 comes into force during the current session of Parliament.”

David Wright is legal counsel to the Gwich'in Tribal Council. I say to David, drin gwiinzih shalakat. He said the following at the INAN committee:

If Bill C-88 is not passed, not only will Canada not have fulfilled its commitment to Northwest Territories indigenous communities, but these communities will be forced back into time-consuming, expensive, acrimonious litigation, all adversely affecting that treaty relationship and the broader reconciliation project. Further, this would generate regulatory uncertainty that benefits no one....

I know the Conservatives have spoken against uncertainty in the past, so that is another reason for them to support the bill.

Premier McLeod and Grand Chief George Mackenzie, in a joint letter, said:

[W]e are hopeful that Bill C-88 will proceed expeditiously through the legislative process and receive Royal Assent [in this Parliament].... The negative implications of the status quo are significant.

Mervin Gruben was also quoted as supporting the bill, as well as Duane Smith from Inuvialuit. It was suggested he was not allowed to come to committee, but he was actually invited. He did provide a written submission, and it was nice to have that information added to the record.

A Conservative member talked about not listening to indigenous people and indigenous voices. The member said that not listening to the people of the north is arrogance. I just read that the four governments involved, the Sahtu, the Gwich’in, the Tlicho and the GNWT, all support the bill. Conservatives are right; we should listen to those people. They should listen to those people as well, along with the rest of the parties supporting the bill, and support the bill.

Another thing the Conservatives have talked about a lot is support for resource development. I am sure all other parties agree with sustainable development. It is another reason the Conservatives should vote for the bill. I will read some comments about how the bill promotes and ensures this.

Chief Alfonz Nitsiza, from the Tlicho Government, said:

[F]ailure to resolve this matter co-operatively would damage our treaty relationship and undermine the process of reconciliation as directed by the courts. Long-term regulatory uncertainty for any reason will damage the economy of the Northwest Territories, including within the Tlicho community. This is all avoidable with the passage of Bill C-88.

David Wright, legal counsel to the Gwich'in Tribal Council, said, “Bill C-88 is a step toward certainty in the Mackenzie Valley, and that is a step that should be taken at this time”.

Finally, Premier McLeod said:

The proposed amendments to the MVRMA in Bill C-88 would increase certainty around responsible resource development in the Northwest Territories. That certainty is something our territory needs as we continue to work with the indigenous governments in the territory to attract responsible resource development.

Conservatives, to be true to the values they so eloquently put forward on resource development, can support those values by supporting this bill.

I support Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. Although the debate so far has focused on the content of the proposed act, I want to talk about what is not in Bill C-88 and why it would be a mistake to make major amendments at this stage.

Amending Bill C-88 at this stage of the process would defeat its overall purpose, which is to resolve a court challenge arising from the previous government's decision to merge the land and water boards without holding appropriate consultations.

The Northwest Territories Devolution Act, Bill C-15, was assented to in March 2014. The act transferred the administration and control of public lands and waters to the Government of the Northwest Territories and amended the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The act includes provisions restructuring the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards.

The Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated challenged the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that would have dissolved their regional land and water boards. They argued that theses changes violated their land claims agreements and infringed on the honour of the Crown. They added that the consultations had been inadequate. On February 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted an injunction that suspended the proposed board restructuring, along with the coming into force of other regulatory amendments.

I would like to point out that those regulatory amendments, which included the addition of a regulation-making authority for cost recovery, administrative monetary penalties, development certificates and other provisions related to regional studies, all passed through the parliamentary process in 2014. Those same provisions are being presented today. However, they were rewritten to ensure that they could apply under the existing four-board structure. They were not part of the court challenge. Bill C-88 responds to the court challenge by reversing the provisions to merge the boards and re-introducing some regulatory elements that are applicable under the existing four-board structure.

On September 23, 2016, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations sent a letter to indigenous governments, organizations and stakeholders to launch the consultation process on Bill C-88.

Consultations were held with indigenous governments and organizations in the Mackenzie Valley, transboundary indigenous governments and organizations, resource co-management boards, organizations from the mining, oil and gas sectors, and the territorial government. To ensure that the indigenous governments and organizations were able to fully participate in the process, the Government of Canada provided funding to these groups and to the resource co-management boards that took part in the consultations.

Representatives from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, held a teleconference with stakeholders to consider next steps and to discuss the consultation plan. A legislative proposal to repeal the board restructuring provisions was drafted and submitted to the groups for review. During the review period, the groups had the opportunity to meet with CIRNAC representatives in Yellowknife to talk about the content of the proposal and to ask questions. This was also an opportunity for CIRNAC representatives to determine whether any part of the proposal was unclear or could be improved, based on the feedback they received.

I will not have time to finish, but I do not want to miss this particular point. The only other questions someone could ask that I have not already answered are whether the consultation that was done was serious and, although they were in agreement at the end, whether any changes were made. The answer is yes. I will give an example of two of the changes that were made.

The first was that because of the consultations with the people involved, a court jurisdiction related to a judicial review of administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, was modified in order to ensure consistency with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court under section 32 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

A second change was that consultation obligations related to the AMPs were added to the bill to ensure consistency with the comprehensive land claim agreements.

The only other thing I think someone might ask is related to the position of national interest and whether this is the only case of that. The answer is no; it is a clause, an idea, that comes up in different legislation. I will give members some examples from the north: the Mackenzie Valley Resource Act, Statutes of Canada 1998, chapter 25, section 130, and the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, Statutes of Canada 2013, chapter 14, section 2.

Section 94 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act provides for the federal minister to refer a proposed project to the Minister of Environment for the purpose of a joint review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if it is in the national interest to do so.

The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act also provides for the responsible minister to reject a board decision or to reject or vary recommended terms or conditions if it is in the national interest to do so.

A few close references can also be found in section 51 of the Yukon Act, Statutes of Canada 2002, chapter 7, and in section 57 of the Northwest Territories Act, Statutes of Canada 2014, chapter 2, section 2.

To boil it all down, basically an act was passed that abrogated the land claim and went against a constitutionally protected law of Canada, which we cannot change by just doing another law. Of course, the court found that out and would not let it go ahead. All this bill would do is to put into law what the court had ordered.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed talking about Bill C-15, which this bill seeks to replace. I was in Parliament when Bill C-15 was passed under the Conservative government. It sought to replace the regional councils in the Northwest Territories with one large pan-territorial council.

The problem is that those regional councils were created as a result of land claim and self-government agreements with indigenous governments. The regional councils were created through nation-to-nation agreements. The Conservatives unilaterally overruled those decisions without consulting the indigenous peoples involved.

I would like to know why the member wants to go backward. Why he does not want to have this conversation and work on this nation-to-nation relationship that was undermined and ignored by the Conservatives?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I should note that I was not here when Bill C-15 first came forward under the previous government. However, of course, the Liberals voted for Bill C-15 in the last Parliament. Here they are now, saying it is no good, yet at the time, they voted for it. It is really interesting.

So what is the national best interest regarding the oil and gas in this country? Today, we saw the Prime Minister ridicule six premiers of this country, including the Premier of the Northwest Territories. They have major concerns over Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and the Prime Minister took shots at all six of them today in the House.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that Bill C-15 was a Conservative bill that really shattered the confidence of the indigenous people in the Northwest Territories.

It was a bill that never should have come forward. It is a bill that we are trying to correct today. There is an opportunity for my honoured colleague from across the way, who I travel with most weekends to return home, to support this bill. He has the opportunity to stand up now and support Bill C-88. I would appreciate it if he would do so. I think he knows the bill. He knows how important it is to the Northwest Territories. I think he is quite supportive of indigenous governments and resource development.

This would provide reassurance. I would ask the member to stand up and support this bill. Let us clear up some of the wrongdoings from the past.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have travelled with the member to his territory a couple of times, and I know how important it is to him that the residents of his riding have access to employment opportunities. I know that is important to him and to the people of the Northwest Territories.

In his remarks and in general in the debate on this, there has been heavy criticism of Bill C-15 from the previous Parliament. Neither of us was in the previous Parliament. Is the member aware that his party voted for Bill C-15, the bill that the Liberals are now describing as this terrible, poor bill that needed to be undone by the government?

Bill C-88—Time Allocation Motion

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, in the previous government, Bill C-15 was created in 2014 with complete disregard for the land claims agreements. The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act was created through the negotiations of land claims, and it certainly destroyed the trust factor with indigenous people in the Northwest Territories.

I want to ask the member if she would talk a little about how Bill C-88 would re-establish trust with indigenous people in the Northwest Territories, protect their constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements and restore legal certainty.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

Masi for your question.

As I said, just prior to the federal election there was a court of appeal process happening where the federal government had appealed the injunction. After the election, we lobbied and worked to try to get the injunction stayed until we dealt with amendments. We were not opposed to the technical amendments to the act in Bill C-15 at that time. My colleague Paul and I were very involved for the Tlicho Government, along with other indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories, in working on the amendments that were being proposed.

All through that whole time, the government didn't indicate to us that they were going to also include in Bill C-15 at that time the single board structure. They didn't tell us that it would be an omnibus bill as well. You go into those black periods during legislative drafting and introduction. Only after that did we find out there was going to be the super-board. We always opposed that.

That's why it took so long. We were trying to get the court of appeal injunction stayed and then finally getting the mandate from the ministers to have their officials talk to us about working on the amendments to the MVRMA that you see today. That work took a little while. We were very involved in the current amendments to the MVRMA with another legal colleague and one of our technical people within the Tlicho Government. That's what you see before you today.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'd like to thank you all for being here. It's wonderful to have you here, face to face in front of us.

I want to pick up on this whole discussion of the Bill C-15 and Bill C-88 continuum. I hear the message loud and clear that you all want Bill C-88 passed without delay, yet there has been delay. That's why we're getting a bit anxious.

Going back to Bill C-15, as you were just saying, we had a bill there that was largely about devolution. There were a lot of good things and everybody was in favour of that, yet there was almost this kind of poison pill part of it with the elimination of the regional boards. That's why the NDP didn't support Bill C-15. We felt that devolution needed to be done properly. Of course, it went to the courts because of the Tlicho, so here we are today with Bill C-88, which is a response to that court injunction.

Now they've added this other part, so again we have a bill that has two disparate parts. One part everybody seems to love, but I'm having a hard time finding anybody who supports the second part of this bill, whether it's because of the lack of consultation with indigenous people.... Industry doesn't seem to be too happy, and now we hear that environmentalists aren't that happy either. I am afraid that this is what has caused this delay.

Grand Chief and Premier, perhaps you could both respond to this question. This government came into power in 2015. The consultations around this bill went for a couple of years, or a year and a half, and were finished by the spring of 2017. We had a draft bill created in 2017, yet it was another 16 months before we saw it in the House. Do you have any insights as to why this process dragged on for so long that now we're faced with literally weeks left to make sure this happens?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Around the super-board, what's interesting to me is the fact that when Bill C-15 went through, the Liberals supported it through the process. The current Prime Minister voted for it. Obviously, they felt at that point that the benefits of Bill C-15 outweighed some of the negatives. I wasn't there, but if you had brought that forward at that time that you were concerned about the super-board thing....

What do you have to say about the fact that the Liberals supported it at that point?

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe, Legal Counsel, Tlicho Government]

Thank you for the question.

With regard to the trust question, we were involved in the regulatory amendment discussions from the get-go: me plus my other legal colleagues, and one who isn't here with us today, Arthur Pape. He was very instrumental in the negotiations of the section in the land claims agreement that deals with the regulatory systems.

When Minister Strahl first announced the regulatory reform, it was done to the Chamber of Mines in Yellowknife. The indigenous governments were not invited...that this would be happening. Since that announcement, McCrank was appointed to look at the regulatory system and make recommendations. We were in those supposedly consultation meetings at that time, but we never agreed to have a single board structure. Right from the get-go, our relationship with the government has not been very conciliatory. They said that the agreement allowed for them to do that and we didn't agree on the interpretation of those sections.

Our relationship with the government in terms of the injunction was very costly, as is any court case. The injunction cost the Tlicho Government money and time to do this. When the injunction was granted, the federal government chose to go to the court of appeal. We were in that court of appeal process when the election happened and the Trudeau government came to power. That litigation is stayed right now, but as Chief Alfonz pointed out, there are only two avenues. If it doesn't pass, then we have to consider what the next steps would be.

In terms of trust, whatever little trust we had with the Harper government, it eroded pretty quickly after that. We were always on the record for Bill C-15, when it was going through Parliament, in opposing the single board structure. The Tlicho were very supportive of keeping the Wek'èezhii Land and Water Board in place, and we didn't agree with it becoming just an administrative role. That was going against the spirit and intent of the Tlicho agreement.

[Bob McLeod, Premier of the Northwest Territories]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I should note that if we had got you to move to the Northwest Territories we would have had a real McLeod government.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the standing committee today as you review Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. As you review this bill, I would like to share with you some recent Northwest Territories history that is specific to the Northwest Territories offshore and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Northwest Territories is home to 44,000 residents, who live in 33 communities spread out over more than 1.3-million square kilometres. We are a unique jurisdiction in which indigenous and non-indigenous people live, work and govern together in the same communities, and where half of our population identifies as being first nations, Inuit or Métis. The result of this combination of indigenous and non-indigenous people living and working together is a public government where actions and decisions are informed by and include northern indigenous views and priorities from the outset.

A large part of our territory's modern history can be linked to resource development dating back to the 1920s, with the discovery of oil in the Sahtu region. Today our economy is still heavily reliant on resource development, with mining, oil and gas accounting for more than 25% of our gross domestic product.

Since 1984, the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories have been party to six settled indigenous claims. Most of these agreements are land claims that formally recognize the rights of indigenous governments to manage and benefit from the ownership of land and resources in their region. The rights of the Dene and Métis of the Mackenzie Valley are reflected in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which was enacted in 1998 and provides an integrated, co-managed land and water management regime throughout the Mackenzie Valley.

The MVRMA has been a world-recognized model for public-indigenous co-operation in the management of lands, waters and other resources in the Northwest Territories for more than 20 years. The co-management model emerged from the three constitutionally protected land claim agreements of the Mackenzie Valley. We've provided an “MVRMA at a Glance” handout, and also a map of the territory. The MVRMA applies to all Northwest Territories areas outside the northernmost region, the Inuvialuit settlement region, which takes a different approach to resource and land management.

The MVRMA ensures both that there is transparency during project reviews and that economics, the environment and culture are considered during project assessment. The MVRMA also provides for the review of government-led infrastructure projects and holds both our governments to the same high standard of accountability that industry is held to.

The Government of Northwest Territories wants to ensure we have a progressive regulatory system that works for the people of the Northwest Territories and governments and will also attract industry investment. Bill C-88 seeks to advance numerous modern amendments to the MVRMA that were first passed in 2015, in Bill C-15.

They include the authority to direct regional studies that can examine the effects of a development at a regional scale, the authority to develop administrative monetary penalty regulations that can be used to promote compliance, and the establishment of development certificates, which are becoming common tools across Canada to ensure measures from environmental assessments and impact reviews are carried out.

This was the intention when the Government of Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada signed a devolution agreement in 2013. However, those Bill C-15 amendments never came into force due to a court injunction brought about because of a section of Bill C-15 that would have consolidated the four regional land and water boards into one larger board.

Bill C-88 seeks to advance the amendments from Bill C-15 again, while preserving each of the regional land and water boards. We don't see Bill C-88 as a partisan bill. It ensures that land claim agreements are fully implemented by maintaining the regional boards, and it also has modern amendments with multi-party support. As you can see, the MVRMA is also quite unlike other project assessment laws that are currently being considered.

The MVRMA is well established and has allowed indigenous and public governments to work together for the past 20 years to manage the development of land and resources. The proposed amendments to the MVRMA in Bill C-88 would increase certainty around responsible resource development in the Northwest Territories. That certainty is something our territory needs as we continue to work with the indigenous governments in the territory to attract responsible resource development.

I would also like to touch briefly on Bill C-88's proposed changes to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, or CPRA. The CPRA is the law that outlines how petroleum exploration and development rights are issued in the Arctic Ocean, which is still under federal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, Canada unilaterally imposed a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas licences in 2016 without consulting either the indigenous or public territorial governments.

Although disappointed with the way the moratorium was imposed, we also recognize that Canada has a need to provide a legal basis upon which to implement this moratorium.

As a government, our current focus is moving forward towards co-management of the Northwest Territories' Arctic offshore waters and resources. We are working with Canada and other partners on the five-year review of the moratorium. We also want to ensure that the review is evidence-based and evaluates the different regions of the Arctic individually, as the Beaufort in particular has benefited from many years of study.

We fully expect this CPRA provision to be a short-term measure and expect Canada to fulfill its commitment to developing an offshore co-management regime comparable to the Atlantic accord's. We need this accord to ensure that northerners will be decision-makers on oil and gas exploration and development in our offshore, including when decisions are made about whether, when, where and how it happens.

The Government of the Northwest Territories supports swift passage of Bill C-88. The implications of not proceeding with the bill within the lifetime of this government and retaining the status quo are significant. Amendments to the MVRMA have been on the books for five years, and we don't want any more uncertainty associated with our regulatory regime. Resource developers are contemplating investing in developing the Northwest Territories' rich natural resources, and everyone benefits from regulatory certainty.

The Government of the Northwest Territories and indigenous governments are working together to build our territorial economy. The passage of Bill C-88 and the preservation of the regional land and water boards, as committed to in land claim and self-government agreements, is an important part of this.

Thank you very much.

[Neil McCrank]

Thank you for that question and for framing it the way you did. You are absolutely correct. The notion of the land use plans had to be primarily the first job done by the government. Once that was complete, then something had to be done with the regional boards. That was my view. Whether they were eliminated completely or left with an administrative function in each area, those were the two options.

I was not consulted with respect to Bill C-15, if there was some dysfunction related to my recommendation as the bill proceeded. However, there's no question that in everything I said and everything I recommended, I indicated I thought it would be a very difficult row to hoe and that if we didn't start the restructuring, including making sure the land use plans were completed early, we'd be doing that 10 years later.

Here we are, 10 years from when I made that report, and we're still not there. These are long-term projects, but it was clear in my mind what the role would be for the super-board, if you want to call it that, as a very professional regulatory body that deals with the kinds of issues I talked about. If the government wanted to leave the administrative function in the local treaty areas, that was an option that was open to it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'll let Mr. McCrank finish up on that. I just wanted to frame it, in that it seems to me, in reading your report, that you had a couple of options regarding the restructuring piece.

Option one was where you would eliminate the regional boards, but it included a fundamental restructuring that would require the agreement of all parties. I think there was actually a line in your report that said this is maybe desirable but would be very difficult to achieve. Then you had option two, which was just to amend the act but keep the regional boards. You've mentioned that they might have somewhat different tasks or mandates from what they have now.

However, in C-15, the previous government took your option two but eliminated the boards, and I think that's why we are here today. I'm just wondering if you could comment on that.

You said that your first recommendation, obviously, was to finish the land use plans. Do you think C-15 was premature in that it didn't wait for all that hard work to be done before proceeding with this restructuring?

Perhaps you could also finish your comments on why we are here today. You said the local groups were largely in favour of what you were proposing, yet as soon as C-15 came out they were in court. Obviously there was some disconnect there. I'd just like your comments on that situation.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The repeal of the unconstitutional provisions on the board restructuring is the main aspect of Bill C-88.

However, the bill makes other changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. These changes reflect some of the provisions of the previous government's Bill C-15, which couldn't enter into force because of the injunction.

Do you think it's likely that these provisions will make the boards operate more efficiently and effectively?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all our witnesses for their testimony.

My questions will be in French, naturally.

My first question is for Mayor Gruben.

The main element of Bill C-88 repeals the provisions of Bill C-15 that deal with restructuring the boards and aims to resolve the problem that the Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Inc. brought before the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Do you think the existing four-board structure is efficient and effective?

[David V. Wright, Legal Counsel, Gwich'in Tribal Council]

Good morning, distinguished members of the committee.

My name is David Wright and I am presenting this morning on behalf of the Gwich'in Tribal Council.

Grand Chief Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan sends her regrets but sincerely thanks you for the invitation and welcomes this opportunity to provide input on Bill C-88. I should add that I also regret being unable to attend in person. If there are any technical difficulties during my submission, feel free to stop me while we sort those out.

By way of background, I was formerly in-house legal counsel with the Gwich'in Tribal Council and am currently assisting on this particular matter. I intend to be very brief with my remarks, recognizing the time constraints, but I welcome any questions you may have as we proceed.

I'll begin with a few short contextual, informational points about the Gwich'in before moving on to three succinct points about Bill C-88.

As many of you would know, the Gwich'in are North America's northernmost first nations people. Since time immemorial, the Gwich'in have occupied traditional territories across what is today Yukon, Northwest Territories and Alaska. In 1921, the chiefs and headmen of Gwich'in, Fort McPherson and Tsiigehtchic—what was formerly known as Arctic Red River—signed Treaty 11 with representatives of the Crown. In 1992, the Gwich'in signed the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement with Canada and the Government of Northwest Territories.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council, which I'll refer to today as the GTC, was established in 1992 to represent the Gwich'in in regard to implementation of the land claim agreement and protection of Gwich'in rights and interests in the Mackenzie Delta region and beyond. Since signing the land claim agreement, the GTC and the four community-level land claim organizations—typically referred to as designated Gwich'in organizations or DGOs—have been working extremely hard to implement the land claim.

Similar to the Tlicho and the Sahtu, the Gwich'in have a treaty right to co-management. This includes requirements in chapter 24 of the land claim that establish the Gwich'in Land and Water Board.

With respect to Bill C-88 specifically, the GTC is present today to voice its support for swift passage of this bill. I'll make three specific points, all in relation to part 1 of the bill, which is the part dealing with the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The first point is that passage of Bill C-88 in a timely manner has great importance in terms of Crown-indigenous relations and reconciliation. Your review of Bill C-88 is taking place within this broader context of implementation of land claim agreements.

Your review of Bill C-88 and its implementation context is part of what has not been a smooth or straightforward journey for any of the treaty parties. Canada has lost the trust of indigenous groups at many turns. There are, of course, numerous examples of this, unfortunately, but certainly a clear case in point is the problematic changes that Bill C-15 attempted to bring in. I am speaking, of course, about the creation of the super-board and the associated elimination of the land and water boards of the Gwich'in, Tlicho and Sahtu.

As you know, the current government committed to eliminating these problematic Bill C-15 changes. This is an extremely important commitment made by Canada to the indigenous communities of the Northwest Territories. It represents an important step towards restoring trust. Indeed, the consultation process on Bill C-88 has actually helped restore some of the trust between Canada and the GTC. That trust would be eroded by any further delay, or at worst, failure to pass this bill in a timely manner.

As an aside, a significant amount of consultation on this bill has already taken place, as I am sure representatives from Canada will tell you this morning. Away from that government-to-government negotiation, the GTC and the board of directors of the GTC have been working hard to review and deliberate on the changes proposed in this bill.

The second point is that while the GTC will leave it to the Tlicho this afternoon to discuss the litigation and the court injunction barring implementation of the super-board, the GTC reiterates that it was very pleased with the result obtained by the Tlicho in court. The GTC sees passage of Bill C-88 as a critical next step.

If Bill C-88 is not passed, not only will Canada not have fulfilled its commitment to Northwest Territories indigenous communities, but these communities will be forced back into time-consuming, expensive, acrimonious litigation, all adversely affecting that treaty relationship and the broader reconciliation project. Further, this would generate regulatory uncertainty that benefits no one, as the architecture for project reviews in the Mackenzie Valley would then remain fluid.

Bill C-88 is a step toward certainty in the Mackenzie Valley, and that is a step that should be taken at this time in the view of the GTC.

Third, and finally, for members of the committee interested in reforms that are not included in Bill C-88 in its present form, the GTC would respectfully submit that now is not the time to pursue such changes. Rather, now is the time to pass the important changes in Bill C-88, particularly part 1, so that the Northwest Territories modern treaty partners can move forward beyond the threat of the super-board and the toxicity of litigation.

However, members of the committee will, no doubt, be heartened to recall that an opportunity for further review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is in the offing. As I believe you've heard from members of this committee, and other witnesses, further review of the MVRMA is coming as part of the five-year post-devolution review of the legislation, and a previously announced broader review of the legislation.

For example, if members are interested in including explicit reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that could be part of this forthcoming review. Similarly, the review will likely take place at a time when there's finally certainty with respect to changes that may come through the proposed impact assessment act, for the regime in southern Canada. For example, changes with respect to timelines, factors to consider in an assessment and decision-making parameters could all be part of that later review.

As such, it will make sense to revisit the MVRMA at a later time, to ensure, perhaps, proper alignment between northern and southern project assessment regimes.

All this is to say that there is this release valve, or parking lot, if you will, that exists right now for ideas that go beyond the current version of Bill C-88. Discussion about potential inclusion of those ideas in the bill is, respectfully, inappropriate at this time and would be better directed towards this future process, which we expect will be a process in which indigenous communities will fully collaborate.

Those are the prepared submissions of the GTC today, but I'm more than happy to discuss any of this during the question and answer period. I would note that if any questions are particularly technical or political in nature, I may refrain from answering, but will respond at a later time, after we are able to discuss with the GTC leadership and technical staff.

Thank you. Mahsi cho.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think people felt that this had held things up because of that surprise in Bill C-15 that no one had asked for, but I think we will now be able to move forward.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you for that.

I think that is what happens when we co-develop, and we go out and consult. It takes time. The consultations with stakeholders were launched in the fall of 2016. They had a draft legislative proposal. I think to most northerners, this is just tidying up the problems that were in Bill C-15, particularly distribution of the boards. That's what landed in court. They wanted the rest of it to go through, but we wanted to make sure.

The Government of Northwest Territories, industry, the management boards themselves, and also indigenous governments have all been consulted on this. That's why it's resulted in the letter from Premier McLeod and Grand Chief Mackenzie, to say, let's get on with this and get it done, because it's a technical piece. It is just fixing a problem that landed in court, so we can get out of court and go forward with the good stuff.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for being before us today.

Here we are, weeks away from the end of this Parliament. The Mackenzie Valley portion of the bill was foreseen before the election, yet it has taken four years for us to get to this place. I'm just wondering why the delay. We had the draft legislation completed in July 2017, and then it was 16 more months before we saw the legislation here in the House of Commons.

Now, we're rushing it through. We have one day of witnesses and a whole list of witnesses who aren't here: the Akaitcho first nation Salt River, Northwest Territories Métis, the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce, the Dene Nation, Alternatives North and Ecology North. I think all of these people would have been valuable to hear, yet because we're in such a rush...and we just heard what's going on in the Senate. What are the chances that this will even get through the Senate, with this time element?

When I see this bill, which is two very different pieces of legislation stuck together, with very different people supporting and not supporting it, I wonder why the decision was made to tie them together. I'm guessing that might have been some of the cause of the delay. This is an important piece of legislation that many of us want to see pass. We'd all like to see devolution in the Northwest Territories, as you say, so that the good parts of Bill C-15 are tied up.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that whole time element. I don't know. It boggles my mind.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Personally, I hope you will read the letter from Premier McLeod, and from Grand Chief Mackenzie, who wants this bill through expeditiously.

As I said, there are many things in the previous bill that are very important, that northerners want to get on with. I think you will recall that the fusion of the four boards was a total surprise to people and it landed in court almost immediately. Northerners, the indigenous governments, did not see it was in their best interests, so it went immediately to court. We are sitting with that injunction now, which is also preventing the good things that were in Bill C-15.

We know you'll be hearing from witnesses. I hope you will be persuaded that this is indeed the best way forward, to get this bill done as quickly as possible so that the good things that were in the devolution bill go forward but that we are no longer bound by that injunction that has prevented the fusion of the four boards.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister and departmental officials.

Minister, one of the primary tasks of this bill, as you talked about, is to reverse changes made by the former Conservative government with the Northwest Territories Devolution Act back in 2014. As you mentioned, this included consolidating the four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley into one. The Liberal Party at that time supported it, including the current Prime Minister, and even your parliamentary secretary, MP Jones, who is with us here this morning.

I'm going to quote what she said at the time:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

That is from 2014.

These comments actually stand in direct contradiction to Bill C-88, which extends powers to the cabinet to put moratoriums on energy development and to include the national interest, which, to be honest with you, has never really been clearly defined.

I will note that the Prime Minister of the day, when he did the moratorium, wasn't even in this country. He was in Washington, D.C., at the time he talked about the moratorium up north, and the elected northern officials at the time had less than half an hour to scramble to come up with the decision of the day.

I'm also going to talk, if you don't mind, about last night in the Senate, because it has major ramifications for northern Canada and moratoriums on northern development, allowing the north to make its own environmental and economic decisions. We have seen repeated paternalism coming from this government when it comes to energy development, not only in relation to northerners but as we saw last night first nations as well.

We saw it with Bill C-48 in the Senate last night: the B.C. oil tanker ban. As you know, Calvin Helin is the CEO of Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings, which is an indigenous-led group. He has been deeply critical of these types of moratoriums being directed by your government in Ottawa. He said, in response to these bans, “Is this what reconciliation is supposed to represent in Canada?”

That statement last night by Calvin speaks volumes, and we saw it last night in the Senate as they voted against Bill C-48. We'll see what happens when it comes back to the House.

We talk of an “Ottawa-down” approach. Can we let the north make the environmental and economic decisions instead of “Ottawa knows best”?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Bill C-88 contains other regulatory improvements that were originally part of Bill C-15. These improvements never came into force, due to a court injunction. I gather that, as you mentioned in your speech, these improvements are broadly supported by Northwest Territories residents, and the former government was right about those provisions.

Could you summarize what the other regulatory amendments do to improve the regulatory system in the Northwest Territories?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to participate in your committee's review of Bill C-88 as we gather once again on traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

I am also appearing before this committee on behalf of my honourable colleague, Minister LeBlanc.

I know that—on behalf of all on the committee—our thoughts and wishes are with him. We all want him to have a speedy recovery, but we also want him to take the time to be well and to be back advocating for northerners and northern issues, and doing his important work with the provinces and territories.

As you all know, Bill C-88 proposes to amend both the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

In terms of the MVRMA, the bill is focused on repealing the previous government's decision, through Bill C-15, to arbitrarily merge four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley into one super-board. This decision violated constitutionally protected indigenous land claim and self-government agreements, and it ended up in court.

The bill also seeks to reintroduce a number of positive changes introduced by the previous government through Bill C-15 that have not been implemented because of the court-imposed injunction that focused on stopping the imposition of the super-board.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act includes four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley, which are central to comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements of several local indigenous governments and organizations.

This creates an integrated co-management regime for lands and waters in the Mackenzie Valley, and it provides legal certainty for our resource development investors in the area.

Bill C-15 was passed by the previous government in 2014.

Among other changes, it merged the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one entity.

The legislation was immediately challenged in court. It was alleged that it violated indigenous land claim and self-government agreements.

In early 2015, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted an injunction that suspended the proposed board restructuring, along with other positive regulatory amendments included in Bill C-15. Rather than improve the regulatory process for the Mackenzie Valley and enhance legal certainty for proponents and investors, the previous government's approach landed these MVRMA regulatory reforms in Bill C-15 in court.

As we've said at this committee before, our government believes that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the success of the Canadian economy and, if we get it right, will serve as an important foundation for future economic and job growth. Unlocking this economic potential must be contingent on environmental sustainability and on impacted indigenous communities being engaged as equal partners.

The current situation is untenable as it creates legal uncertainty, and the positive regulatory changes are now tied up in the courts.

In November 2015, discussions with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories began about the government moving forward with legislative amendments to resolve this matter.

Bill C-88 has been developed through consultation with indigenous governments and organizations, the Government of Northwest Territories, industry and their resource co-management boards.

The bill will resolve the litigation regarding the restructuring of the boards and reintroduce the positive policy elements of C-15 currently prevented from coming into force by the injunction. It will re-establish trust with indigenous partners in the Northwest Territories, respect their constitutionally protected land claim and self-government agreements, and restore legal certainty for responsible resource development.

I think Northwest Territories Premier McLeod and Grand Chief George Mackenzie summed it up very well in a joint letter they sent on April 24, 2019, when they wrote, “We are hopeful that Bill C-88 will proceed expeditiously through the legislative process and will receive Royal Assent in this Parliament. The negative implications of the status quo are significant.”

Madam Chair, we have copies of that letter for the members.

In terms of CPRA, Bill C-88 proposes to provide new criteria for the Governor in Council to prohibit existing exploration licence holders and significant discovery licence holders from carrying on any oil and gas activities, in the case of the national interest.

It would also freeze the terms of the existing licences in the Arctic offshore for the duration of any such prohibition.

The “national interest” refers to a country's national goals and ambitions, whether economic, military or cultural, and is not a new legislative concept. There are numerous references to the national interest in Canadian legislation and specifically in northern legislation.

For example, the term appears in section 51 of the Yukon Act and section 57 of the Northwest Territories Act. In both acts, the Governor in Council may prohibit any use of waters or the deposit of waste in cases in which the Governor in Council considers the use of waters or the deposit of waste to be incompatible with the national interest.

The decision to move forward with a moratorium on new Arctic offshore oil and gas licences in federal waters was a risk-based decision in light of the potential devastating effects of a spill and limited current science about drilling in that area. It is important to remember that at that time there was no active drilling occurring in the Beaufort Sea and no realistic plans to initiate drilling in the short or medium term.

The moratorium was announced in conjunction with a five-year science-based review, as well as a consultation on the details of that review.

Territories and indigenous and northern communities are partners in the science-based review process, and others, including industry, are being actively consulted. The outcome of the review process will inform next steps in the Arctic offshore. Freezing the terms of the impacted existing licences in the Arctic offshore was a key priority expressed by the industry in our discussions regarding the implementation of the moratorium.

The proposed amendments to both the MVRMA and the CPRA are essential to ensuring a responsible, sustainable and fair resource development regime in the Northwest Territories and the Arctic.

I urge you to pass Bill C-88 and look forward to your questions.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of a bill that would make a positive difference in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown. In starting my speech, I acknowledge that I stand here on traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

Today we are holding a second reading debate on Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. I will use the time allotted to me to speak about the amendments to both of these and to speak a bit about the issue of Arctic offshore oil exploration.

First, I want to start with some context around the Mackenzie Valley. To understand the mess that we are fixing right now, one has to rewind the clock, back to the 1970s.

In 1974, the federal government, under the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed Justice Thomas Berger of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to hold hearings into a proposed natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley.

At that time, the Dene and the Inuvialuit were asserting their claims to these traditional lands. The Berger Inquiry broke with tradition by hearing evidence, offered not merely by the pipeline companies but also by residents in more than 30 small communities in the Northwest Territories.

The Berger Inquiry heard from over 1,000 indigenous people in seven languages and over 500 southern voices were there as well to give their opinions. The process was groundbreaking. The federal government funded research by indigenous, environmental and community groups. Justice Berger enabled media participation that brought Canadians from far and wide, from coast to coast to coast, into the proceeding.

In May 1977, Berger recommended that, for environmental reasons, no pipeline should ever be built along the northern coastal plains. Although Berger concluded that an environmentally sound pipeline could be built through the Mackenzie Valley, he urged a 10-year moratorium on pipeline construction in the region to allow time to settle indigenous land claims. Ottawa, the federal government, endorsed his recommendations.

This concluded in the delaying of any construction on the pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley and was seen as a turning point in indigenous Canadian relations. In amassing over 40,000 pages of documentation, it also provided a unique and comprehensive window into the Dene and Inuvialuit political resurgence of the 1970s. There would be no turning back on consultations with indigenous people after this inquiry; the precedent was set.

Public sympathy and interest in both indigenous and environmental concerns were heightened as a result of the Berger Inquiry. It was a watershed event for reconciliation. It allowed first nations to speak about their history, their issues related to the land, their culture and the impacts that the southern man's projects would have on their communities.

What we have learned from the Berger Inquiry of the 1970s is that when we consult with indigenous people, we take a first step toward our commitment to reconciliation. We learned lessons that ultimately led to regional land claims agreements and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998.

The 1998 Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act put in place an integrated system for the co-management of the land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories. This act established two boards with jurisdiction over the entire valley, namely the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

Three regional land and water boards were created for the Gwich'in settlement area, the Sahtu settlement area and the Tlicho settlement area, pursuant to the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis and the Tlicho land claim agreements, which conferred on these boards the responsibility for issuing land use permits and water licensing.

Fast forward to 2014, when the Harper administration passed the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, it consolidated four indigenous regulatory boards into one, without their agreement, and in so doing, stifled the voices of indigenous people. It flew in the face of lessons learned through the Berger Inquiry, where we learned of the importance of indigenous people's voices, of incorporating indigenous communities in governance processes.

That is why our government's Bill C-88 is so important. We are fixing the mess of the previous Harper administration.

That is why our government's bill, Bill C-88, is so important. We are fixing the mess of the Harper administration.

The Northwest Territories Devolution Act, the infamous Bill C-15 introduced by the Harper government, transferred land and water management to the Government of the Northwest Territories and amended three existing acts, including the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It included the restructuring of the land and water boards and the elimination of regional boards.

The Tlicho government was totally against those changes and filed a statement of claim before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, stating that the Harper government had no right to unilaterally abolish the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board because such action would go against its land claims agreement and right to self-government. It added that consultation had been inadequate and that the act violated constitutional promises made to that first nation.

The Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated sought injunctions in July 2014 and February 2015 respectively in order to maintain their respective water boards until the major issues in their statements could be resolved.

I will cite the court decision on the injunction, because it is just so damning and clearly indicates why we had to come and clean up the mess. It says:

The Tlicho government has raised a reasonable possibility that Canada has overstepped the bounds of what it is permitted to do under the Tlicho Agreement. ...there is a reasonable likelihood the Tlicho Government will suffer...irreparable losses...as a result of a breach of a constitutionally protected right. ...irreparable harm could result from the breach of a constitutionally protected right. This is particularly so where the legislation...will have the effect of dismantling and disrupting existing infrastructure which will then have to be rebuilt.

The court granted an injunction suspending the application of subsection 253(2) of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which would have brought into effect the provisions related to the restructuring and other regulatory amendments.

In November 2015, the newly appointed Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, began discussions with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories in order to make the legislative changes needed to resolve this issue. The amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are the result of those discussions and discussions with other regional stakeholders.

We have learned from the past that an effective regulatory body and thorough consultation processes are necessary to consider the needs of those directly impacted by these projects. Transparent and thorough consultation also promotes sound decision-making, and it ultimately will help create better projects that will deliver more benefits to regional communities and to the workers.

This is why Bill C-88 seeks to consult with rights holders and northern indigenous governments when it comes to oil and gas projects in the northern offshore, by making consequential amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, or CPRA.

I will provide some context on the history of Canada's Arctic offshore oil and gas issue. Oil spills in offshore regions across the world have underlined the importance of a precautionary approach when operating in fragile marine ecological environments. The BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico put Canada on alert, and Arctic offshore as a possibility was, and still is, seen in that light. We are aware of the vulnerabilities of any marine ecosystem to a potential blowout, and this is especially true for the unique and fragile marine ecology of the Beaufort Sea.

Canadians can be proud that our Liberal government collaborated with the Obama administration to establish a moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling and the issuance of more licences on the basis of the precautionary principle and of science and traditional knowledge.

We know that oil and gas exploration has been part of the northwest economy for many years, so much so that it is part of the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. However, at the same time, we know that northerners and southerners, indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and all Canadians can agree that a catastrophic blowout in the deep water of the Beaufort Sea could cripple the Inuvialuit way of living and their future prospects. This is another reason this bill is important.

Second Reading

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-88, another Liberal anti-resource development policy that is driving investment and businesses out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs, costing indigenous people jobs and undermining their aspirations, work and their hopes for self-sufficiency, and increasing poverty rates in the north and in rural and remote regions.

Like the Liberals' no more pipelines Bill C-69, their Arctic offshore drilling ban, and their oil shipping ban bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-86, Bill C-88 would further politicize resource development by expanding the powers of the cabinet to unilaterally block economic development and would add to the mountain of red tape proponents must overcome before they can get shovels in the ground.

The bill is also a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control over the development of natural resources in their territories and would cede more power and control to the federal government. Bill C-88 would reverse Conservative measures to devolve power to the territories and puts new powers in the hands of the federal cabinet. The Liberals clearly believe that Ottawa knows best.

At the AME Roundup in Vancouver in January, I was in a room full of northerners who were unanimous in their opposition to the Liberal government's “one big park” agenda for the north. There were elected officials, Inuit business leaders and corporate executives with decades of experience working with first nations in resource development in the north.

In Canada, it can take 20 years to get from the discovery of a mineral deposit to a functioning mine. The challenge in the north is that most of the mines are in the final decade of production and no new mines are in the approvals process. Resource projects and communities and residents in the north have to overcome big challenges: geography, climate, distance, access to land and a lack of services and infrastructure in the many remote and rural regions in which these projects are located. The north will pay for the Liberals' mistakes with the loss of an entire generation's economic advancement as mining completely leaves the region.

The previous Conservative government rightly viewed the north as essential to Canada's sovereignty, as a key area at stake in global security and as a place of real potential for significant economic activities today and for decades to come. Conservatives know resource development is often the only source of jobs and business potential in remote and northern regions where they are already scarce.

The Liberals meanwhile are arbitrarily creating huge swaths of protected land with little consultation. The regulatory uncertainty caused by their many bills and policies is making capital harder to access. These actions are challenging meaningful engagement and relationships with first nations in the north, including the Inuit, indigenous people and Métis communities. The Liberals' top-down paternalistic actions rob northerners of opportunities and of decision-making authority and do nothing to reduce poverty in remote northern regions of Canada.

Conservatives, by contrast, have sought to devolve power over and ownership of natural resources to the territories, enabling and empowering their abilities and their authority to manage and benefit from their rich and diverse natural resource opportunities.

In 2007, Neil McCrank was commissioned to write a report on improving the regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north. That report, “Road to Improvement”, found the regulatory process in the Northwest Territories at the time was complex, costly, unpredictable and time-consuming. The merging of the three boards into one was a key recommendation. The report said that this approach would address the complexity and the capacity issues inherent to the current model by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources.

Importantly, the report also said that this was not meant to diminish or reduce the influence that aboriginal people have on resource management in the north; rather, it was meant as an attempt to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development.

The option to merge the three separate indigenous boards into the single unified board was also included as an available option in the three modern land claim agreements signed with the first nations in the Northwest Territories.

In 2013, the previous Conservative government introduced Bill C-15 to implement that approach. That bill received overwhelming support in the House. We would not know it from the heckling across the aisle, but including from the Liberal Party. The Liberals and the NDP voted for the bill at the final stage in the House of Commons, but now the Liberals have decided to reverse it, to return to the job-killing overly complex and disjointed “Ottawa knows best” approach, setting back the hopes and aspirations of northern communities that are desperate for natural resource jobs.

It is a myth that indigenous communities, particularly in the north, are opposed to natural resource development. This myth is perpetuated by the Liberal left and elected politicians even in this House of Commons. Indigenous leaders are speaking out against anti-resource activists and in favour of the many benefits and potential for their communities. Bob McLeod, premier of the Northwest Territories, said:

All too often...[indigenous people] are only valued as responsible stewards of their land if they choose not to touch it. This is eco-colonialism.

He went on to say:

...it is oppressive and irresponsible to assume that Indigenous northerners do not support resource development.

PJ Akeeagok of Qikiqtani Inuit Association said, “Absolutely we want to participate in these industries. There’s some real exciting benefits that are out there.” Lee Qammaniq, a heavy equipment operator at Baffinland's Mary River mine, says, “I'm doing it so [my son] can have a better life.”

That ideological and heavy-handed “one big park” agenda in the north is being implemented often without consulting northerners on the use of the land around them. It is threatening the way of life of many Inuit and indigenous communities.

A little farther south, Isaac Laboucan-Avirom, chief of the Woodland Cree First Nation, says:

It frustrates me, as a first nations individual, when I have to almost beg for monies when we're living in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. Why should our people be living in third-class or second-class communities when we are surrounded by natural resources that go into paving our roads, putting in rec centres, and so on?

In northern Saskatchewan, English River chief Marie Black, speaks about mining for many across the country in her direct assessment, saying, “It is very, very important that we go ahead and work with industry. This is for jobs.”

So many indigenous leaders are speaking out. They are leading the fight, really, about the importance of resource development to their communities to meet their needs right now and for future generations. They are fighting against the layers of Liberal anti-resource development policies and laws that violate their abilities to make decisions about their resources on and around their lands and about which they were not consulted by the Liberals in the first place.

Indigenous communities support sustainable and responsible natural resources development in their territories because it offers a real path to self-sufficiency and a real opportunity for actual economic reconciliation. It damages reconciliation when politicians make promises they do not keep, set expectations and then do not deliver, or pass laws in the apparent best interests of indigenous Canadians without actually fully consulting them.

There is no stronger example of the patriarchal, patronizing and quite frankly colonial approach of the current Liberals than their treatment of first nations who want to develop, provide services, and supply and transport oil and gas. When this Liberal Prime Minister vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he killed benefit agreements between the project and 31 first nations that were worth $2 billion. Those 31 first nations said:

We are deeply disappointed that a Prime Minister who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with Indigenous communities would now blatantly choose to deny our 31 First Nations and Métis communities of our constitutionally protected right to economic development.

The Liberals' shipping ban, Bill C-48, is opposed by more than 30 first nations in B.C. and in Alberta because it would kill economic opportunities for their communities. Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom says, “What I don't understand about this tanker moratorium is that there's no other tanker moratorium on other coastlines in Canada. You have oil coming in from Saudi Arabia, up and down the St. Lawrence River right now.”

Gary Alexcee, deputy chief of Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd., said:

With no consultation, the B.C. first nations groups have been cut off economically with no opportunity to even sit down with the government to further negotiate Bill C-48. If that's going to be passed, then I would say we might as well throw up our hands and let the government come and put blankets on us that are infected with smallpox so we can go away. That's what this bill means to us.

He went on to say:

Today, the way it sits, we have nothing but handouts that are not even enough to have the future growth of first nations in our communities of British Columbia.

Then, there is the targeted northern offshore drilling ban, incredibly announced in southern Canada by this Prime Minister without any real consultation with the most directly impacted indigenous communities, their elected leaders or indigenous-owned businesses.

Duane Smith, chair and CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, says:

We are sitting on nine trillion cubic feet of gas and it doesn't make sense for the community to truck in its energy source from 2,000 kilometres away when we should be developing these.

Northwest Territories premier, Bob McLeod, said, “It feels like a step backward.” He went on:

We spent a lot of time negotiating a devolution agreement, and we thought the days were gone when we'd have unilateral decisions made about the North in some faraway place like Ottawa, and that northerners would be making the decisions about issues that affected northerners.

He confirmed that this Prime Minister only informed him about the decision two hours before he made the announcement.

Nunavut's former premier, Peter Taptuna, has said, “We have been promised by Ottawa that they would consult and make decisions based on meaningful discussion. So far that hasn't happened.”

Even Liberal Yukon Premier Sandy Silver, whose territory is not affected by the bans, sided with his northern counterparts, saying, “When you have unilateral decisions being made in any topic on considerations that affect the North, you need to have northerners in those conversations.”

There was also, of course, the announcement made in Washington, D.C. that a large portion of Canada's territories will be prohibited from development, again with minimal or no consultation with actual northerners.

The mayor of Tuktoyaktuk recently said at a House of Commons committee:

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change compared to when you work in oil and gas and you're used to that kind of living. Our people are used to that. We're not used to selling trinkets and T-shirts and that kind of stuff.

He specifically took issue with matters addressed by the bill, saying, “the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.”

The Liberal approach to the north is not empowering first nations. It is trapping the Inuit and indigenous people of the north in poverty by blocking their best opportunities for jobs, for government revenues and for social services to deal with all the needs that colleagues here are raising in this debate, for healthy living and to help make life more affordable.

Northerners know that Bill C-88 would add another roadblock to resource development on top of the Liberals' “no more pipelines” Bill C-69.

While co-management of the assessment process limits some of the damage of Bill C-69, this legislation would still have a significant impact on resource development in the north. Whether it is changes to the navigable waters act, falling investment dollars in natural resource projects across Canada or limited essential services, equipment and expertise to develop projects in the north, this flawed legislation would damage the north.

Dozens of indigenous communities, along with the National Coalition of Chiefs, the Indian Resource Council, the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council, Alberta's Assembly of Treaty Chiefs and the majority of Treaty 7 first nations, as well as hundreds of indigenous companies, are joining premiers and industry leaders in opposing Bill C-69.

Experts in indigenous law and rights are clear. Bill C-69 does nothing concrete to improve indigenous consultation, either by expanding the scope of indigenous rights or by practically increasing the measures, expectations and standards for the Crown's duty to consult. In fact, it actually weakens indigenous voices in the assessment process by removing the standing test and opening up project reviews to literally anyone, anywhere, instead of focusing on input from locally impacted Canadian citizens, indigenous communities, and subject matter and technical experts.

Mark Wittrup, vice-president of environmental and regulatory affairs at Clifton Associates, has said, “The proposed [impact assessment] process will create significant delays, missed opportunities and likely impact those that need that economic development the most: northern and Indigenous communities.”

Indigenous leaders have also noticed. Roy Fox, chief of the Blood Tribe first nation and a former CEO of the Indian Resource Council, has said, “I don't have any confidence in Bill C-69. I am fearful, and I am confident, that it will keep my people in poverty.”

Stephen Buffalo, the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, which currently represents more than 100 indigenous oil and gas developers, has said, “Indigenous communities are on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, one that finally allows Indigenous people to share in Canada's economic prosperity. Bill C-69 will stop this progress in its tracks.”

The more than 30 first nations in the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council say they will take the government to court over C-69, because the bill could make it “impossible to complete a project” and because the removal of the standing test could lead to foreign interests “overriding the interests of aboriginal title holders” in Canada.

Bill C-88 is yet another example of the Liberals' pattern of adding red tape and roadblocks to resource development, which is something a Conservative government will reverse to help northern indigenous communities, all northerners and all Canadians get ahead.

The future of mining in Canada is very much related to opening up the north. Conservatives know how crucial infrastructure is to this ambition, as it can cost up to six times more to explore, and two and a half times more to build mines in remote regions. The Liberal-imposed carbon tax will hike the already expensive cost of living and cost of operations in the north even higher.

The Conservative Party has long believed that this means giving northerners the autonomy to make decisions based on their priorities and to benefit from those decisions the same way the provinces do.

In natural resources, mining is one of the areas where first nations are the most active, having secured 455 agreements in the sector between 2000 and 2017, often including priority training, hiring and subcontracting commitments. In 2016, indigenous people working in the mining sector had a median income twice as high as workers in their communities overall and nearly twice as high as that of non-indigenous people as a whole.

The problem is that mines are currently in the later years of their productive life, and there are no new mines in the approvals process. By reverting to the old, convoluted impact assessment and approvals process, the Liberals are reintroducing a major barrier to proposing and then actually completing projects in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, as I said before, the north will pay for Liberal mistakes with the loss of an entire generation's economic advancement as mining completely leaves the north.

However, there is hope. Conservatives will work to cut unnecessary red tape to bring investment and jobs back to Canada, while maintaining, enhancing and protecting Canada's reputation. Our reputation is second to none as a global leader in environmental standards, performance, and community and indigenous consultation for responsible resource development.

Conservatives know the reality is that when a resource project gets shut down in Canada, the most regulated and environmentally responsible major resource producer in the world, all it means is that the money, the businesses and the jobs go to countries with lower environmental, civil and human rights protections and standards.

The world needs more Canadian resource development, not less of it. Canada can and must still protect the environment while getting to a “yes” on major projects. When approval is given, the projects must be able to get built. Instead of turning the north into one big park, the Liberals should listen to northern first nations and hear their call for empowerment to develop their natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way.

This bill represents a major regression in the ability of northerners to manage their own natural resources to the benefit of their communities and in the best interests of the entire country. This legislation is yet another example of the Liberal government believing it knows better than local communities, indigenous communities, regions and provinces, resource developers and private sector proponents.

Conservatives will work to reverse these damaging legislative changes, eliminate the roadblocks that the Liberals are putting in the path of northern resource projects and of indigenous communities, and help northern Canadians and all Canadians get ahead.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Bill C-15 under the previous Parliament received support from the Liberal Party, including from the current Prime Minister.

I will also point out that we had agreements with the 31 first nations communities along the northern gateway pipeline that was killed. They were directly impacted by the northern gateway pipeline. This was worth about $2 billion in economic activity for those first nations communities. They have spoken up loud and clear to say that there are decisions being made in Ottawa that are are impacting their economic future.

If we want to reduce poverty in some of these northern communities, responsible resource development is a path forward to create jobs, opportunity and wealth. This is what they are asking for, and I think it is something we should heed.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill would make two amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998, and I will refer to this in my speech going forward as MVRMA. Part A reverses provisions that would have consolidated the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one. These provisions were introduced by the former Conservative government within Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act of 2014.

Part B would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities, and freezes the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expiring during a moratorium.

Bill C-88 is yet another Liberal anti-energy policy in a long list of policies from the government that are driving energy investments out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and increasing poverty rates in the north.

First, I will speak to part A of the bill, the section that reverses the previous government's initiative to consolidate for the devolution of governance of the Northwest Territories, wherein the federal government transferred control of the territories' land and resources to the Northwest Territories government.

Part of that plan sought to restructure the four Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into a single consolidated superboard, with the intent to streamline regulatory processes and enable responsible resource development. For the reasons why this was proposed under Bill C-15, we have to turn back the clock nearly seven years earlier when, in 2007, then-minister of Indian affairs and northern development, the hon. Chuck Strahl commissioned a report on improving regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north.

The consolidation of the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one entity was a key recommendation, which would address the complexity and capacity issues by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources, and allow for administrative practices to be understandable and consistent.

Furthermore, during debates in the House in 2013 and 2014, the then-minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development, Bernard Valcourt and the member for Chilliwack—Hope, or as it was known back then, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, pointed out that the restructured board was included in the final version of the modern land claim agreements.

The proposed changes were not acceptable to everyone, and two indigenous groups, the Tlicho Government and Sahtu Secretariat, filed for an injunction with the Northwest Territories' Supreme Court to suspend the related provisions.

They argued that the federal government did not have the authority to abolish the Mackenzie Valley regulatory regime without consultation with affected indigenous communities. I should point out that, at the time, Liberal members of Parliament voted in favour of Bill C-15 when it was debated in Parliament, including the Prime Minister.

The report commissioned by the then-minister of Indian affairs and northern development was never meant to diminish the influence that indigenous people have on resource management in the north. Rather, it was meant to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development through an effective regulatory system.

This brings us back to today and the bill currently before us. As previously mentioned Bill C-88 would repeal the restructuring of the four land and water boards but also reintroduce regulatory provisions that were included in the previous Conservative government's Bill C-15.

These provisions have been redrafted to function under the current four-board structure and provide for the following: an administrative monetary penalty scheme that will provide inspectors with additional tools to enforce compliance with permits and licences under the MVRMA; an enforceable development certificate scheme following environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews; the development of regulations respecting consultation, which are intended to help clarify the procedural roles and responsibilities respecting indigenous consultation; clarification of requirements for equal proportions of nominees from government and indigenous governments and organizations; a 10-day pause period between a board's preliminary screening decision and the issuance of an authorization to allow for other bodies under the MVRMA to refer a project to an environmental assessment; regional studies that provide the minister with the discretion to appoint committees or individuals to study the effects of existing and future development on a regional basis; the authority to develop cost-recovery regulations that would provide the federal government with the ability to recover costs associated with proceedings; and the extension of a board member's term during a proceeding to ensure board quorum is maintained until the conclusion of an application decision.

These are good regulations and I am glad to see that the current government is continuing on with that and did not throw away these provisions.

The Liberals will say that Bill C-88 is about consultation, however, under part 2 is where the real motivation for Bill C-88 becomes evident.

Part 2 is simply the Liberals' plan to further politicize the regulatory and environmental processes for resource extraction in Canada's north by giving cabinet sweeping powers to stop projects based on its so-called national interest. So much for the comments from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of indigenous and northern affairs, who, on speaking to the Conservatives' Bill C-15 on February 11, 2014, said:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

I would agree with that.

Bill C-88 exposes the Liberals' full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources. The Liberals have demonstrated disregard for those who speak truth to power, they have demonstrated contempt for indigenous peoples advocating for the health and welfare of their children and now they are adding indifference for northern Canadians' interests to their long litany of groups marginalized by the Liberal government.

The Conservatives strongly criticized the Liberals for a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea, an announcement made in December 2016, in Washington, D.C. by the prime minister, an announcement, I might add, where territorial leaders were given less than an hour's notice. The Liberal government's top-down maternalistic approach to northerners must end. It does nothing to reduce poverty in remote and northern regions of Canada.

Like Bill C-69, the no-more pipelines bill before it, Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of cabinet to block economic development and adds to the increasing levels of red tape proponents must face before they can get shovels into the ground. Like Bill C-68, the convoluted navigable waters bill before it, Bill C-88 adds ambiguity and massive uncertainty in an already turbulent investment climate. Like Bill C-48, the tanker ban bill before it, Bill C-88 aims to kill high-quality, high-paying jobs for Canadians and their families who work in the oil and gas-related industries.

We know the Prime Minister's real motivation. He spelled it out for us at a Peterborough, Ontario town hall in January 2017, when he clearly stated that he and his government needed to phase out the oil and gas industry in Canada. The Prime Minister's plan to phase out the energy industry has been carried out with surgical precision to date.

The Liberals' job-killing carbon tax is already costing Canadian jobs. Companies repeatedly mention that the carbon tax is the reason they are investing in jobs and projects in the United States over Canada. The Liberals new methane regulations could end refining in Canada by adding tens of billions of dollars of cost to an industry that is already in crisis.

The Liberals introduced their interim review process for oil and gas projects in January 2016, which killed energy east, the 15,000 middle-class jobs it would have created and the nearly $55 billion it would have injected into the New Brunswick and Canadian economies, a review process which delayed the Trans Mountain expansion reviews by six months and added upstream admissions to the review process.

The Liberal cabinet imposed a B.C. north shore tanker ban within months of forming government, with no consultation or scientific evidence to support it. The Liberals cancelled the oil and gas exploration drilling tax credits during a major downturn in the oil and gas sector, which caused the complete collapse of drilling in Canada. The Liberals' proposed fuel standard will equate to a carbon tax of $228 per tonne of fuel according to their own analysis.

When the Prime Minister vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he killed benefit agreements between the project and 31 first nations, worth about $2 billion. The unprecedented policy will apply not to just transportation fuels but to all industries, including steel production, heating for commercial buildings and home heating fuels like natural gas.

All this is destroying energy jobs and investment from coast to coast to coast. Now, with Bill C-88, we add another coast, the northern coast.

The Liberals love to champion the Prime Minister's personal commitment to a new relationship with indigenous people through new disclosure and friendly policies. They will, no doubt, due so again with Bill C-88.

This is what some organizations and people have to say, with respect to the Prime Minister's so-called commitment:

Stephen Buffalo, the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, in the National Post, October 19, 2018 stated:

...the government of Canada appears to consult primarily with people and organizations that share its views...It pays much less attention to other Indigenous groups, equally concerned about environmental sustainability, who seek a more balanced approach to resource development.

Here is another quote from that article:

The policies of the [Prime Minister's] government are systematically constraining the freedom and economic opportunities of the oil- and gas-producing Indigenous peoples of Canada. We are not asking for more from government. We are actually asking for less government intervention

Roy Fox, chief of the Kainaiwa first nation, in The Globe and Mail, December 10, 2018 stated:

While the Kainaiwa [nation] continue to fight against high unemployment, as well as the social destructiveness and health challenges such as addiction and other issues that often accompany poverty, my band’s royalties have recently been cut by more than half. Furthermore, all drilling has been cancelled because of high price differentials – the enormous gap between what we get on a barrel of oil in comparison to the benchmark price – which has limited employment opportunities on our lands.

Chief Fox continued:

...it’d be an understatement to say the policies proposed within Bills C-69 and C-48 are damaging our position by restricting access and reducing our ability to survive as a community....I and the majority of Treaty 7 chiefs strongly oppose the bill for its likely devastating impact on our ability to support our community members, as it would make it virtually impossible for my nation to fully benefit from the development of our energy resources.

I can continue to read quotes. However, we here on this side of the aisle are deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister, who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with indigenous communities, blatantly would allow and choose to deny our 31 first nations and Métis communities their constitutionally-protected right to economic development.

This is from the Aboriginal Equity Partners:

We see today's announcement as evidence of the government's unwillingness to follow through on the Prime Minister's promise.

The Government of Canada could have demonstrated its commitment by working with us as environmental stewards of the land and water to enhance marine safety. All 31 AEP plus the other affected communities should have been consulted directly and individually in order to meet the Federal Government's duty to consult.

I have said this many times in my speech. It is time to stop politicizing these projects. Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas development in the far north by providing the cabinet in Ottawa the unilateral power to shut down oil and gas development without consulting the people it affects directly.

I want to point to a few “key facts” from NRCAN's website. It states that in 2017, Canada’s energy sector directly employed more than 276,000 people and indirectly supported over 624,000 jobs; Canada’s energy sector accounts for almost 11% of nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP); government revenues from energy were $10.3 billion in 2016; more than $650 million was spent on energy research, development, and deployment by governments in 2016-17; and Canada is the sixth largest energy producer, the fifth largest net exporter, and the eighth largest consumer

Just last week, in The Globe and Mail, David McKay, the president and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada, stated:

History has placed Canada at a crossroads. No other country of 37 million people has access to more natural resources – and the brainpower to convert those resources into sustainable growth for a stronger society.

And yet, Canada is at risk of taking the wrong turn at the crossroads because some believe there are only two paths: one for economic growth, and the other for environment.

We’re seeing this dilemma play out in Canada’s energy transition as we struggle to reconcile competing ideas.

We aspire to help the world meet its energy needs and move to ever-cleaner fuel sources. We aim to reduce our carbon footprint. We want Indigenous reconciliation and long-term partnership. And we hope to maintain the standard of living we have come to enjoy.

But without a balanced approach to harnessing our energy future, all of this is at risk.

We need to take a third path--one that will help us develop our natural resources, invest in clean technologies and ensure a prosperous Canada....

But we’re reaching a critical time in our country’s history.

As our resources sector copes with a growing crisis, we worry that Canada is not setting up our energy industry for growth and success in a changing world.

When I travel abroad, and proudly talk up our country, too many investors tell me they feel Canada's door is closed when it comes to energy. We need to change that impression immediately, because these investors are backing up their words with action.

According to a recent study from the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada has lost $100-billion in potential investment in oil and gas in the past two years.

We can’t forget that energy is not only part of the economic fabric of Canada, it also funds our social needs. The sector has contributed $90-billion to government revenues over the past five years, which covers about 10 per cent of what the country spends on health care, according to RBC Economics.

And if we squander our huge advantage and cede the dividends to other countries, we’ll also risk losing the opportunity to help combat the most daunting challenge of all – climate change.

The article ends with the following charge to government:

We can’t stay at a crossroads.

It’s time for Canada to pull together on a plan – one that re-energizes our place in the world.

The Conservatives have long viewed the north as a key driver of economic activity for Canada for decades to come. The Liberals, however, view the north as a place to create huge swaths of protected land and shut down economic activity.

Bill C-88 appears to be based in a desire to win votes in major urban centres rather than reduce poverty in remote regions of Canada. Northerners face the unique challenges of living in the north with resilience and fortitude. They want to create jobs and economic opportunities for their families. They deserve a government that has their backs.

We are at a crossroads and it is time for Canada to pull together a plan. The Conservatives are up to that challenge. We look forward to unveiling our plan and growing the economy in the next election for voters to decide for themselves who really has the best interests of Canadians.

Bill C-88—Time Allocation Motion

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we are hearing from the Liberals, every issue they are having is always somebody else's fault, whether it is Omar Khadr's $10.5-million payment, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India or the failure to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built, or any pipeline for that matter. It is always somebody else's fault.

However, I will speak to Bill C-88, which, I want to point out for the member opposite, repeals the restructuring of the four land and water boards, which the member opposite said very emphatically that she is against, and reintroduces regulatory provisions that were included in the Conservative government's Bill C-15. I would like to remind this House and the member opposite that when Bill C-15 was debated in the previous Parliament, Liberals, including the Prime Minister, voted in favour of the restructuring.

The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, speaking to Conservative Bill C-15 on February 11, 2014, stated, “As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought.”

Why does the Liberals' tone change now? Why all of a sudden are they against giving the north the power to control its own destiny and providing jobs, opportunity and wealth to make the north strong again?

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have not agreed on a few things at committee. Usually it has had to do with resource management, a price on pollution and how we can help restore the land we have poked holes in and put pollution above and the waters we have contaminated over the years, things indigenous people have watched us do and have had no control over.

I have travelled in northern Canada extensively, working in mines, in resource development and on hydro resources. They are not going anywhere. That is our land. We cannot transfer our minerals from Canada to other countries for other countries to mine. It is up to us to do that sustainably. It is up to us to work with our local indigenous leaders and indigenous communities to make sure that we are not polluting their water and ruining their air and that together we can create sustainable development in our north. We have to do it together.

In the previous Bill C-15, we saw that the Conservative government worked on jamming four land and water agreements into one without consulting or working on a way forward. That was the old way of doing things, and it did not work. We did not get resources developed, at the end of the day. We have to work together. It is painful for some of my colleagues, but we need a new way of doing business in Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the right process. It is a process that this government has been taking, and a process that the previous government did not take.

This goes back to what I said during the emergency debate on the oil prices in Alberta, which I will reiterate. The reason why Stephen Harper was unable to get any meaningful changes done with respect to the natural resource industry is because he continually bullied his way through the process. Rather than actually try and work with the environmental groups, work with indigenous communities to get them on board and get consensus, he completely ignored them. He forced them to take him to court, which resulted in the decision from the court to put the brakes on Bill C-15. He painted a target on the back of the industry that he was supposedly trying to help and supposedly trying to grow economically.

However, this is a balanced approach that respects all of the players involved. This is exactly the way that not just the Liberal government should do it but any government in this House should do it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attempt to inform me about what a particular member in the House said five years ago. I am not exactly sure that it relates to the content of what I had to say.

However, I will say that Bill C-15, which was brought in by Stephen Harper, was found by the courts to have significant flaws with it.

What this government has done with this particular piece of legislation is do the proper consultation from a scientific perspective and from a relationship perspective with indigenous communities. It has gone through the processes to make sure that everything is done properly so that when we do come back to the table it is done in a way that we are not bullying our way through particular industries or groups, and that it is done in a consultative way with everybody. That is exactly what we are seeing in the results of Bill C-88 today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House to talk about Bill C-88, its effects and what it proposes to do in strengthening the relationship that we have with the locals who would be impacted by the legislation in the Northwest Territories.

I would also like to say that it is an honour to stand here recognizing that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I am proud to support a bill that would strengthen the relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples.

Today, we begin second reading of Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I will use my time to focus primarily on the amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

The north is seeing the effects of climate change in a more significant and faster way than the rest of Canada. In fact, climate change in the north is occurring at twice the global rate as anywhere else that we are seeing. Scientists now predict that the north will be ice-free by 2040 as opposed to what they originally predicted which was 2100.

Climate change is having a profound impact on Canada's Arctic and the northern and indigenous peoples and communities. While some of the effects of climate change such as melting sea ice are creating economic opportunities, they are also creating new health and safety risks for northerners and negatively affecting core traditional lifestyles such as hunting and fishing.

It goes without saying that we are continually hearing more and more rhetoric coming from the Conservatives and the alt-right about how climate change is something that we cannot control and is something that we do not have the ability to really do anything about, that we just have to kind of accept it. There are those who now believe that climate change might actually be happening, but there is a whole host of others on the right who still do not accept it as reality. This is despite the fact that 99% of scientists are saying our climate is changing and a number almost equivalent to that are saying that mankind is creating that impact on our environment and it is only mankind that can actually stop it and reverse it.

To those who would suggest that climate change is something that we cannot control or that we should not believe the 97% of scientists who say it is man-made, I would offer to them if 97% of scientists or doctors came forward and said that someone had cancer, my guess is that most people would probably accept that and react in a way that they would do something about the diagnosis that they received.

It goes without saying that I am very puzzled that we are unable to exercise the same kind of judgment when we talk about climate change and the fact that there is such a worldwide cry out there with respect to what we need to be doing and doing now and acting now and changing our habits immediately so that we can have a lasting impact.

These changes are re-framing Canada's approach to the future development of Arctic offshore oil and gas in three ways.

One, climate change is changing the ecology and distribution of marine species which requires us to have a better understanding of what the risks are.

Two, climate change is altering the northern environment with more unpredictability in weather, ice and ocean behaviour. We need to better understand all of the factors influencing risks for workers and wildlife.

Three, we have to be sure that activities will be pursued responsibly. We want to strike the appropriate balance between economic opportunities and environmental protection. Development must be done in a way that respects and strengthens the reconciliation with indigenous peoples in the north.

I will take the opportunity now to comment briefly on the past 10 years. In the last couple of weeks, I have brought up the past government and its 10 years in power and how it was unable to accomplish anything when it came to our national resource development, in particular oil.

It is not because I do not think the Conservatives had the right intentions. They wanted to develop the resources, but their approach went in a direction that made it virtually impossible for them to develop those resources and get them to new markets.

Stephen Harper did a very good job of touting how the oil industry was going to be a super economic powerhouse for Canada and that we would distribute oil to free markets by getting it to access points for delivery to those markets. The problem is that in the process of doing that, he continually bullied his way through when dealing with environmental movements, climate change experts and indigenous communities throughout the country. He continually and systematically did things, such as bringing in Bill C-15, that were held up because they were dragged through the courts and because various other measures were taken to slow down the government's ability to open up our resources to new markets.

Essentially, while Stephen Harper was touting that this was going to be the next biggest thing in the Canadian economy, he was painting a huge target on the back of the industry, because he was undermining all of the processes and various players that would contribute to the discussion and the regulations to be developed in a responsible way. Our government, however, is doing the latter. That is what we saw with the moratorium and the legislation that came out of it. There was a massive amount of consultation with indigenous communities, and with respect to science and the rule of law, so that when something actually comes into play and new opportunities to explore natural resources occur, it can be done in a responsible way that respects the processes and the various players involved. That is something that Stephen Harper failed to do, but this government is doing it, and that why there is progress.

I respect the fact that the Conservatives are upset time and time again about the economy and how resources are being delivered and with the new approach of our government. Quite frankly, if I had been in their position for 10 years of inaction and then started to see real, tangible change happen in a way that would positively impact our economy and our relationships with scientists and indigenous communities, yes, I would be upset too if I were in their position, because they were unable to do anything about it and now they are seeing that there might be a process to move forward on this. What is their default reaction? It is to be obstructionist. They come here and tout that the way this is being handled is not going to produce any tangible results, but I guess time will tell.

Seven years from now, when we Liberals get to the end of our 10-year run, matching their 10-year run, we will have an opportunity to look back and see how effective we were over a 10-year period versus how effective they were. I would add that after 10 years, we will likely go for another 10 after that in an encore performance, so to speak, because the Canadian people understand it. They buy it and believe in the processes we are putting in place. They believe that a government should not to bully its way through various processes in government but make sure that it is consulting and bringing all players together, which is what this bill attempts to do and has done to get here.

I am aware of the importance of oil and gas activities to the economic prosperity and the social well-being of Canada. We recognize the important potential they have to strengthen Canada's economy in the north. However, acting in haste would be irresponsible and could cause permanent damage to our oceans and communities.

In 2016, the Prime Minister affirmed that commercial activities in the Arctic would occur only if the highest safety and environmental standards were met and if they were consistent with our climate and environmental goals. At least we have something to measure that against because we are taking the initiative to say what our plan is as it relates to the environment.

The Conservatives are going to complain about this all day long, saying that we have to do more to open the oil and gas sector, that we have to continue to make sure we can exploit the resources that we have, but at the same time, they have absolutely nothing to say when it comes to how they are going to protect the environment. As a matter of fact, their leader was asked that at the beginning of 2018, and he said they would be bringing forward their plan really soon. It has been almost 12 months since, and they still have virtually no plan.

I hear members of the Conservative Party laughing at this and heckling. They can put my rhetoric, if they claim that is what it is, to sleep by just standing up when the time comes in about nine minutes and tell us their plan for the environment. What would they do to properly protect the environment? I would—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder if the hon. member gets a gold star in the Liberal lobby every time he says “Stephen Harper”. Perhaps he gets a bonus cheque of some sort every time he mentions the name “Stephen Harper”.

Bill C-15 was so egregious and outrageous that the member opposite was forced to stand in his place and vote in favour of it. That is what he thought of Bill C-15 then, and now it is a catastrophe that has to be undone today.

Bill C-15 clearly and specifically contemplated all of the boards that were mentioned in the modern land claims agreements. Those were signed, and they all contemplated one larger board, which is the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. All of that had been built into those agreements.

We had over 50 meetings with aboriginal groups in that territory, and we came forward with a plan that was going to work for northerners. The member opposite clearly does not care about that, because as I have said before, for him, Ottawa always knows best when it comes to the north.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat discouraging to hear the comments of my colleague across the way. Bill C-88 is before us today in good part because of the reaction to Bill C-15. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister of Canada, he completely disregarded what was being told to him regarding how best to manage land and water resources. Stephen Harper came up with his own way, and his way did not work. That is why we have Bill C-88 today.

Now the member opposite is convincing us as to why we have to ensure that the Conservatives do not get power again in the future. All they are saying today is that they want to go back to the Stephen Harper days. It is as if Stephen Harper has not even left the chamber. Stephen Harper is alive and well behind those curtains, possibly.

Why would the Conservative Party continue to follow Stephen Harper when we know Stephen Harper was wrong on this and even a court said so?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to speak in the House and on an issue about which I am passionate, northern Canada.

Bill C-15, which we have heard referenced a number of times, was legislation of which I was very proud to have been a part. I was part of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We spent a lot of quality time in the Northwest Territories talking to people about making government work better for the people of the Northwest Territories. That is what Bill C-15 did. It devolved powers from Ottawa to the territories, something for which the Northwest Territories had been fighting and asking for decades. That is what our government delivered.

This bill, Bill C-88, basically formalizes in law one of the most egregious slaps in the face I think I have ever witnessed as an elected representative.

The Prime Minister went to Washington, D.C., to see his friend Barack Obama off. He had already termed out. He was in the lame duck portion of his presidency. The Prime Minister decided that it would be a good going away present to put a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Beaufort Sea in the Northwest Territories and he did it without consulting.

The current government likes to talk about consulting with indigenous people. However, when the rubber hits the road, it could not care less what the indigenous people of the country think unless it goes along with its preconceived notion of what it wants to do as a government. We saw that with the moratorium. We saw it as well with the northern gateway pipeline, where the Aboriginal Equity Partners, a group of 31 indigenous communities, had a $2 billion opportunity staring them in the face. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government shut that down with the stroke of a pen. Again, they did it from Ottawa.

When it comes to the Liberals, Ottawa always knows best and when it comes to indigenous peoples and the Liberals, Ottawa always knows best. We saw that with the moratorium and the northern gateway pipeline. They feel they have no obligation to consult when it comes to the economic opportunities they rip away from indigenous communities. They ripped away opportunities from the Aboriginal Equity Partners. They again ripped away opportunities from northerners with this moratorium.

The member for Northwest Territories said that there was no oil and gas development happening there. Is that any surprise? Why would any company invest its hard-earned dollars in a jurisdiction when a government, with 20 minutes notice, can shut the whole thing down? In the case of the northern gateway pipeline, there was three-quarters of a billion dollars of private company investment and the government shut it down with the stroke of a pen, ripping away $2 billion of economic opportunity from a group of aboriginal communities in a region of the country that has very little other economic opportunity.

What was the reaction from the northerners when this was done? The Northwest Territories premier, Bob McLeod, said very clearly, “The promise of the North is fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we see a re-emergence of colonialism.” He was talking about the approach of the Prime Minister and the government, with its colonial approach, shutting down development because it would play well with Barack Obama, the green lobby and southern Canada. They did not care at all what the reality would be in the north.

The premier also stated, “We shouldn't have to stop our own development so the rest of Canada can feel better.” He went on to say, “We need jobs. We need work. You want us to leave the North because we can't work there. You want us to live in a large park. That's essentially what's happened.”

The Premier of the Northwest Territories gets exactly what the Prime Minister is trying to do, which is to make the Northwest Territories, Canada's north in general, Nunavut and Yukon, into a great protected space, where Ottawa will just keep sending up the money and the northerners will not have the ability to control their own natural resources and destiny. That is what Bill C-15 did. It gave control of the north to those who lived there, to the northerners. It brought into line the regulatory processes and regime with what was happening in the rest of Canada.

In a way, I guess Bill C-88 would do the same thing. The Liberal government brought in Bill C-69, which will devastate and kill resource development in this country. Everyone in the industry says so. Everyone in oil and gas knows that Bill C-69 will devastate them. The entire province of Alberta, from the NDP to the United Conservative Party and all points in between are saying that Bill C-69 has to be removed. The government must repeal Bill C-69, or at least pause it.

The Liberals say, “We know best. We are the federal government.” Here in Ottawa, in their wisdom, even though the price of oil is now down to $10 a barrel, a price differential of $50 between a barrel on the world market and what Albertan oil companies can sell it for, in their wisdom the Liberals say that is not a problem and that their hearts go out to them.

With Bill C-88, they are saying that since Bill C-69 devastated the resource economy in the rest of Canada, they need to partner it with legislation specific to the north, which would be Bill C-88, and would prevent oil and gas development in that region. What these Liberals do not seem to understand is that when capital investment is driven away, it does not simply turn around on a dime and come back when the moratorium might be lifted some day in the future.

It is the same as we have seen in Alberta. When these companies pack up and leave, when they are driven out of the country by government policies, as they have been by the Liberal government, they do not simply turn around and come back with their billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs on a whim. It will take decades to repair the damage the government has done in three short years. It will take decades to build back the capacity and investor confidence that has evaporated since the Liberal government has taken office.

Why has it evaporated? The government has taken the processes in place and politicized them for its own gains. The Liberals have said, “We do not care that the National Energy Board has conducted an independent two-year long, $750-million investigation of the northern gateway pipeline, with 209 conditions placed upon it. We do not care about that because we know best. We are going to cancel that pipeline. We are going to make it impossible for the energy east pipeline to go ahead. We are going to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, just park it and see what happens in a few years after the next election.”

Companies have abandoned this country in the billions of dollars and in the tens of thousands of workers. This legislation is just another example of that sort of philosophy where Ottawa knows best. The government certainly thinks it knows best when it comes to indigenous communities. Bob McLeod and many others in the north have said to the government, “We earn our living with oil and gas revenues. We work in these industries, and you are taking away opportunity from our people.” However, the Liberal government does not believe it needs to talk to those people who actually support resource development. It believes it only needs to talk to people who support the Liberal government's agenda.

When I hear the Prime Minister say that there is no relationship more important than that with Canada's indigenous people, his record proves it is simply untrue. With certain indigenous people, the ones who agree with him, he is very into maintaining that relationship. However, for those who disagree with the Prime Minister, or those who have an agenda and want to pursue economic development for their people, the Prime Minister does not have to consult with them, because Ottawa knows best. That is what this legislation is, an Ottawa-knows-best, made-in-southern-Canada solution for northerners.

It is unlike our previous government, which wanted to see the north thrive. We wanted to promote northern sovereignty. We wanted to promote devolution of powers to northerners because they know best how to govern themselves. They do not need a prime minister going down to Washington, D.C., to tell them how to do it.

We will proudly vote against this legislation, and when we form government in 2019, we will work to rebuild the damage the Liberal government has done in this country.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the invitation. Unfortunately, tonight we have some votes in the House of Commons, so we cannot make the reception, but we will be there tomorrow on behalf of the Conservative Party.

It is interesting, because when we look at Bill C-88, it consists of two parts. Part 1 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which was initially passed under the Chrétien Liberals back in 1998, 20 years ago. Of course it was amended by our former Conservative government within Bill C-15, for which the Liberals, who were third party back in 2014, voted.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are going to have to agree to disagree. There is legislation before us that would rectify a serious flaw in Bill C-15. If the member reflected on what I said in Hansard about Bill C-15, I am sure he would find that I was somewhat critical of the government for not working with the communities to bring forward legislation that reflected what I believed, at the time, would have been a much better approach than the Stephen Harper attitude toward consultations. The legislation before us today has taken the time it has because the government has been working with the people of the Northwest Territories, other stakeholders, indigenous groups and many other individuals.

With regard to the moratorium, I suspect that we would find fairly good support from all regions of the country, including the Northwest Territories, on the value of ensuring that we have a process that protects our environment. That was the primary purpose of the moratorium. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that the environment is worth fighting for.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister credit. He has united everyone in Alberta against him. That is what he has done. That is all he has done.

I want to get back to the issue at hand. The member talked about the previous government's Bill C-15. He must have thought it was okay, because he voted in favour of it. The Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-15, and now he is pretending that it was an egregious piece of legislation that had to be withdrawn.

The member also talked about the moratorium on offshore oil and gas as being great for Canada. Maybe he should talk to Premier Bob McLeod, who felt that it was so egregious, he issued a red alert on the colonial attack on the territories' oil and gas future. He said, “The promise of the North is fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we see a re-emergence of colonialism.”

When the Prime Minister announced the offshore moratorium, he did it from Washington, D.C., and did not even have the courtesy to inform Bob McLeod until an hour before he made that announcement with Barack Obama, as Barack Obama was on his way out of office as a lame duck president.

Conservatives will take no lessons from the Liberal Party, which treats northerners as though Ottawa knows best. That is what the member just said. He confirmed again that the offshore moratorium, which was an insult to northerners, was actually a great thing for Canada. Why does he not stand up and apologize to the people of the north?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the many issues that come before the House, and this bill is yet another good example of legislation that has been well done.

At the end of the day, members will see there is wide support for the legislation in the communities that are most impacted. More than that, I would suggest that Canadians as a whole have confidence in this government's ability to manage our resources in a fair fashion that sees the national interest served, that the environment is addressed and ensures that consultations take place, whether they are with indigenous people, provincial or territorial governments or organizations. We take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, we have seen ministers of the Crown make a great deal of effort in reaching out to the many different communities and to stakeholders. Ultimately, it allows us to put together the type of legislation that we have.

If there is one single aspect of this legislation that we need to make note of, it would likely be how Bill C-88 would fix a problem that was created by Stephen Harper a number of years ago when the government at the time brought in Bill C-15. Members from both sides of the House have referred to Bill C-15.

I had the opportunity to address the bill a number of years ago when I was on the opposition benches. If memory serves me correctly, I was somewhat critical of the inability of Stephen Harper's government to work with the different stakeholders, and I would put a special emphasis on indigenous people. I remember talking with my colleague from the north, the member for Yukon, about this particular issue when the Conservatives were making some of these changes. I remember how passionate he was as a northerner, and also as an elected official in recognizing the harm that was being caused.

Fast forward to today, and as I listened to my colleague from the Northwest Territories speak to the legislation, I have a better understanding of how he and his family have been long-time advocates for the issues in the Northwest Territories, which could be broadened to include northern Canada. One cannot help but be inspired by the level of dedication and strong sense of commitment to ensure that what we are doing is moving us forward in the right direction. This is why I thought it was important to listen to the member for Northwest Territories, as he has a great deal of knowledge on such an important issue.

The Prime Minister talked a great deal, even before the last national election, about the issue of indigenous people, and ensuring that they are enabled to provide the strong and healthy leadership we know they are very capable of and to ensure that they are sitting at the table. The Prime Minister often talks about the importance of that relationship.

I have listened to the questions and comments coming from the Conservatives. However, I can see within the questions and comments from my colleague and friend from the Northwest Territories his caring attitude in regard to what was done and what it is that this legislation is attempting to undo.

Let me be a bit more specific. Bill C-15 says that we have these land and water management boards that were responsible for different geographical areas. Through Bill C-15, the Conservatives wanted to get rid of those boards in favour of one super board.

If that had been an honest reflection of what was being pushed for by the affected communities, I suspect there would have been more sympathy toward at least that very aspect of Bill C-15. There was a great deal of resistance to the bill. There are communities today that feel fairly positive about the way Bill C-88 would reverse that aspect of Bill C-15.

I wanted to highlight that for the simple reason that at the end of the day we want there to be a sense of fairness among the different decision-makers. By recognizing the important role that not one so-called super board would play but that those local, decentralized boards would play is a positive step forward.

It might take some time to work over some of the issues as a result of the actions taken by the Stephen Harper Conservatives at the time but we have to recognize that Bill C-88 is a move forward in the right direction.

I had the opportunity to do a bit of research thanks to Google maps just to get a sense of the Mackenzie Valley. It is a huge area. The basin that feeds into the Mackenzie River is probably larger than the land mass of most countries around the world. We are talking about a significant amount of land and waterways. I understand it begins in Fort Providence, where my colleague from Northwest Territories calls home nowadays, which is really the southern beginning of the valley.

Even though I have never had the pleasure to visit that area, I have seen, as I am sure all members have seen, documentaries and films, through which I got a fairly good sense of everything that the Northwest Territories has to offer. From what I have seen, that mass of land and water is most impressive.

The Prime Minister decided that we needed that moratorium. It is interesting to note that the Conservative member who spoke before me asked about the national interest. I would suggest that the moratorium was in the national interest. Not only was it in the interest of the Northwest Territories but it was in the national interest.

Canadians genuinely are concerned about their environment. They are concerned about how we draw resources out of the environment and transport them.

Canadians understand and appreciate that the people who really know the area the best are the people who call that area home. They really have the experience and the knowledge to ensure that the types of decisions being made take our environment into consideration.

Dealing with things of this nature has to factor in indigenous people and other stakeholders. I am quite pleased with the way the government has said that we want to make sure that the types of consultations that were required were going to be done, and that is why it has taken as long as it has to come before the House. There is so much to lose if we do not do this right. I look to those leaders in the Northwest Territories to provide strong leadership on this front.

I do not question how important it is to protect our environment, but I also know how important it is that we continue to develop our communities, economically in particular, and how that economic growth benefits people who live in the northwest or live in northern Canada but also benefits everyone in Canada.

I will go back to that concept of the national interest. There are many Canadians who travel to the north periodically, whether for tourism or other reasons. Tourism in the area, my colleagues from the north will tell us, has fantastic potential for growth and that is one of the reasons we want to protect our harbour and the environment. I suspect that there is a growing demand for workers from down south to be able to be able to fulfill some of that potential for growth into the future. In fact, I was talking to my friend from Yukon. He was telling me how the Filipino community is starting to grow up north.

A big part of economic development is to ensure that the government has the financial resources to provide the types of programs that we have heard about today, whether it is health care, education, training programs or protection of our environment. All of these take money and one of the ways we can accrue the financial resources to provide those types of services to Canadians is through the development of our natural resources.

Let there be no doubt that there is a great deal of development potential in Canada's north. If we work with others and look for the leadership of those who are living in the communities, we can actually manage that development in such a way that everyone wins. This is something that as a government we have demonstrated that we are committed to doing. I could give tangible examples.

Conservative after Conservative have stood up today in their place and been critical of this government's inability to get a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean for markets out in that area, looking at China and beyond. However, what the Conservatives do not tell us is that this government, in managing both the environment and the economy and working collaboratively with the stakeholders, in particular indigenous people and provincial governments, was able to accomplish something that Stephen Harper could not accomplish in 10 years.

For the first time in many years, we now have the potential to see a pipeline that will deliver our commodity to other regions of the world, outside the United States. Some of my Conservative colleagues are snickering at that comment, but that is the reality. Even today, the Minister of Natural Resources made reference to the fact that when Stephen Harper became prime minister, over 99% of our oil commodity was being sold into the United States. After being the prime minister for 10 years, the Conservatives had failed Canadians, failed Albertans and they did not materialize, as this government did materialize, in a very real and tangible way.

The Conservatives are critical and ask about the national interest. I would suggest that is a very good example of why we bought the pipeline. I am very proud that we have a government that is committed to ensuring that we manage our natural resources and the many different commodities that we have.

The government is not prepared to forsake the environment, to forsake the importance of having individuals living in those communities engaged, and that is what I like about Bill C-88. It reinforces the importance of that, and it does it primarily through getting rid of the one aspect of Bill C-15 that was so poorly received by the communities directly affected. That is one of the reasons why I suspect that this legislation will get support from all political entities within the chamber, with one possible exception. I should not say the possible exception, I understand the Conservatives will be opposing the legislation.

However, I do believe there is better understanding coming from the other parties in the House. I believe that if the Conservatives would start listening a little more to what Canadians have to say about a series of important public issues, they, too, might be more inclined to recognize the merits of Bill C-88 and get behind the legislation itself.

I want to highlight a couple of other issues that I think are important to recognize. There is a cost recovery component to the legislation, where the bill includes a regulation making authority for cost recovery. This would allow cost recovery from proponents on major development proposals undergoing environmental impact assessments, as well as ensuring a water licensing process undertaken by a land and water board. The issue of cost recovery has been talked about a great deal over the years, and I thought it had received fairly wide support from all sides of the House.

There are administrative monetary penalties within the legislation. The bill proposes a scheme for administrative monetary penalties through regulations, including the power to designate the offences under the act that may be considered violations. The determination of the penalty amounts for each violation, the maximum amount for these penalties would be $25,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations.

I want to also recognize that the legislation provides some certainty for industries, which is also very important, given the moratorium that was put in place. However, let us recognize that the moratorium was a good thing for Canada. It was a very good thing.

At the end of the day, this is a government that takes our environment seriously, unlike the Conservatives. This is a government that understands the importance of the development of our natural resources, and it is a government that recognizes the importance of working with people.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are again with another anti-energy policy from the current Liberal government that is driving energy investment out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and significantly increasing poverty in certain regions, especially in the north.

I am speaking to Bill C-88, because I am concerned that the changes it would make would politicize oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of this Liberal government to block economic development. It would take local control and environmental stewardship away from the aboriginal people of the region and would inhibit local, territorial governments from doing what is best for the people of the area. I am speaking of the Mackenzie Delta.

I see that my friend across the way is smiling, because he is very proud of the region he has grown up in.

Bill C-88 is not just another Liberal anti-energy bill, like Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and Bill C-86. These bills could block all future pipelines, giving the government the authority to unilaterally shut down natural resource development. It is now systematically going after the Northwest Territories, as it has done with our western provinces.

Only a few people get to visit the Mackenzie Delta or travel the pristine waters of the Mackenzie River. Those who do find it breathtaking, due to its vast biological and ecological formations.

When Sir Alexander Mackenzie travelled the Mackenzie River in 1789, he was astonished by its sparse population and the pristine beauty of the region. As members may know, the river was named after him. That is for a few of my Liberal colleagues across the way, except for the member for the Northwest Territories.

I count myself fortunate, no, I should say I count myself blessed and lucky, to have been able to travel from the start of the Peace and Athabasca rivers, which are the headwaters of the Mackenzie River, and I have followed it as it flows, leading to the Beaufort Sea in the north. This pristine area, rich in ecological wealth, covers an area of just under two million square kilometres, and its drainage basin encompasses one-fifth of Canada. This is the second-largest river in North America, next to the Mississippi River.

Oil and gas have been part of this region since 1921. There are also mines of uranium, gold, diamond, lead and zinc in the area. During World War II, a pipeline was built from Norman Wells to Whitehorse, in Yukon. It carried crucial petroleum products needed during World War II and helped Canada and the United States build the Alaska Highway, which significantly helped Canada during the war. It is called the Canol Pipeline, and it still exists today.

At a very young age, I personally met and was inspired by one of Canada's great leaders. That was Mr. John Diefenbaker, whose statue sits at the rear of this building. He was a leader of great wisdom and vision who led our country to where it is today. I remember he once said, “I see a new Canada—a Canada of the North.” This is what he thought of and envisioned. He spoke of giving the people of northern Canada the right to develop their resources, protect their environment and maintain and develop strong economies in the region. Diefenbaker saw the need for the people of the north to do this, not the Government of Canada.

One of Canada's leading novelists of the same era, Hugh MacLennan, a Liberal visionary, noted at the time that by 2061, the Mackenzie Delta would have three million people living along the banks and shores of the river and that people's pockets would be full of money from the wealth of the region. He said there would be at least two universities built in the Mackenzie Delta area.

That Liberal's prediction was wrong, and the actions of my Liberal friends across the way from me are also wrong.

There are roughly 10,000 people living along the Mackenzie River Delta, in places like Wrigley, Tulita, Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope, Fort McPherson, Inuvik, Aklavik and Tuktoyaktuk. I have been to those communities and I know the people.

There are 68 aboriginal groups that also live in this region. I have had the pleasure and honour of gathering and socializing with them to discuss their issues. We used to gather at the Petitot River. I have been there a number of times. To me, they are the real stewards of the land, not organizations like CPAWS, the David Suzuki Foundation or others that have the ear of the environment minister. The aboriginal groups are the real Canadian environmentalists and the real stewards of the land.

Recently, Merven Gruben, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, testified at the committee on indigenous and northern affairs. He said that the Liberal government should be helping northern communities. Instead, it shut down the offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole Arctic without even consulting communities. He also said that people in his town like to work for a living and are not used to getting social assistance. Now, all they are getting are the few tourists coming up the new highway. That makes for small change compared to when they worked in the oil and gas sector.

They are the people of the Mackenzie River Delta. Our Conservative government gave them the power to manage their resources in a true, healthy and respectful manner that only the people of the region can do. This was done through Bill C-15, which created the Northwest Territories Devolution Act of 2014.

Our former Conservative government viewed the north as a key driver of economic activity for decades to come, but this Liberal government is arbitrarily creating huge swaths of protected land with little or no consultation with aboriginal communities, while other Arctic nations are exploring possibilities within their respective areas.

Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for the increased control of their natural resources. It consists of two parts. Part A would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998. Part B would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders. That scares me.

What about the provisions that were introduced by the former Conservative government within Bill C-15's Northwest Territories Devolution Act? Bill C-88 would reverse these changes, even though Liberal MPs voted in favour of Bill C-15 when it was debated in Parliament, including the Prime Minister.

Now the Liberals want to reverse the former government's proposal to consolidate the four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley into one. I believe this is so that they can take control. The creation of a single board was a key recommendation that would address “complexity and capacity issues by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources” and would allow for administrative practices to be “understandable and consistent”. When Bill C-15 was debated in the House of Commons in 2013 and 2014, the restructured board was included in the final version of the modern land claim agreements.

The Liberals would further politicize the regulatory and environmental processes for resource extraction in Canada's north by giving cabinet sweeping powers to stop projects on the basis of “national interest”. This reveals a rejection of calls from northerners for increased control of their national resources.

The Liberal government should leave the people of northern Canada with their resources and let them be their own environmentalists and stewards of the land. They know it the best.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, he said the Liberals would be creating a more efficient system. The reason Bill C-15 amalgamated the boards was based out the McCrank report, which had indicated some significant issues in efficiency, capacity and ability to do things. Therefore, basically the Liberals are reversing things.

The Liberals intend to go back to the original system. What have they done to respond to the issues in the McCrank report outline some serious efficiency problems? On the face of it, what they are doing is moving from what was proposed to be a much more robust system to something more inefficient.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. I would like to start by saying that the overall position of the NDP on this bill is that northerners know best how to manage their own resources. We will be supporting this bill at second reading but feel there are some areas where important improvements could be made.

This bill is part of a series of measures the Canadian government has made over the past half-century or so to bring more democracy to the north and end the colonial style of government that has been in place since Confederation. It seems, though, that every step forward has some steps backward and this bill perhaps is no exception. This is a bit of an omnibus bill.

I just want to point out that although the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo mentioned that the NDP and Liberals voted for Bill C-15, that was because it was an omnibus bill on the devolution of power to the Northwest Territories. We were all in favour of the bill and then the former Conservative government tacked on that poison pill which cut down indigenous rights. We supported it, even though we had concerns about that last part of it.

This is a bit of an omnibus bill. It sets out to do two different things. First, it would repeal parts of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which was passed in the last Parliament and, second, it would bring into force an announced a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in offshore waters in the Canadian Arctic. Bill C-15, passed in 2014, was a bit of an omnibus bill. The bulk of that bill dealt with the devolution of powers from the federal government to territorial government. The general public opinion in the north was that this was a great thing. It was reversing the tide of colonialism and giving back more powers to northerners to manage their own affairs.

However, the second part of Bill C-15 went back on that, eliminating four regional land and water boards and replacing them with a single super board. Those four boards were created out of land claims agreements and negotiations with various first nations in the Mackenzie Valley area and the new super board significantly reduced the input that those first nations would have on resource management decisions.

Since 1967, much of the political history of the Northwest Territories has been one of de-colonialization through the devolution of powers from the federal government, and there have been four settled land claims in the Northwest Territories since then.

First, the lnuvialuit agreement covers the northern part of the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea region and the Northwest Territories portion of the Arctic Archipelago. The region is outside the areas covered in the regional land and water boards covered in Bill C-88 but does bear on the second part of the offshore oil and gas exploration.

Second, the Gwich'in agreement covers the southern portion of the Mackenzie Delta and the northern part of the Mackenzie Mountains.

Third, the Sahtu Dene and Métis agreement covers the region around Great Bear Lake and the adjacent Mackenzie Mountains.

Fourth, the Salt River Treaty Land Entitlement covers an area near the town of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. This agreement does not involve the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

There are two more agreements in place now in the Northwest Territories: the Deline self-government agreement for a community covered by the Sahtu agreement, and the Tlicho land, resources and self-government agreement covering the area north of Great Slave Lake.

These agreements are modern-day treaties that create and confirm indigenous rights and are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. The Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho agreements contain provision for the creation of a system of co-management boards enacted by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. On each of these boards, there are four members and a chair. Two of the four members are nominated or appointed by the Gwich'in, Sahtu or Tlicho, so that they have an equal partnership in those decisions.

In parts of the Northwest Territories where there is no settled land claim, the main board created by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, is in operation. In the lnuvialuit Settlement Region, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conducts environmental assessments.

On December 3, 2013, the Harper government introduced Bill C-15, which was primarily meant to implement the provisions in the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement. However, as I mentioned, it contained this poison pill in the form of changes to the land and water co-management boards created by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Harper bill eliminated the regional boards in favour of a single superboard consisting of 10 members and a chair. Bill C-15 also changed the process by which members of the single board were appointed and only provided for a single representative from the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho. These groups went from having an equal partnership, two of four members, to only having one in 10 members on this superboard. These changes were wildly and widely unpopular in the Northwest Territories and contrary to the wishes of northerners, as reported by a consultation process launched by the Conservatives prior to bringing forward Bill C-15.

The member previously mentioned the McCrank report. There was a consultation process about that report, but the first nations, when told about these options, said not to do this and that they did not like it. It is not consultation if we just tell first nations what is going to happen. We have to try to make accommodation, and that is exactly what did not happen here. I have some quotes about what first nations and Métis groups thought of this.

Jake Heron from the Métis Nation said that it's very frustrating when you're at the table and you think you're involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously.

Bob Bromley, an MLA in the Northwest Territories said, “The federal government's proposal to collapse the regional land water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.” He also said that a single board “does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation.”

Dennis Bevington, a former MP for the Northwest Territories said, “I don't think that's fair to the people that went into the devolution agreement, people like the Tlicho who agreed to the devolution deal because it had some separation from the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I think it's inappropriate.”

Bill C-15 received royal assent on March 25, 2014. Shortly afterward, the Tlicho and Sahtu launched lawsuits asking for declarations of portions of the devolution act to have no force or effect and an interim injunction to stop the Government of Canada from taking steps to implement those provisions of Bill C-15 that affected the regional board structure for the Mackenzie Valley. On February 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted that injunction to the Tlicho. The federal government immediately began appeal proceedings to lift the injunction, but with the defeat of the Harper government, Canada began consultations with Northwest Territories indigenous governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The result is Bill C-88 before us today, which would reverse those changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Last night, I happened to be sitting next to Grace Blake on the plane flying from Toronto to Ottawa. She is a Gwich'in leader from Tsiigehtchic. She was very happy to hear that Bill C-88 would keep the land and water boards in place. I think her feelings are representative of most residents of the Northwest Territories.

A representative from the Tlicho, Ryan Fequet, said, “The current land and water boards' composition reflects 50-50 decision-making between first nations and the federal government, and I think the superboard's proposed structure would have changed that, and that's why various parties voiced their concerns.”

I will now go to the second part of Bill C-88, which deals with the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

As other members have mentioned, this began back in late 2016 when the Prime Minister was meeting with President Barack Obama and they both gave what was called the United States-Canada joint Arctic leaders' statement. In that, Barack Obama said that the U.S. is designating “the vast majority of U.S. waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas as indefinitely off limits to offshore oil and gas leasing.”

At the same time, it seemed that Canada felt obliged to designate all Arctic Canadian waters as indefinitely off limits to future offshore Arctic oil and gas licensing, to be reviewed every five years through a climate and marine science-based life-cycle assessment. The Prime Minister made this decision without properly consulting any form of government in the north. As was mentioned, he gave everybody a phone call 20 minutes before the fact.

Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod reacted by issuing a red alert calling for an urgent national debate on the future of the Northwest Territories and saying that the Prime Minister's announcement was the re-emergence of colonialism.

He added:

We spent a lot of time negotiating a devolution agreement, and we thought the days were gone when we'd have unilateral decisions made about the North in some faraway place like Ottawa, and that northerners would be making the decisions about issues that affected northerners.

In response to the Prime Minister's unilateral action, the Premier of Nunavut, Peter Taptuna, stated:

We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development.

And at the same time, when one potential source of revenue is taken off the table, it puts us back at practically Square 1 where Ottawa will make the decisions for us.

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation also raised concerns. Duane Smith, the CEO, stated:

There was a total lack of consultation prior to the imposition of the moratorium. This and the subsequent changes to key legislation impacting our marine areas are actions inconsistent with the way the Crown is required to engage with its Indigenous counterparts.

I happened to talk to Mr. Smith about this subject when I was at the Generation Energy Forum meetings in Winnipeg in October 2017, a year later, and he was still hopping mad about this.

In response to the concerns of northerners, Canada began a consultation process and agreed in October 2018 to begin talks with the territorial governments and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to reach a co-management and revenue-sharing agreement. Meanwhile, the current oil and gas development moratorium remains in place, to be reviewed in 2021.

Now I would like to speak to how this bill could be improved.

For one thing, despite the fact that the government supported my colleague's private member's bill on putting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into every appropriate legislation that the government produces, there is no mention of that at all in this bill. Again, I talked to first nations leaders and they are very frustrated with the government over all the talk and no action in that regard.

The second place that it could be improved, and I will mention this a little later, is through a real commitment for intervenor funding in the review processes that this bill puts forward. There is no mention of that and it is a critical part of any proper consultation.

Outside this bill there are still so many more important areas that the government could be taking action on, such as with respect to first nations drinking water. Seventy-three per cent of drinking water systems are considered at high or medium risk, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

With respect to indigenous housing, estimates from the First Nations Financial Management Board pegged the housing infrastructure gap on reserve at between $3 billion and $5 billion. This was the main thing mentioned to me by Grace who was sitting next to me on the plane last night. Her concern is housing, housing, housing.

With respect to indigenous schooling, whether we look at physical infrastructure, teachers or dropout rates, critical gaps remain. Less than a quarter of indigenous students who started grade 9 went on to finish high school. We really have to step up the game and fix these gaps.

The government has to stop fighting indigenous people in court. Currently, there are thousands of court cases going on between Canada and indigenous people, including 528 specific land claims and 70 comprehensive land claims.

The government has to fix the high cost of food in the north by replacing the nutrition north program with one that actually assists northerners in affording nutritious foods.

It should settle the two outstanding land resource and self-government processes in the Northwest Territories with the Dehcho and the Akaitcho.

I want to finish by mentioning a process that really brought northern resource management issues, and specifically management issues in the Mackenzie Valley, to the attention of southerners and radically changed the way northerners took control of their resource decisions. That was the Mackenzie Valley inquiry, or the Berger inquiry, as it is popularly known. It began with pipeline plans in the early 1970s to bring oil and gas from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, across the north, over the Yukon to the Mackenzie Valley, as well as two separate plans for pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley into Alberta. The Liberal government at the time commissioned Justice Thomas Berger to create an inquiry that would look into the situation and figure out what northerners wanted, what the impacts of those projects would be on the north and how the government should best proceed.

Justice Berger started in 1974. He travelled to every community in the area, 35 communities, in the affected region. Everyone who wanted to testify was heard. Several days were usually spent in each community. For instance, in Old Crow, in the Gwich'in territory in northern Yukon, 81 people out of a population of 250 testified, many in the Gwich'in language. Five other languages made up the testimony from the other communities. Anyone who wanted to speak was heard carefully and respectfully.

The Berger inquiry also set the standard for intervenor funding. I mentioned that earlier. That money is used to allow concerned citizens to travel and speak at hearings. In 1977, Justice Berger released his findings. He found that the environmental impacts of a pipeline across the Arctic slope of the Yukon would be too great to justify the benefits. Instead, he recommended much of that area be protected from development.

Therefore, in 1984, Ivvavik National Park was created in the Inuvialuit settlement region. In 1995, Vuntut National Park was created in the Gwich'in area of northern Yukon. I had the pleasure and the privilege of visiting those areas.

In 1983, I spent the summer doing biological surveys in the Old Crow area and spent 10 days on Herschel Island, just off the coast of the Beaufort Sea. It was a wonderful time on Herschel. Liz Mackenzie and her two daughters were the only permanent residents there. They were Inuvialuit. They kept us well fed with bannock and fresh Arctic char. I rafted down the Firth River in 1995. I saw muskox and caribou. The porcupine caribou herd calves along the Arctic coast of Alaska and migrates through this area. It is because of those protections that the porcupine herd is literally one of the only caribou herds in Canada still doing well these days. Most caribou herds are declining drastically.

As for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, Justice Berger pointed out that land claims negotiations were just taking place in the Mackenzie watershed, so he placed a 10-year moratorium on any decision in that region to allow those agreements to be finished. The Berger inquiry is really the gold standard of consultation in Canada. If anyone in the government is interested in what good, proper consultation looks like, this is it. People were heard and accommodations were made.

If we look at the leaders of today in Northwest Territories, many of those leaders began their career by being inspired by leading their people in the Berger inquiry. In an article Ian Waddell wrote on this, he mentioned a few of those names. There was Nellie Cournoyea, who worked for the committee on the original people's entitlement, the Inuvialuit group. She later became the premier of Northwest Territories. Dave Porter, who used to carry equipment for the CBC crew, became a great aboriginal leader in Yukon. Jim Antoine, then the young chief of the Fort Simpson Dene became the premier of Northwest Territories. Georges Erasmus, who appeared before the inquiry for the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, later the Dene Nation, became the head chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and on and on.

I will finish by saying that northerners, regardless of descent, overwhelmingly support land, resource and self-government agreements and the co-management processes created by them. Northerners see these processes as de-colonialism. Resource extraction is the only viable form of economic development available to northerners, and while they want strong environmental protections for any resource development, northerners want to be equal partners in making these decisions.

We support Bill C-88, and we support this process of the devolution of powers to territorial and indigenous governments They must continue to eliminate colonialism within our country.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to note that the NDP also voted for Bill C-15, so it was a pretty straightforward Northwest Territories devolution bill.

The NDP members love to say that we did not care about the environment and that our environmental bills created undue challenges. I hear that all the time, but I had never seen an example anywhere of where our attempts to create an environmentally appropriate, responsive regime created any negative impact on the environment, period. The legislation that we put into place had no negative impacts. I challenge anyone to bring an example of something somewhere that created some harm to the environment because it helped to move things along, but there was certainly a lot of noise so people lost trust in what was a good regime.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Liberals did actually support Bill C-15, which is what they are now backtracking on, so I want to make that important note.

The Liberals love to say that the economy and the environment go together and they are going a great job on both. Frankly, they are doing a terrible job on both.

When we look at what is happening in Alberta, at GM, at the softwood lumber industry, where I just heard there are going to be some layoffs in terms of the forestry in my riding, the Liberals are certainly not doing a very good job in terms of the economy. They might have benefited from a solid U.S. economy and a housing boom, but they sure have not benefited from creating long-term jobs that are going to be important for our future.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I get into the details of the bill, it is important to look at the context with respect to what has been happening over the past three years and what is starting to be a real pattern of the Liberal government. The decisions it makes consistently increase red tape and bureaucracy, and are mostly anti-resource development. This bill is no different.

I would like to talk about a few areas to show the context, which will then show that this follows a pattern that adds to what is becoming an increasing concern in the country, and that is the ability to move our natural resources forward.

When the Prime Minister took office, there were three private companies willing to invest more than $30 billion to build three nation-building pipelines that would have generated tens of thousands of jobs and billions in economic opportunity. The Prime Minister and his cabinet killed two and put the Trans Mountain expansion on life support. Bill C-69 would block all future pipelines.

In addition, the government has made a number of arbitrary decisions regarding natural resource development, with absolutely no consultation with those impacted. Today, we only need to look at what is happening in Alberta with the hundreds of thousands of job losses. Who has ever heard of a premier having to decrease the production of a needed resource throughout the country and the world because we simply cannot get resources to the market? This is because of the government's failure.

The northern gateway project was approved by the former government in June 2014. It had a number of conditions on it, just like the current Trans Mountain project does.

In November 2015, just one month after being elected, the Prime Minister killed the project without hesitation. It was subject to a court challenge. When we did finally hear what came out of that court challenge, to be frank, it was nothing that could not be overcome. We could have dealt with that.

The court decision told the Prime Minister to engage in consultation in a more appropriate and balanced way. The court really gave what I would call a recipe for perhaps fixing some problems with the process.

Did he wait for the court decision? No. He went out and killed it flat. With this approved pipeline, he did not wait for a court decision or wait to see how it could move forward. He decided that he did not want that one.

I think we are all pretty aware of the Trans Mountain pipeline. It has been moving along for many years. We know that many first nations support it and hope to see it go through, as they see enormous opportunities for their communities. Of course, others are against it.

What happened in this case? When the Liberals came to government, they decided they had to have an additional consultation process. However, did they follow the directions of the court in the northern gateway decision in which the court was very clear about what the government had to do to do consultations properly? Apparently not. When the court decision came down, we learned otherwise. To be frank, it was much to my surprise, because the Liberals talked about how well they were consulting and that they were putting this additional process in place. The court said that the Liberals did not do the job. What they did was send a note-taker and not a decision-maker.

The fact that the Liberals did not consult properly on the Trans Mountain pipeline is strictly on their laps, as they had very clear guidance from the northern gateway decision and they did not do what they needed to do. They should be ashamed of themselves. Had they done a proper process, they likely would not have had to buy the pipeline, the pipeline would be in construction right now and we would be in a lot better place as a country. With respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline, the blame for where we are on that pipeline lies strictly on the laps of the Liberals.

I also want to note, in spite of what people say, that the courts have said the process was okay, so it has nothing to do with environmental legislation by the previous government or with anything the Conservatives had put in place. It was the Liberals' execution of a flawed process.

Energy east was another one. The former Liberal MP who is now the mayor of Montreal was very opposed to it. I am not sure of all the pieces that went into the Liberals' decision-making, but all of a sudden, the downstream and upstream emissions of energy east had to be measured. As people have rightfully asked, has that happened for the tankers coming down the St. Lawrence from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Did that happen with the bailout for Bombardier?

The Liberals created regulatory barriers. Trans Mountain hung on for a long time before it finally said no go. I think Energy east saw the writing on the wall, knowing that the government was not going to be its friend and create an environment to get the work done. It could see the new rules coming into place, so it walked. What a double standard. Canadians who extract energy in an environmentally sound and environmentally friendly way have had standards applied to their ability to move oil through a pipeline that no other country in the world imposes on companies in terms of upstream and downstream emissions.

Next on the plate is Bill C-69. A number of former Liberals are very open about their concerns about Bill C-69. Martha Hall Findlay, a very respected former Liberal MP, said in a recent Globe and Mail article that the new environmental legislation, Bill C-69, “is the antithesis of what this regulatory reform effort hopes to achieve.... [I]n its 392 pages, the word 'competitiveness' appears only twice. Neither the word 'economy' nor the phrase 'economic growth' appear at all.” We have new environmental legislation that most people call the no-more-pipeline bill.

Martha Hall Findlay went on to note that this bill would create enormous uncertainty, more red tape and increased court challenges, and not only in the energy sector but in all other infrastructure in Canada for years to come. I do not know if members are starting to see a pattern: the Liberals have killed pipelines and put in legislation preventing new pipelines from being built. I am not sure why the process with Trans Mountain was not proper; it should have been. Everyone knew what they had to do, but they did not.

Another piece of legislation that is focused on killing opportunities in this country is the tanker moratorium, Bill C-48. The government loves to talk about how it consults, consults and consults, but it only consults to get the answer it wants. There was a large group of first nations that had a huge opportunity with the Eagle Spirit pipeline that would go through its territory. It had plans, it was moving along, everything was in place, and all a sudden Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, put its dreams and hopes to rest for a while. The interesting thing is that there was no consultation at all. There was no notice about this tanker ban, so how can there be consultation when the government does not want to do something, but vice-versa when it wants to do something?

Now I will get into the details of Bill C-88. In 2016, there was an oil and gas moratorium in the Beaufort Sea, and the interesting thing about that announcement was that for most people in Canada, it came out of nowhere. The Prime Minister did not even have the respect to hold conversations with the territorial premiers and the people most impacted. He made the announcement down in Washington, D.C., along with an “Oh, by the way” phone call 20 minutes before announcing this measure that would impact those communities. That is absolutely shameful. The Prime Minister announced a moratorium on all oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea when he was down in the United States with President Obama at the time.

I want to read a few quotes by the community leaders subsequently. The Northwest Territories premier Bob McLeod issued a “red alert...for urgent national debate on the future of the Northwest Territories”. He wrote:

The promise of the North is fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we see a re-emergence of colonialism....

Whether it be ill conceived ways of funding social programs, or new and perplexing restrictions on our economic development, our spirit and energy are being sapped.

That is a very different from what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary when she talked about the previous government. It is her government. Did she hear those words from the premier? He said, “our spirit and our energy are being sapped”.

Mr. McLeod further wrote:

Staying in or trying to join the middle class will become a distant dream for many....

This means that northerners, through their democratically elected government, need to have the power to determine their own fates and the practice of decisions being made by bureaucrats and governments in Ottawa must come to an end. Decisions about the North should be made in the North. The unilateral decision by the federal government, made without consultation, to impose a moratorium on arctic offshore oil and gas development is but one example of our economic self-determination being thwarted by Ottawa.

Then Nunavut premier, Peter Taptuna, told the CBC on December 22, 2016:

We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development. And at the same time, when one potential source of revenue is taken off the table, it puts us back at practically Square 1 where Ottawa will make the decisions for us.

Merven Gruben, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, told the indigenous and northern affairs committee on October 22, 2018:

I was talking to [the Liberal MP for the Northwest Territories]...and he said, “Yes, Merven, we should be doing something. We should be helping you guys.”

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change compared to when you work in oil and gas and you're used to that kind of living. Our people are used to that. We [don't want to be just] selling trinkets and T-shirts.

To go to the actual bill, what we can see is that in spite of the lofty words by the parliamentary secretary, there has been a real lack of consultation on issues that are very important to northerners.

Part A would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to reverse provisions that would have consolidated the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one. These provisions, of course, were introduced by the former Conservative government with Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act. Part B, of course, would amend the the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

As I have already noted, this is another anti-energy policy from the Liberal government that is driving investment out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and increasing poverty rates in the north. Like Bill C-69 before it, Bill C-88 would politicize oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of cabinet to block economic development, and would add to increasing red tape that proponents must face before even getting shovels in the ground. Further, Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of the calls by elected territorial leaders for much of the self-autonomy they desire.

We used to look at the north as being an opportunity to be a key economic driver for decades to come. Other Arctic nations, including China and Russia, are exploring possibilities. This could be something that is very important for our sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are creating great swaths of protected land. I want to know why that change was originally made to the water and land boards.

In 2007, Neil McCrank was commissioned to write a report on improving the regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north. As outlined in the McCrank report, entitled, “The Road to Improvement”, the current regulatory process in the Northwest Territories is complex, costly, unpredictable and time-consuming. The merging of the three boards into one was a key recommendation. Part of the report stated:

This approach would address the complexity and the capacity issues inherent to the current model by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources. It would also allow for administrative practices to be understandable and consistent.

If these recommendations on restructuring and improvements are implemented, the regulatory systems in the North will be able to ensure orderly and responsible development of its resources.

Regarding the move to consolidate the boards, the report went on to state:

...is not meant to diminish or reduce the influence that Aboriginal people have on resource management in the North. Rather, it is meant as an attempt to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development...

I want to note that it was Bill C-15, which the Liberals and NDP voted for, that included that component. It was supported on all sides of the House. It was also included as an available option in the three modern land claim agreements. Bill C-15 looked to streamline the regulatory process and to place time limits on reviews and provide consistency. It was never meant to impact impact indigenous communities and their ability to make decisions. It was to streamline the regulatory process, place time limits on reviews and consolidate federal decision-making.

Certainly, I see this component of the bill as a move backward rather than forward. At this point, it would appear that all of the communities involved want to move in this direction. I believe that is unfortunate. The model I wish they would have worked toward would have been a much more positive one in doing the work they needed to do.

The final part is the drilling moratorium, which is perhaps the most troublesome. It would allow the federal cabinet to prohibit oil and gas activity in the Northwest Territories or offshore of Nunavut if it were in the national interest. This is a much broader power than currently exists in the act, which only allows Canada to prohibit that activity for safety or environmental reasons, or social problems of a serious nature.

I note that the licences set to expire during the five-year moratorium would not be affected, which is seen as somewhat positive by the people holding those licences. However, I suppose if we have a moratorium forever, it really does not matter if one's licence is on hold forever, because it would not be helpful in the long run.

In conclusion, what we have here is perhaps not on the scale of Bill C-69 or some of the other things the government has done, but it just adds to the government's habit, whenever it deals with the natural resource industry, of tending to make it more complicated and of driving businesses away rather than doing what Canada needs, especially right now, which is bringing business to us.

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today mindful that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I am honoured to begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill clarifies the legislative and regulatory framework for the development of key regions of Canada's north, the Mackenzie Valley and the offshore areas of the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort Sea. These regions have vast economic potential but they are also environmentally sensitive. Moreover, these regions have sustained indigenous people and communities who have lived in the north since time immemorial. Those communities, their organizations and governments have a right to a say in how the region is developed.

The bill before us addresses two different acts of Parliament that affect resource development in the north: the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

Let me begin with the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I remind the House that in March 2014, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act transferred control of public lands and waters in the Northwest Territories to the territorial government. It is that government that now makes decisions on resource development. It receives 50% of resource revenue within the specific annual limit.

We know the abysmal track record of the Conservatives when it came to respecting and honouring indigenous rights and supporting the people of the north. That act was the perfect example. In 2014, through Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, the Harper government completely changed the land and water board structure without adequate consultation and in complete ignorance of indigenous rights. Those changes became very controversial within the region as the current member for Northwest Territories knows well. Through many conversations, consultations and meetings, there were many good points brought forward by people in that area.

The Harper government removed three regulatory authorities: the Gwich’in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board was to remain as a single consolidated land and water board for the Mackenzie Valley. That was what the Conservative government wanted but it is not what the indigenous governments wanted. The indigenous governments and organizations correctly argued that their authorities in land and water management are guaranteed by their land claims and by their self-government agreements and they should be honoured. The Conservative government could not unilaterally abolish their land and water boards. This was just another sad example of the Harper government's tendency to trample on the rights of indigenous people.

In February 2015, the Northwest Territories Supreme Court issued an injunction that halted the provisions that included the restructuring of the land and water boards. The injunction preserved the existing regulatory processes until the court could provide further instruction. At the same time, other measures included in section 253(2) were affected, including a regulation-making authority for cost recovery and consultation, administrative monetary penalties, development certificates, regional studies and the terms of board members. The Conservatives appealed the injunction in March 2015. We heard from stakeholders that that situation not only created mistrust on the part of indigenous governments and organizations toward the Canadian government, but it also created uncertainty that discouraged the responsible development of the region's resources.

In the fall of 2015, in order to better put us on a path to reconciliation and economic development, the then minister of indigenous and northern affairs met with indigenous governments and organizations in the Northwest Territories to find a way forward. The minister announced that she had directed the department to pause its appeal and start the exploratory discussions.

Rather than taking this fight and continuing it in the courts, our goal has been to work with indigenous governments and organizations to identify potential solutions. In the summer of 2016, the minister met with indigenous governments and organizations, and in September 2016, she wrote to the relevant parties to officially begin a formal consultation process. The consultations have been thorough and effective. They have included indigenous governments, organizations, the Government of the Northwest Territories and industry. This is the way to move forward on matters affecting resource development in Canada's north.

The Conservatives' attempt to unilaterally change the regulatory regime set the relationship with the Northwest Territories and indigenous people back by many years. However, with this bill, we are getting back on track and we are working with them to move forward.

The bill removes the board amalgamation provisions and confirms the continuation of the Sahtu, Gwich'in and Wek'èezhìi land and water boards with the jurisdiction to regulate land and water use in their management regions. These regional boards will also continue to be panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board will continue to have jurisdiction for the regulation of land and water, including the insurance of land use permits and water licences in the area of the Mackenzie Valley where land claims have not been settled and for transboundary projects.

In effect, this bill repeals the provisions of the Conservatives that challenged the rights of indigenous governing bodies under their comprehensive land claim agreements. Other provisions of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that were included in the Northwest Territories Devolution Act but were halted by the court injunction will also be reintroduced in this bill.

Specifically, the bill provides for the Governor in Council to make regulations pertaining to cost recovery to indigenous consultation. Development certificates will set out the conditions under which a project can proceed. Administrative monetary penalties can now be established through regulations for violations relating to these certificates. Provisions will allow the establishment of committees for the conduct of regional studies. The bill also provides for the extension of the terms of board members to allow them to complete a proceeding that is under way. This will ensure there is continuity in the process and in the decision-making.

We are setting out a positive way forward for the development of the Mackenzie Valley. It is a way forward that acknowledges the rights of indigenous governments and organizations and will provide certainty to industry. When we listen to northerners when developing policies that affect them, great things are possible and it leads the way to better prosperity for all people in the north.

The second part of this bill involves the Canada Petroleum Resources Act which governs the drilling of oil and gas that takes place offshore in the Arctic. Those offshore drilling operations face a number of technical and logical challenges, including a short operating season and sea ice. We do not yet have the technology to resolve these challenges, but I have confidence that there will be technological solutions that will enable offshore drilling to be undertaken safely in the future.

To get to these solutions, we must be guided by the knowledge of the nature of the challenges. That knowledge will be shaped by science, including both marine science and climate science. We need evidence for effective decision-making that will help us reach the goal of responsible resource development. This science is still in its early stages. The technology will eventually follow. In the meantime, we must take steps to protect a sensitive and vulnerable environment in the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

In December 2016, the Prime Minister announced a moratorium on new offshore drilling in our Arctic waters. The moratorium will be tested every five years through a science-based review. This review, undertaken in collaboration with our northern partners, will provide evidence that will guide future oil and gas activity.

The bill before us would complement the 2016 moratorium and protect the interests of licence holders by freezing the terms of their licences for the duration of the prohibition on oil and gas activity. The licences will not expire during the moratorium. This will allow us to preserve the existing rights until the five-year science-based review is completed. At that point, we will have a better understanding of strategic plans and potential decisions in collaboration with our northern partners, indigenous governments and the governments of the north.

I am pleased to inform the House that the companies that currently hold the existing oil and gas rights and our northern partners have been supportive of responsible development of the Arctic offshore and the strategic path forward. They understand the importance of protecting the unique Arctic environment while pursuing safe, responsible oil and gas activities, activities that create jobs and economic growth in northern indigenous communities. They appreciate the importance of the science-based review in establishing future decisions on Arctic offshore development.

These amendments are fair to existing rights holders and allow us to go forward with a serious review of the science in order to better understand the potential impacts and benefits of oil and gas extraction in the Beaufort Sea. This is sound, sustainable management and is consistent with what our government is already doing regarding science in the north.

The bill before us ensures that indigenous governments and organizations will have a strong voice in the development of resources in their territories. Our goal is to put in place a robust regime that will protect Canada's rich natural environment. It will support a resilient resource sector and at the same time respect the rights and interests of indigenous people.

This bill is part of an ongoing journey toward meaningful reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the protection of our lands and waters. In this way, we are able to foster economic opportunities and growth and protect the environment for future generations.

I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting this bill and supporting the wishes, hopes and aspirations of those who live in Canada's north.

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, if this is the 98th time that such a motion has been proposed to the House, it means that this Parliament, our party, our government will have accomplished a lot of work for the benefit of all Canadians.

Bill S-6 is the final legislative step to fully implement the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. The bill would complete the northern regulatory improvement legislative agenda. The agenda has included the passage of the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, Bill C-47, and the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, Bill C-15.

I understand the member for the Northwest Territories wanting to keep Yukon on a different playing field than the Northwest Territories. He should be more generous. The bill would level the playing field for all the territories in the north. The regulatory regime would be the same as south of 60, so northerners could benefit from the certainty this would bring to their regulatory regime in that territory.

Motions in Amendment

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this legislation. After years of review and consultation with first nations and other northerners, with the legislation proposed in Bill S-6 we can now move forward with improvements to northern regulatory regimes. These improvements will yield long-term benefits for individuals and businesses in Yukon and Nunavut.

I am a strong believer that northerners should benefit from the tremendous natural resources found in their region. Bill S-6 contains critical amendments to northern regulatory regimes that would ensure that northerners benefit from their resources. These amendments would bring both Yukon and Nunavut's regulatory systems in line with that of the Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada. This would ensure that the territories remained a competitive and attractive place to work, live, and invest for generations to come and that northern families had opportunities to grow and prosper.

I want to focus on several changes in Bill S-6 that would modernize the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, called YESAA for short, which would enable us to make progress on both fronts.

The goal of the proposed legislation is to consider the potential effects that proposed development could have on Yukon's environment, people, communities, and economy.

The Honourable Darrell Pasloski, Premier of Yukon, said:

...it is becoming increasingly clear that changes to this legislation before you today are essential in order for Yukon to remain a competitive place to do business.

This work is overseen by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, whose mission is to protect the environmental and social integrity of Yukon while fostering responsible development in the territory, responsible development that reflects the values of Yukoners and respects the contributions of first nations.

I would like to focus my remarks today on one portion of the bill. It is the provision that would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to issue policy direction to the YESAA board.

The proposed legislation would enable the minister, following consultation with the board, to provide binding policy direction with respect to the exercise or performance of its powers, duties, or functions. This has raised concerns in some quarters that it would give the federal government authority to impose its own policies on projects on first nation settlement land. I can assure members that this is not the intention of the amendment nor the way it has been used in practice. In reality, policy directions have been used to add clarity and to ensure that all parties are on the same page with respect to existing laws.

The reason the change is being proposed is to ensure a common understanding between the Government of Canada and the board. For example, the minister could use policy direction to communicate expectations regarding the use of new technologies to mitigate environmental impacts or expectations regarding roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation. This clarification would reduce uncertainty and delays in environmental assessment decision-making.

In recognition of the board's independence, there would be strict limits on the minister's ability to provide policy direction. To be precise, policy direction would have to be consistent with YESAA and with the Umbrella Final Agreement. In fact, YESAA states that first nations' final agreements will prevail in the event of an inconsistency or conflict. Furthermore, policy direction could not interfere with active or completed reviews, again because the board operates at arm's length from government.

To be clear, policy direction could not change the environmental assessment process itself. In fact, Bill S-6 explicitly states that policy directions do not apply to project proposals that have already been submitted to the board.

It is also important to note that the ability to issue policy direction is not without precedent. In fact, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development already holds the ability to issue policy direction to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board in the Northwest Territories. With respect to this board, policy direction has only ever been used four times, and each time it was to ensure that the board respected and upheld interim agreements the Government of Canada held with aboriginal groups.

In short, policy direction has only been used to provide additional protection for aboriginals.

Clearly, this is an important amendment to Bill S-6. The ability to ensure a common understanding by the government and the YESAA board, particularly with respect to aboriginal rights, is essential. Unfortunately, the opposition would remove this power from the bill.

This government understands the importance of protecting aboriginal rights, which is why I strongly oppose Motion No. 10, and I would encourage the rest of the House to join me in rejecting it.

A second, related feature of this proposed legislation I want to comment on is the delegation of federal powers to the Government of Yukon. The Umbrella Final Agreement defines government as:

Canada or the Yukon, or both, depending upon which government or governments have responsibility, from time to time, for the matter in question.

The delegation of federal powers to the Government of Yukon is consistent with the final agreements and with the governance regime in Yukon post-devolution. In fact, section 2.11.8 of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement states:

Government may determine, from time to time, how and by whom any power or authority of Government or a Minister set out in a Settlement Agreement...shall be exercised.

Moreover, the principle behind this delegation, that decisions about northern governance are best made in the north, is consistent with our government's northern strategy. In fact, just last year, our government brought into force Bill C-15, which devolved all responsibility for lands and resources out of Ottawa and back to the territorial governments.

This, in short, is why I believe that the ability to delegate authority to the Government of Yukon is an integral component of Bill S-6 and why I am so disappointed to see the Green Party oppose this clause. I strongly oppose the passage of that motion, and I hope that all members of the House join me in voting against it.

The opposition actually supported that initiative when it was before the House, but now they are opposing the very same principle when implemented in the Yukon.

I remind my hon. colleagues that the amendments to YESAA proposed in Bill S-6 address agreed upon recommendations from the five-year review or have been directly requested by the Government of Yukon so that the act can better serve all residents of Yukon, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. As well, the proposed amendments incorporate suggestions made during the various rounds of review and consultation.

I also want to underline that all parties have improved the legislation before us during the years of consultation and I want to reinforce that the legislation in no way compromises the integrity of YESAA or conflicts with the provisions or nature of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

For these reasons, government members are confident that Bill S-6, including the carefully constructed amendments to introduce policy direction and delegation in YESAA, fully considers the needs and interests of all northerners.

I strongly believe that the ability of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to issue policy direction to YESAB and to delegate authority to the Government of Yukon is an essential portion of this bill. Unfortunately, the opposition would like to see both clauses removed. I am asking all hon. colleagues to join me in defeating the motions and moving Bill S-6 forward as it stands.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been some talk lately about devolution, not only in Bill S-6 but also in Bill C-15. We talked about the devolution of powers to communities. In order to truly devolve powers so that it is fundamentally good for the communities, the communities have to be involved and feel that they are part of the process, whether it is government to government or trilaterally, as the member for Labrador pointed out.

Finally, I would like to point out a statement from Mr. Hartland, of whom I spoke earlier and who is with the Yukon Chamber of Mines. He said:

...as an industry organization we would be remiss if we did not articulate a concern from industry that the erosion of intergovernmental relations among parties...over Bill S-6 is creating a level of uncertainty that affects the attractiveness of Yukon as a jurisdiction to invest in.

This particular individual is on the ground. He is in the chamber in Yukon and knows whereof he speaks.

Therefore, as my colleague points out, if we are devolving powers to a group of people, we should probably do it in a manner that suits the people receiving the devolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time I have been given today as we speak about this very important issue. I am not from the north; I am from Newfoundland and Labrador, but I proudly stand here to discuss this particular bill simply because it is very important to people in a land that is so vast and so rich in natural resources. There is a lot to talk about indeed, and it is a very important part of who we are as Canadians.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

This particular piece of legislation is the third in a suite of bills aimed at improving the regulatory regime in Canada's northern territories. Unfortunately, like most legislation the government introduces, the bill is being rammed through the House with only a limited debate. It was brought in without proper consultation with local communities and first nations, as has been discussed here in the past and certainly since debate started about 35 minutes ago.

There is a growing feeling in the north that the changes being imposed by the Conservatives through Bill S-6 will endanger the independence and effectiveness of environmental assessments and that it will eventually end up before the courts.

The objective of Bill S-6 is to update the regulatory regime in Yukon and Nunavut and align it with other regulatory regimes throughout Canada.

Among other things, this legislation would introduce legislated time limits for environmental assessments. It would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to give binding policy directions to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. It would also allow the delegation of any of the minister's powers, duties, and functions to the territorial minister by way of devolution; enable the government to develop cost-recovery regulatory measures; and reduce regulatory burdens by clarifying that a project need not undergo another assessment when a project authorization is to be renewed or amended, unless there is a significant change in the project. It would also introduce time limits for water licence reviews and allow for life-of-project water licences. It would also require the Nunavut Water Board to take into consideration agreements between Canada, regional Inuit associations, and proponents regarding posting of security to address the issue of over-bonding when more than one regulatory agency requires financial security for the same project.

Unlike Bill C-47 and Bill C-15, the two other bills aimed at improving the regulatory regime in Canada's northern territories, this legislation was introduced in the Senate on June 3, 2014, by Yukon Senator Dan Lang.

Some media reports indicate this particular piece of legislation may become a major issue in the next election, and some pundits question why the member of Parliament for Yukon was not the bill's sponsor. I am sure that over the next four or five months, he will have plenty of opportunity to answer that question and explain why the legislation was not amended when flaws were exposed and why there were no proper consultations with first nations, as many of my colleagues alluded to earlier in this debate.

Unfortunately, one of the strongest criticisms of Bill S-6 was on the absence of any meaningful consultation. For instance, the Council of Yukon First Nations, which represents eleven self-governing first nations, has made it clear that the Conservative government's consultations for the bill were not adequate to merit its support.

That is no surprise, as this particular government has a history of pushing through unwelcome changes in the territories.

For instance, with Bill C-15 the Conservatives passed the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. While devolution was started under a Liberal government, and we strongly supported that process, the much larger second part of the bill included the introduction of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which shortened assessment timelines, reduced the role of first nations, and made it easier to approve projects that lacked local support. That was certainly a shame to many of the stakeholders involved and a shame to us here in this House.

The proposed changes in Bill S-6, which we debate today, follow this path of a top-down, Ottawa-centred approach to dealing with the territories. That is the opposite of how Liberals approach northern development.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the success of our economy and, if we get it right, will serve as an important foundation for future economic growth and job creation for middle-class Canadians. Our party supports developing resources in the north in a sustainable manner.

Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize that unlocking this economic engine is contingent on environmental sustainability and on impacted aboriginal communities being treated as equal partners. That approach has not been followed in this case. Many people in Yukon and Nunavut believe that Bill S-6 would have a negative impact on their lives and their communities, and they are upset with what the government is trying to pass off as what it considers to be meaningful consultation.

Here is what Grand Chief Ruth Massie of the Council of Yukon First Nations told the committee when it held hearings on the legislation in the north. She said:

The federal government's approach on Bill S-6 is a roadblock to reconciliation. Participants in mining, tourism, and other industries are concerned about how Bill S-6 might adversely affect the future for resource development in Yukon.

Grand Chief Massie went on to say that all eleven self-governing nations on the council unanimously oppose four provisions in the legislation. She said:

We oppose giving the minister full power to issue binding policy direction to the YESAB as proposed in clause 34 of Bill S-6....

On timelines, we oppose the establishment of beginning-to-end timelines for assessments conducted under YESAA.

On exemption from assessment for project renewals and amendments, we oppose the proposed exemption from assessment for renewals and amendments of licences and permits as proposed in clause 14 of Bill S-6.

Clearly there are issues with this legislation and clearly it is not just first nations communities that are concerned. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice-president of lands and environment at Kaminak Gold Corporation, is worried that Bill S-6 may put a chill on investment in the north. Kaminak, a Canadian exploration company that has owned and explored mineral properties in all three territories, wants an accessible and stable regulatory regime. However, Ms. Rippin Armstrong told the committee that her company is worried that the process through which YESAA would be amended is creating increased distrust and the potential for legal action.

Here is her testimony. She said:

Kaminak is very concerned about this development, because court cases create assessment and regulatory uncertainty in addition to extraordinary delay, all of which erodes investor confidence.

She went on to tell the committee once again that:

Our Coffee gold project has yet to enter the YESAA process. If Bill S-6 is passed and challenged in court, the Coffee gold project and our presence in Yukon is uncertain. Kaminak urges the federal government to resume discussions with the first nations to work collectively toward reaching consensus on the proposed amendments to YESAA and avoid a court challenge.

That is good advice, but it went unheard. Why is the Conservative government not listening to what it is being told and fixing the flaws in this bill? It is obvious that members on the opposite side believe they can unilaterally impose the government's will on the north.

As my colleague from Labrador said when she spoke on Bill S-6, history has already demonstrated that resource development can be environmentally conscious, while also finding trilateral support among aboriginal governments, territorial and federal governments, and the local communities. This, indeed, is the only way to move forward with resource development. It is not just a moral obligation; it is, truly, a legal one.

The member for Labrador was correct when she said:

Unfortunately, despite spending years of working with Yukon first nations on a comprehensive review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, the federal government blindsided them earlier this year with a number of key changes that are contained in this bill and were not discussed throughout the process.

If the Conservative government persists in ramming these changes through, many observers believe that they will only create more local uncertainty and jeopardize development of the north.

Samson Hartland, the executive director of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, noted his organization enjoys a positive, constructive relationship. He told the committee that the chamber's 400 members want all levels of government to move toward a more respectful dialogue.

We must return to the original, respectful, and collaborative partnership with all aboriginal communities, including recognition of their inherent and treaty rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has been pursuing the most ambitious northern agenda in the history of this country. From promoting prosperity and development through Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, to devolving powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories through Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, to the vision and implementation of the Canadian High Arctic research station, no other government in Canadian history has done more than ours to increase health, prosperity and economic development in the north.

The initiative before the House today, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, or Bill S-6, would represent yet another key deliverable of our government's northern strategy and would be the final legislative step in our government's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

In total, our government has created or amended eight different pieces of legislation in order to ensure that northern regulatory regimes across the north are nimble and responsive to the increased economic activity taking place across the north. This is no small feat. These legislative changes will allow Canada's north to compete for investment in an increasingly global marketplace which, in turn, will lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for northerners. Bill S-6 would continue in this vein.

The introduction of beginning-to-end time limits for environmental assessments included in the bill would align the Yukon regime with the time limits in similar acts within the north, as well as south of 60, and would provide predictability and consistency to first nations, municipalities and industry alike.

This is an incredibly important aspect of Bill S-6 and one that would act to drive economic development across the territory. Unfortunately, the NDP wants to remove these time limits. I take particular exception to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which would cause the portions of the bill related to time limits to be deleted. This would prevent regulatory predictability and actually hinder growth and prosperity in the Yukon.

Some have argued that the time limits would affect the thoroughness of the assessment process. However, as the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board's own statistics show, the proposed time limits are either consistent with or more favourable than the board's current practice. In addition, Bill S-6 would include provisions to allow for extensions, recognizing that there may be situations when more time is warranted to carry out a function or power.

A different provision in the act, specifically, the proposed amendment to section 49.1 of YESAA, would ensure that, going forward, reassessments would only be required in the event that the project has been significantly changed.

This is another integral piece of Bill S-6 that the opposition would eliminate. That is why I oppose Motion No. 4. The passage of the motion and the elimination of the clause would prevent the elimination of unnecessary delays and red tape in the approval process.

In the past, projects that have already been approved and permitted could be subject to a new environmental assessment simply because of a renewal or a minor change in the project. The amendment would help to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary red tape where it is not warranted.

The amendment would also make it clear that if there is more than one decision body, which could be a federal, territorial or first nations government or agency that regulates and permits the proposed activity, they must consult with one another before determining whether a new assessment is required. Further still, the legislation would specify that in the event of a disagreement, if only one decision body determines that a significant change has occurred, it must be subject to a reassessment. This would also be consistent with the UFA, the Umbrella Final Agreement, which states in section 12.4.1.1 that projects and significant changes to existing projects are subject to the development assessment process.

Another proposed change would be the ability for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

This is another amendment that the opposition would like to remove from the bill. Motion No. 10 would remove the ability of the minister to issue policy direction.

It is important to remember that the ability to provide policy direction is not a heavy-handed attempt by the government to interfere in the assessment process nor does it undermine the neutrality of the board. Quite the contrary, it is intended to ensure a common understanding between the government and the board, helping to reduce uncertainty in environmental assessment decision-making and helping to ensure the proper implementation of the board's powers in fulfilling its role in the assessment process.

Moreover, this power exists in the Northwest Territories where it has only been used four times, and in each case it was used to clearly communicate expectations on how to address first nations' rights or agreements. For example, it was used in order to ensure that notification was provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Deline regarding licences and permits in a given region.

By supporting this motion, the opposition would actually remove a tool that the minister could use to ensure that aboriginal rights are protected. Perhaps not surprisingly, during our committee study when we were in the Yukon, the NDP member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said it was paternalistic for the minister to try to protect aboriginal rights through policy direction. The NDP obviously does not want the minister to exercise the duty he has been given to protect aboriginal rights in Canada, calling that paternalistic. It is completely bizarre.

I want to assure members that this power in no way detracts from the board's independence. YESAB will remain an impartial and independent arm's-length entity responsible for making recommendations to decision bodies.

The legislative amendment also makes it clear that policy directions cannot be used to influence a specific project or change the environmental assessment process itself.

It is for these reasons that I oppose the passage of Motion No. 10, and encourage other members to do the same.

Another amendment of concern is the minister's ability to delegate certain powers in the act to a territorial minister. Some have suggested that this amendment is an attempt by this government to shirk its responsibilities to the Yukon first nations and is inconsistent with the tripartite nature of the land claim agreement.

I want to be very clear that these concerns are completely unfounded. First of all, any delegation must be consistent with the UFA. Second, the Umbrella Final Agreement permits delegation. Specifically, the definition of “government” includes both the federal and territorial governments, depending on which government or governments have responsibility from time to time for the matter in question. Section 2.11.8 of the agreement states that “Government may determine, from time to time, how and by whom any power or authority of Government or a Minister set out in a Settlement Agreement...shall be exercised”.

Not least of all, this measure is in keeping with our government's objective of devolving responsibility to the territories and moving decision-making closer to home. That is, away from Ottawa bureaucracy and right into the hands of Yukoners themselves.

This legislation is clearly both needed and wanted north of 60. It satisfies calls to modernize northern regulatory regimes and ensure consistency with other regulatory regimes across the north and in the rest of Canada, while protecting the environment and strengthening northern governance.

For all these reasons, I urge all-party support for this worthy act as it stands, and to reject all of the amendments to Bill S-6 that are before the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the member for Northwest Territories speak. Even if I do not agree with him, we spent that day together in Yukon and certainly survived the charter flight as well.

I want to talk about the difference of philosophy. Our government believes that northerners are best placed to make decisions affecting their legislation and their lands. That is why we propose to devolve powers to the local government, to the government closer to the people, to the territorial government. We did it in the Northwest Territories with Bill C-15. We have proposed that provision in Bill S-6 as well, to allow the federal minister to delegate powers to the territorial minister.

I would like a clear answer from the member as to why he believes power should remain concentrated in Ottawa instead of devolved to the people in the north, closer to where they live.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, it is funny to hear the member talk about the provisions of Bill S-6, which he now opposes. Yet, when we passed Bill C-15, which also contained regulatory measures for the Northwest Territories, he voted for it. He has to make up his mind. Either he is for it or against it.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Are the AMPs proposed in this legislation consistent with other northern regulatory improvements that have been made with Bill C-15 and the MVRMA? In the north is there consistency? Does this apply? Do you think it should be across the whole north? Should it be similar to what is south of 60? My understanding is that what's being proposed here is what's in place in NWT—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Minister, I think you would agree that having good strong relations between first nations and the Government of Canada is very important for all Canadians.

Right now we have a situation. This is the third bill that has come forward to the House of Commons. Aboriginal groups in this country had tremendous concerns about both Bill C-47 and Bill C-15 simply because they felt that their rights and powers were being eroded.

Again, we have another bill that is coming forward, the bill we're discussing this morning, and the same accusations are being made by Yukon first nations. They feel a sense of violation of the spirit and intent of the original government-to-government agreements that they have in place. They feel that the amendments here do not defend the language of the treaty that they originally signed. They're expressing huge concerns here, concerns that affect a whole territory.

Minister, why is there persistency on behalf of your government to pass these bills without having proper consensus from first nations' governments? Why is it that you continue to do this and inflame a situation that could really be a consensus-building practice, where governments work together to achieve a stronger language, and therefore, stronger social and environmental benefits in these areas?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, much of which was on Bill C-15, which the House has already passed.

I would like to talk about consultation. I have corrected the record several times, but there have been consultation meetings on the specific issues with which the CYFN has taken issue. From April 2013 until June 2014, over a year, a number of meetings took place. Those first nations requested and received over $98,000 from the government to compensate them specifically for consultation. Clearly, it demonstrates that consultation took place.

The court has also said that the government has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate. The NDP does not ever reference the “where appropriate” part, and that is my question for the hon. member. Is he suggesting that after consultation has occurred, which it clearly has in this case, and there is no agreement, that first nations have a veto over any development that takes place in this country and over any legislation that takes place in this country, if there is no agreement? If he believes that, he should state it very clearly.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in the discussion on Bill S-6.

I am concerned about the way the government is moving forward in its dealings with first nation communities throughout this country. It is frankly embarrassing to me as a member, as a Canadian, that the government does not recognize its constitutional responsibility, its fiduciary responsibility, to deal with first nation communities on a nation-to-nation basis, as it has committed itself to doing.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay just mentioned a moment ago a meeting that was reported on yesterday. Representatives of a first nation community in Yukon met with the minister. They felt that they were insulted, because he suggested to them that they were not government, that in fact, participation in the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act agreement has somehow taken away their status as a government. Now it is only necessary for him to deal with the Government of Yukon. It is hard to fathom that a minister of the crown would have that kind of approach to first nation communities.

I am troubled by the direction the government is going. At every opportunity, it seems to get more focused on trying to find ways to quickly allow southern mining companies or national and international oil companies to go into the north, to frankly go anywhere in this country, to develop those natural resources and get them out of the ground and off to market as quickly as possible, regardless of the inherent dangers to the environment and the communities that will be affected by that development and regardless of the question of ownership of those natural resources. In this respect, I refer to the responsibility of the government to negotiate with first nations communities.

This is a classic example, really, of the way the government is approaching these issues, the ham-fisted way it is dealing with these issues as they relate to first nations treaty rights and responsibilities, land title, and the responsibility to not only consult but accommodate. The government has failed at every turn, it seems, in its responsibility to fulfill the directions provided by the Supreme Court again and again.

We can talk about oil and mining and talk about fish. As the critic for Fisheries and Oceans, I deal with first nation communities on our coast repeatedly. They are frustrated by the lack of responsiveness of the government in accepting its responsibility under the constitution, which has been reiterated, clarified, and enunciated by the courts time and time again at different locations around this country. The government has failed to act.

Then we have issues like this. We have issues like the government trying to impose changes on the education system in first nation communities. It created such a firestorm that the government finally had to withdraw that legislation. First nations leaders and communities across the country responded in such a negative way to the unilateral imposition of something that is clearly the responsibility of first nations communities that they had to back off.

With respect to the changes to the Fisheries Act that began in 2012, the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations went before committee and was utterly insulted himself and on behalf of other leaders across the country. Some 640-odd first nations were required to be consulted on matters like this that affect their rights, and the government completely ignored them. It went ahead and brought forward changes that affect those rights without any consideration.

It is that kind of disrespect and unilateral action that resulted in Yukon chiefs coming to town. Nine representatives travelled to Ottawa over the weekend to meet with the minister. What they said has been quoted. I think it is important to quote the article again:

The minister shut us down by telling us we were not real governments," says Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation Chief Eric Fairclough in a news release, "And therefore he does not need to make us active participants in changing legislation that arises from our treaties."

The government brought forward the Federal Accountability Act, and yet there is very little, if any, consultation. It has been threatening the leadership of first nation communities, telling them that they either go by the government's law or the government will be exercising unilateral punishment. That not only impedes the work of first nation communities and the efforts by many of the leaders to move their communities forward but is clearly an example of the government getting in the way of fulfilling its responsibilities in dealing with first nation communities.

Dare I bring up the reluctance of the government to deal with the issue of the 1,100 missing and murdered aboriginal women in this country? The government seems to be able to understand that the despicable act of killing a Canadians Forces member and a reservist and threatening other people in the House is a terrorist act. It has been able to clearly identify that as a terrorist act. Yet it does not recognize and will not commit to making the changes and bring in the programs necessary to deal with why aboriginal women and their families have to fear for their lives each and every day in this country. It is unconscionable that the government seems to have this kind of attitude as it relates to the first nations.

Let me delve a little deeper into Bill S-6. It would change the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. This is an act that was established in 2003 in fulfilment of an obligation under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The Umbrella Final Agreement is a consultative process among first nation communities, the Yukon government, and the crown.

First let me add that there was a requirement in that agreement that there be a review after five years. The government decided that it did not like that review so it did not release it. It decided to impose its own changes, along with the government dealing directly with the government of the Yukon, excluding any substantive consultation with the first nations communities. The amendments were developed through a secretive process. The non-union groups—the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and Canadian Energy Pipeline Association—were all allowed input. However, there was no public process, and there continues to be very significant opposition not only on the part of Yukoners but also on the part of the Council of Yukon First Nations.

Why is the Conservative government moving forward in this fashion? What is the Conservatives' purpose? We have heard them talk about resource extraction repeatedly. What they want to do is speed it up and they want to get rid of the regulatory processes. They have changed the Environmental Assessment Act. They have changed the Fisheries Act. They have changed a number of pieces of legislation that deal with the protection of our environment and controls over resource development: the Navigable Waters Protection Act; the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

That was an interesting one right there. In the NWT, the Conservatives decided to get rid of all the local and regional water and resource boards that had the local first nations representatives on them and had the territorial and federal governments represented. There were a number of them throughout NWT, as is the case elsewhere, recognizing the particular interests of the first nations community in the area that is under discussion. The process that those boards used to follow was that a mining company or otherwise would present a plan to the board and the board would begin to review that proposal and ask questions.

Most importantly, and something that we could learn a lot from, is that they would go out into the community and meet with local first nations and hear from people directly about exactly what the impact was going to be. It was not the case that there was always huge opposition. There is no question that people in many communities are looking for work and for economic development opportunities and opportunities to generate wealth in their community that will benefit them, their children, and future generations. However, they understand how to look at things in terms of generations, not months or years; they had the long vision.

It was always important that they understood and that the development plans laid out how the development was going to happen and what the impact was going to be and that proper mitigation measures were brought to bear in order to ensure there was as little impact as possible in order to meet the particular objectives of extracting the resource, generating the jobs, and ensuring that some of the revenues were poured back into the communities and elsewhere. However, it was also important that, given whatever the stated life of that particular development might have been, there was built-in reclamation of the site or other ways that the particular site would be returned as closely as possible to its natural state.

That is the kind of process that was undone. It became apparent, and I had the opportunity the summer before last to visit Yellowknife and meet with representatives of some of these boards. I met with the Tlicho First Nation and learned a bit about their culture and about their approach to the management of natural resources to best benefit their community. I learned a great deal.

It was interesting. When I met with representatives of the boards, one of their concerns was that even then—and this was a couple of years ago—the federal government was increasingly withdrawing some of the supports that had been there. For example, if it was a development that would affect a particular watercourse, a lake or a river, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans biologists and officials in that local office would be involved. They would get involved, engage in consultation, and be able to go out and talk to citizens on the basis of their understanding of the land, the environment, and the fisheries. They were able to respond in a concrete, factual way about what the impacts would be.

What they were finding even then, in 2012, was that as a result of the massive cutbacks at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, there was not the same number of officials, in Yellowknife for example. Rather than eight or ten scientists and managers who would work with these boards, they were reduced to two. They had to go to Burlington, Ontario, or Winnipeg, Manitoba, to try to bring that kind of expertise in. It was not local expertise, but they could bring that expertise in.

My point is that they were beginning to see that things were beginning to break down under the government as it related to local control over resource development.

Then we dealt with Bill C-15, I believe, which created a superboard for the Mackenzie Valley, because the government thought it would take less time and be less cumbersome, and companies would only have to deal with one board, and they would be able to get the job done a lot more quickly, get at the resource, move it out, and make their money.

Speaking of that, there was just a story in the news this morning about how the Tlicho First Nation has taken the government to court because it believes the superboard ignores the intent of the self-government agreement. What the superboard does, in fact, is get rid of that local first nation control, and the Tlicho are fighting it.

I know we have heard the minister say, repeatedly, to first nations communities that if they do not like it they should take the government to court. We also know that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, federal taxpayers' dollars, to continue to fight against the rights of first nations communities in this country that are clearly defined by the Constitution. I do not believe that is right.

I do not believe that Bill S-6 is going in the right direction. I am disappointed in the direction the government is going in relation to its dealing with first nations communities.

As with the Peel watershed land development case that was struck down by the courts, if it keeps going in this direction, unfortunately, everything the government does is going to get struck down by the courts.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points on what the member commented about.

Being am first nations, I realize what duty to consult is, but it has not been clearly defined by the courts.

One of the things that really upsets me is when a colleague across the floor states a fact that is not correct. I would like to clarify that.

Let me go over Bill C-15, the McKenzie Valley resource management act, which was before the House. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development travelled to the Northwest Territories to hold public hearings.

The NDP talks about stalling the process. What is the best way for people to be heard? It is for committee members to travel to listen to the constituents in that region, Yukon. Unfortunately, the member across the floor is being hypocritical in that the New Democrats are not letting committee members travel to Yukon to hear what people there have to say. The government wants to hear what is going on, but the NDP is stalling the whole process. When is that party going to wake up and allow members to travel to hear from people across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a public process, yet he has confirmed today that the NDP will deny the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the right to travel to hear, in a public process, from the people of Yukon.

We travelled to the Northwest Territories to hear from his constituents on Bill C-15, so why will the member now deny the constituents of the member for Yukon that same opportunity?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has been pursuing the most ambitious northern agenda in the history of this country.

This government has promoted prosperity and development through Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act. It transferred powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories through Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Then it had the vision of the Canadian high Arctic research station, which it implemented.

I repeat: no other government in Canadian history has done more than ours to increase health, prosperity, and economic development in the north.

The initiative before the House today, the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, or Bill S-6, represents yet another key deliverable of our government’s northern strategy and is the final legislative step in our government’s action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

In total, our government has created or amended eight different pieces of legislation in order to ensure that northern regulatory regimes—across the north—are nimble and responsive to the increased economic activity taking place across the north. This is no small feat.

These legislative changes will allow Canada’s north to compete for investment in an increasingly global marketplace, which in turn will lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for northerners.

Let me first speak to the proposed changes to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or, as we refer to it, YESAA for short.

This legislation first came into effect in 2003 and sets out the environmental and socio-economic assessment process for all projects, including everything from small-scale community infrastructure projects to large-scale mining projects in the territory in question.

The need for improvements to the existing legislation first arose during the five-year review of YESAA, which was required under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The review began in April 2008 and included the participation of all parties to the agreement: Canada, the Yukon government, and the Council of Yukon First Nations.

Speaking of the Council of Yukon First Nations, I had the pleasure earlier this morning of meeting with the chiefs or councillors of a number of Yukon first nations about Bill S-6. I want to acknowledge their important contributions to the development of the bill and look forward to their continued engagement as the bill moves through the parliamentary process.

The review I referred to earlier was extensive and examined all aspects of the Yukon development assessment process from YESAA and its regulations to the implementation, assessment, and decision-making process, as well as process documents such as rules, guides, and forms, et cetera, and was completed in March 2012.

At the end of the review, the parties jointly agreed to 72 out of 76 recommendations, many of which could be addressed through administrative changes. A few, however, required legislative amendments, including board term extensions; the non-application of CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; the requirement to take into account cumulative effects when conducting an environmental assessment; the need to take into consideration activities that are “reasonably foreseeable”; the ability to include the activities of third party resource users in the scope of a project when the government is a proponent of forest resource management planning and allocation initiatives.

In December 2012, after the completion of the five-year review and the passage of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and following our government's announcement of the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, the Yukon government wrote to my predecessor to request additional amendments to YESAA to ensure consistency across regimes. That was to include beginning-to-end timelines, ability to give policy directions to the board, cost-recovery regulations, and the delegation of authority.

While these amendments were not discussed as part of the five-year review, my department did consult with Yukon first nations on them throughout 2013 and 2014.

The first draft of these legislative amendments was shared with all parties to the umbrella framework agreement, the Yukon first nations and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board for review and comment in May 2013.

Formal consultation sessions followed, which provided the opportunity for the parties to learn more about the proposed amendments, voice their concerns and make recommendations on how to improve the proposals. The feedback we received informed a subsequent draft of the legislation, which was shared with the parties in February 2014.

At each stage, proposals or drafts of the bill were circulated to first nations, the Government of Yukon and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board for review. The department carefully considered all comments and, where appropriate, incorporated them into the next draft. This process resulted in further improvements to the bill before it was introduced in Parliament last June.

As members can see, consultation on this bill has been extensive, and while we know that everyone did not agree 100% with each amendment, this does not mean that consultation was inadequate. It is our view that we met our duty to consult and we accommodated where appropriate. Even the Hon. Grant Mitchell, a Liberal senator and the opposition critic of the bill in the Senate, acknowledged this challenge but noted that comprehensive consultation had taken place when he spoke to the bill at third reading in the Senate. The hon. senator said:

There has been, I think, quite adequate consultation. It's complicated up there in these territories. You have federal, territorial and Aboriginal interests.

So it is very complex, and the fundamental core of this bill gets to that and is an effort to make all of that better and to make processes in the North better.

Let me remind my fellow colleagues in this House that this does not mean that the opportunity for providing input has ended. Indeed, as is the case for all other bills introduced in Parliament, the parliamentary review process provides opportunities to engage with parliamentarians on their views on legislation. The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has just completed a thorough review of the legislation wherein the committee heard from numerous witnesses from Yukon and Nunavut, including representatives of the first nations and Inuit peoples. At the end of its review, the committee members endorsed the bill unanimously.

Engagement on this bill has continued right up until today. As I have already mentioned, I met this morning with members of the Council of Yukon First Nations to further discuss their views on the bill and I encouraged them to participate in the parliamentary review process so that they could not only make their views known, but, if possible, correct the bill if it violates, as alleged, the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I also wish to acknowledge the member of Parliament for Yukon and the senator for Yukon, who have been very active on the ground. They have met with numerous stakeholders on this bill and will continue to advocate for the best interests of all Yukoners in their respective chambers.

Further, and contrary to some of the myths that have been put forward, I want to be very clear that all of the legislative proposals contained in Bill S-6 are consistent with the Yukon umbrella agreement and continue to uphold aboriginal and treaty rights.

In fact, some of the proposed amendments would actually strengthen first nation roles in YESAA . For example, under clause 29, which sets out proposed section 88.1 of the proposed amendments, when a project reaches the permit or licensing stage, first nations would be able to add to that permit or license “terms and conditions that are in addition to, or more stringent than” the terms and conditions set out in the project's environmental assessment.

I also want to take a moment to address some of the specific amendments that have been subject to significant debate in Yukon and that the Council of Yukon First Nations discussed this morning when we met.

The introduction of beginning-to-end limits for environmental assessments would align the Yukon regime with the time limits in similar acts within the north as well as south of 60 and would provide predictably and consistency to first nations, municipalities, and industry alike.

Some have argued that the time limits would affect the thoroughness of the assessment process. However, when we look at the facts, we see that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board's own statistics show that the proposed time limits are either consistent with or more favourable than the board's current practice. In addition, the amendments include provisions that would allow for extensions, recognizing that there may be situations in which more time would be warranted to carry out a function or power.

The proposed amendment to section 49.1 would ensure that going forward, reassessments would only be required in the event that the project has been significantly changed. In the past, projects that had already been approved and permitted could be subject to a new environmental assessment simply because a renewal or a minor change in the project had occurred. This amendment would help streamline this process and reduce unnecessary red tape where it was not warranted. The amendment also makes it clear that if there is more than one decision body—which can be a federal, territorial, or first nations government or agency—that regulates and permits the proposed activity, they must consult with one another before determining whether a new assessment is required.

Further, the legislation specifies that in the event of a disagreement, even if only one decision body determines that a significant change has occurred, it must be subject to a reassessment. That is an important point because of what we hear and read in the media. This is also consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement. The Umbrella Final Agreement states, at section 12.4.1.1, at page 107, if I recall, that projects and significant changes to existing projects are subject to the development assessment process. Therefore, the idea of significant changes is embodied in the Umbrella Final Agreement.

Another proposed change is the ability of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The ability to provide policy direction is not a heavy-handed attempt by the government to interfere in the assessment process, nor does it undermine the neutrality of the board. To the contrary, it is intended to ensure a common understanding between the government and the board, helping to reduce uncertainty in environmental assessment decision-making and helping to ensure the proper implementation of the board's powers in fulfilling its role in the assessment process. This is not new. There are also precedents for this power in other jurisdictions. For example, it has existed in the Northwest Territories since 1999, and with the passing of Bill C-15, it was expanded to include all the boards in the Northwest Territories.

As we say back home, the proof is in the pudding. This power has only been used four times in the Northwest Territories. In each case, it was used to clearly communicate expectations on how to address first nations' rights or agreements. For example, it was used to ensure that notification was provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Deline regarding licences and permits in a given region.

I want to assure the House that this power in no way detracts from the board's independence. YESAB will remain an impartial and independent arm's-length entity responsible for making recommendations to decision-making bodies.

The legislative amendment also makes it clear that policy direction cannot be used to influence a specific project or to change the environmental assessment process itself. Another contentious amendment, which is contentious because it is opposed by some first nations in Yukon, is my ability to delegate certain powers in the act to a territorial minister. To the contrary, that again is not at all inconsistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I want to also address the Nunavut changes. The objective is to make the regulatory system in Nunavut consistent with what is taking place south of 60 and in full compliance with the land claim agreement that governs our relationship with northerners in Nunavut.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22.

We recommend supporting the bill in principle at second reading and calling for greater liability and global best practices. Our position at third reading will depend on the government's response.

This bill warrants further study in committee to see whether it can be improved. It will be hard to sit down with the Conservatives and improve a bill because they think they have all the answers. We know how that goes. We have seen it before.

Bill C-22 updates the Canadian nuclear liability regime and sets out the victim compensation procedures and conditions in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant. It maintains the principles whereby operators have limited, exclusive, no-fault absolute nuclear liability, except in the event of war or terrorist attacks.

The bill increases the limit of absolute liability from $75 million to $1 billion. It extends the deadline for filing compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses. The 10-year deadline is maintained for all other types of damage.

The changes in terms of nuclear liability apply to Canadian nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

Bill C-22 also updates the offshore regime for oil and gas operations, in order to prevent incidents and to guarantee a rapid response in the event of a spill. It keeps the idea of an operator's unlimited liability in cases of demonstrated fault or negligence. It raises the absolute limit of liability for offshore oil and gas exploration projects and sets it at $1 billion, without proof of fault. The current limit is $40 million in Arctic waters and $30 million in the Atlantic. The bill explicitly mentions the polluter pays principle and clearly and officially establishes that polluters will be held responsible.

The bill strengthens the current liability regime, but it does nothing to protect the environment, or Canadian taxpayers, because it still exposes them to risks.

The Conservatives are constantly behind our international partners and they ignore best practices when it is a matter of recognizing the dangers of an inadequate liability regime.

We have already expressed our opposition to the inadequate limits in the matter of nuclear liability. The provisions must be considered a step in the right direction in terms of the current limits, but this bill does not adequately consider the real dangers that Canadians are facing. We hope that we will be able to deal with this point in committee, if the Conservatives let us work in committee, as I was saying.

Only the NDP takes the protection of Canadians' interests seriously, while the other parties take a cavalier attitude to nuclear safety and the safety of offshore oil and gas operations.

If the nuclear energy industry is a mature one, it must pay its way. This bill continues to subsidize the industry by making taxpayers assume any financial risk in excess of $1 billion.

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the nuclear industry instead of subsidizing other sources of renewable energy. Other countries feel that their citizens deserve better protection in the case of a nuclear accident.

Bill C-22 has come before the House before. It was then Bill C-5, which went through the committee stage and was passed at report stage in 2008. However, it died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called an election, ignoring the fact that it was supposed to be held on a fixed date.

Bill C-20 made it through second reading to committee stage in 2009, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. Bill C-15 was introduced in 2010 and then nothing happened for a year, until the 2011 election. This government claims that this is an important bill. Now, we have to sit until midnight until the end of June because the government says this bill is important, even though we have been talking about the same bill since 2008. All of a sudden this bill is important to the Conservatives.

The latest version of the bill does not give the public the protection it needs. Its biggest flaw is that it puts an artificial $1 billion limit on liability, even though the costs of a serious accident can be much higher than that. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for the remaining cleanup and compensation costs. In reality, the $1 billion limit is not enough, and imposing an artificial ceiling amounts to subsidizing energy corporations, since they will not have to cover the full costs of the risks associated with what they do.

I want to share some figures. The figure of $1 billion for liability may seem like a lot, but it is an insufficient, arbitrary amount if we consider the costs of cleaning up nuclear disasters and marine oil spills, which have happened in the past.

In Germany, for example, nuclear liability is unlimited, fault or no fault. Germany also has financial security of $3.3 billion Canadian per power plant. The United States has set an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries tend toward unlimited absolute liability.

A nuclear liability limit of $1 billion would not have covered a fraction of the costs of the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The Government of Japan estimates the cleanup costs at more than $250 billion.

The government still brags about saving money for taxpayers and giving them a break. This same government is prepared to protect major corporations by setting the limit at $1 billion. However, we have seen that the disasters in other countries have cost more than $1 billion. When a disaster happens, someone has to pay. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill for a disaster?

The NDP says that amendments will have to be put forward in committee to improve this bill. We are not against this bill, but we have to protect Canadians, who pay enough taxes already. That money is supposed to cover their own needs. The government is cutting funding for health care and all kinds of other things. Our roads are full of potholes. Everyone is mad because the government is not investing enough money in programs that people need.

The government is ready to let oil and nuclear companies get away with one heck of a deal. Their insurance should cover those costs. We cannot let them get away with not paying for insurance or paying only half as much as they should. If we do, and if a disaster happens, they will declare bankruptcy, and taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill. We have seen companies do that. As soon as the price gets too high, they declare bankruptcy. They should be the ones paying. They believe in the industry because it is profitable, so they should set money aside for possible disasters. Canadians are not the ones who should foot the bill, but that is exactly what they have to do.

The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could cost the company $42 billion to clean up. The company has been sued, and there will be criminal penalties.

Is Canada ready to foot the bill for these companies? My answer is no.

Bill C-22 does not go far enough. We will recommend changing the numbers.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for your comments.

I want to concentrate on the Northwest Territories becoming the second territory after Yukon to take over management of its land and resource responsibilities, the final major step in the territories' devolution process following the passage of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. That's obviously a significant milestone for the NWT and a key element of our government's northern strategy. It served as a result of our government's proactive and collaborative approach in working with our territorial and aboriginal partners. A few of us on this committee travelled to Yellowknife to hear directly from northerners, and we were pleased to play a part in doing that. We've heard very positive responses from Premier McLeod and other stakeholders in the NWT.

I see in the supplementary estimates (A) the government is allocating $4.6 million to fulfill our obligations to the Government of the Northwest Territories and to fund aboriginal groups.

Can you give us an update on what steps have been taken since the implementation date of April 1 to implement the Northwest Territories devolution agreement?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Northwest Territories Devolution

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the government a petition from the Gwich'in citizens of my riding in the Northwest Territories, who have put forward a petition to speak to the unfair provisions within Bill C-15, under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act's sector.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 25, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Stephen Wallace, Secretary to the Governor General of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 25th day of March, 2014 at 9:51 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia Jaton

Deputy Secretary to the Governor General of Canada

The schedule indicates that the bill assented to was 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—Chapter 2, 2014

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

As you may remember, I was in Inuvik last June 25 in order to sign the agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the five aboriginal groups who signed the final agreement. After you've done the work here, after passing through the House before Christmas, Bill C-15 was referred to the Senate. Just yesterday, Senator Neufeld tabled a very favourable report of the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. So we've been making excellent progress on implementation, and I fully expect that we will be able, indeed, to meet the target date of April 1.

Now the $36.1 million that you mentioned received in the supplementary estimates (C) for devolution will allow for the department to cover one-time costs that are associated with the transition, and thereby satisfy our obligations in the Northwest Territories devolution agreement. That was an undertaking of Canada. Of that $36.1 million, there is $20.5 million that is a recovery of grant payments that were internally cashed, managed in supplementary estimates (B), and paid to the Government of the Northwest Territories to offset their one-time costs associated with devolution.

The economic opportunities that this act proposes to bring to the north are vast and well documented. You know what has been the experience in your own Yukon, and we are hopeful that starting April 1, the Northwest Territories see a new day.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good to see you here on committee, Minister.

I'm sure you know that in January we went into Yellowknife to hear witnesses on Bill C-15. I'm looking over your supplementary estimates (C) in respect to the Northwest Territories devolution act. Of course, we've heard from people like Premier Bob McLeod, who has said that this devolution act could be a game changer for the people in the Northwest Territories. As a Yukon member of Parliament, I have certainly experienced the benefits that our territory has gained through devolution over the 10-year period that we've enjoyed those benefits.

There's approximately $36 million allocated to help implement the devolution agreement. I'm just wondering if you can let the committee know what the progress looks like in terms of the implementation of the devolution agreement, and how it will increase economic opportunities for the people of the north.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There's no respect here.

My last example is that it's not always just the number of cities you visit that decides whether it's democratic or not, because not everything needs to go everywhere, i.e., for Bill C-15 nobody outside the Northwest Territories was pounding the table saying, you didn't come and see me.

Nova Scotia wasn't all upset that they didn't have a chance to make comment on Bill C-15. They may have had comments if it affected them in a government-to-government situation or could have constitutional impacts, but in terms of being the primary focus of who you'd want to hear from, I'd be surprised if there was anybody outside the Northwest Territories who was upset that no one was visited.

We've seen other committees that have pan-Canadian implications and those committees respected that, those countries respected that. Even Zimbabwe was on that list of governments that were willing to listen to their people. But it's not just the number, it's what's appropriate to the time, to the moment, to what's in front of us.

Let me give you an example that doesn't have a long exhaustive list, but shows how strategically they still left the Ottawa bubble to go and hear from Canadians. In the 39th Parliament, first session, the justice and human rights committee did a study of Bill C-10 and they had one meeting.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Really, Zimbabwe, come on. Even they get it that you have to let your people have a say in their election laws. But until the government decides otherwise, we will persevere.

Well that's interesting. I see that now. There's another reference here, Chair. On April 26, 2005—that might be the same one and I don't want to do that; that would get me in trouble. I won't do that.

I will return, however, to.... I was mixing it up and trying to keep it interesting here, because I don't want to lose anybody.

Returning now to why it matters that we go to other cities as I mentioned in the second bullet point of my motion. I read an article into the record that announced to the people of the north that they be given an opportunity to have their say on Bill C-15, so I won't say anything I've already said. However, part of why we want to do this and why it's in my motion is we want the public engagement portion. It's important. I want again to make some reference to the local media having an opportunity to talk about the importance of this national issue as it relates to where they live.

What I'd like to do now, consistent with what I've done so far and I have not read this, is actor the meeting. I talked about what happened with the media and what they said to the citizenry, advising them of what's going on, what was expected, saying, “Hey, come on out.” They had the event, but there's still another piece. When you're interacting with the public, often it's like dealing with the cosmos, you can only go as fast as the speed of light and you've got to leave. You go out there and then you just start going and it continues to go and go and go. The reference to I Love Lucy is still out there somewhere floating around. It's much the same thing when we do media and stuff, we go into a community, we do some stuff and then we leave; or even here in Ottawa when we leave and then the media continues, but what happens then is important. It's part of the process. It's part of the communicating and conveying of messaging to the population, so it's important.

So, how did that play out in the example I gave earlier? I can hear you asking that in your mind, Chair, and I'm ready to answer that question.

Northern News Services reported on February 3, 2014, just a couple of weeks ago, and I have a copy of it, saying why it's relevant, and this is why it ties to my motion:

Northerners had their chance to tell the federal government what they think of Bill C-15 on Jan. 27 and the consensus was strong opposition to eliminating regional land and water boards, and an unhappiness about the federal government's perceived failure to properly consult on the bill.

Sounds familiar.

What's interesting, when I read the one earlier, Chair, if you recall, the article mentioned the fact that one of the things they were doing was looking at eliminating the regional land and water boards. Ordinarily, you'd think when there's a good idea like that it would have a lot of support and you would read an article saying that hey, people loved it and it's a great idea. It turns out that's not the case. They didn't like it. Well, if they hadn't held the public hearings, how would you know what the public thinks?

We're in the same boat on Bill C-23. How do you know what the public thinks if you don't ask them? The article goes on to say:

"Nothing is more important than this," said Tlicho Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, who signed on to devolution in March 2013.

He called the bill - which will alter two of the territory's founding documents: the NWT Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act -- unconstitutional and said that he is prepared to stand up to the proposed legislation in whatever way he can.

Canada has returned to the old colonial ways of thinking they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. This is not the constitutional promise that was made in the Tlicho agreement.

Members of the federal Special Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development were in Yellowknife for a marathon meeting—

That we have, but that's it, that's all. They had a marathon meeting and we're having a marathon meeting, but that's it, and maybe the coffee, but that's it.

—where they heard from 33 witnesses over nine hours on Bill C-15.

I won't go into it too far, Chair, because I accept that I would be bumping up against relevancy. I appreciate your letting me read what I did, because I do believe that was relevant. Obviously, you felt the same way, but I won't push my luck with you, Chair. I will set that aside and move along.

I have some quotes here, Chair, but I want to stay consistent with your.... I'm asking you straight up. Do I have any latitude at all in terms of reading comments that are coming in either to committee members here or to my leader that are relevant to what I'm talking about?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm pretty much done on Bill C-15, even by my own reckoning, so I accept that.

I was just saying that like Bill C-15, when I was raising its important relevance and you were acknowledging that relevance, for the most for my comments, I was doing so because it showed an example of how my motion is in order and is consistent with the way that we have conducted and do conduct business.

It may not be usual, but it is really not unusual. If I may, Chair, another example of that, which I have not yet mentioned.... The headline is, “Cross-Canada hearings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration: An opportunity for your voice to be heard”. I mention that headline, not because it was in a newspaper which is written by an editor, but rather it's the committee's release. It's their headline. They wrote it. Yes, it says, “An opportunity for your voice to be heard”. Wouldn't it be nice to see that underneath PROC studying your election laws, asking that you be given an opportunity for your voice to be heard? It did happen.

This was on December 20, 2004, so about six months after the class of 2004 arrived. You were there, David. I was. The late great Jack Layton was the class of 2004.

It reads:

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will be traveling to the following cities in March and April 2005: St. John’s, Halifax, Charlottetown, Fredericton, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria.

We didn't even ask for that much in our motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There's no more room for a check mark beside Bill C-15.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just riveting, no doubt.

Get your pen ready. I had mentioned earlier, Bill C-15.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. I hear your point.

I've given examples of other committees here in our House of Commons that are exercising their right to travel and allow Canadians to be heard. I mentioned Bill C-15 in the Northwest Territories. But what is also interesting, Chair, and I think relevant to consider with regard to having these kinds of witnesses and having the kind of travel that we're doing is this: what have some other democracies done, in a brief, brief description.

Is what's being suggested here the norm for mature democracies or not? Interestingly, New Zealand has amended several of their election laws over the last few years. For their electoral amendment bill they went around the country. In fact—isn't this interesting—they actually asked their national electoral commission to lead discussions around changes to an election law. What a concept.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you.

One of the other reasons I mentioned Bill C-15 is because of the reaction of the....

Well, you check your little marks there, Chair, and that's fine.

But the fact remains that I said at the outset when I mentioned Bill C-15 that I had a number of different aspects of why it was relevant and I think I have done that and I am going to continue to try to do that.

Why do we want the meeting outside of Ottawa? Well, we also want to make sure that the local media have a chance to be present here and talk about how it relates to the particular community that the newspaper or radio station or TV station would cover. I have examples of that.

The Northern Journal wrote this about the meeting, and I think it's germane because this is the sort of thing we're looking for when we travel on Bill C-23. There is nothing in the rules that says I have to give a fascinating speech. It just says that I have to be relevant and I believe I am being relevant when I talk about the media coverage of that meeting and its importance to the work of the committee on Bill C-15 and its relevance to us because we would like to see that same kind of coverage and that same kind of local analysis of how this bill affects every Canadian, even those who live outside of Ottawa.

For instance—and I am quoting from the Northern Journal—about that meeting they wrote, “The GNWT and Aboriginal governments will have their final say on the Devolution Bill during next week's hearings”. It's nice that they're getting their say. Continuing the quote:

A packed agenda of divergent Northern interests promises a long day of hearings for the federal standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on the NWT Devolution Act, or Bill C-15, next week in Yellowknife.... Kicking off the meeting will be the Aboriginal parties to the devolution deal, including Tlicho and Sahtu and Gwich'in governments, some of which have expressed their unhappiness with the federal government's move to lump changes to the NWT's regulatory system with devolution. Apart from devolving powers over lands, water and resources to the territory, Bill C-15 also proposes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, MVRMA, which include amalgamating the existing regional land and water boards established through land claims into one overarching superboard.

That's the kind of coverage they got beforehand. What's interesting is that the follow-up media was just as intensive. I'm going to have to come back to that because I don't have it right at my fingertips. I will come back to that point, Chair, because I know you want to hear the end of that story. I'll ask my staff for some assistance in getting the news articles from Yellowknife for me, please.

I will move along to continue talking about witnesses. We have outlined a number of witnesses in our motion because there are certain people we do need to hear from. As we saw with Bill C-15, these things are best handled in a democratic way when everybody who should be there, is. One of the witnesses we would like to call is National Chief Shawn Atleo, because we believe the bill could have a negative impact on aboriginal people. That speaks to my comments that I have made earlier about how voting is different in different parts of the country.

Certainly, the first nations—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I understand, Chair, but I would ask you to keep in mind that just because of the length of time that I have taken—and we all know what's going on and what the dynamics are.... I'm not trying to kid anybody here, but that doesn't deny me, at any time, my rights. Just because the government is tired of hearing about Bill C-15 or about the meeting that happened, in and of itself it should not deny me the right. It's just as if I had just got the floor. There is nothing in the rules that says my rights to speak are less when I'm five hours in than two minutes in. They don't.

I know that you know that, sir, and we'll probably continue to have this little dance all the way along, and that's fine. Somewhere between my doing what I need to do and the government doing what it needs to do, and your trying to be fair-minded, we'll get there, but I am asking for you to, even though it seems like a long time—it has been a long time—but the length of time, sir, in my view, should not change the perception of you giving that latitude just because personally you've been hearing it over and over or other members have—

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

Yes, but the facts on how the Bill C-15 committee went about its job—the benefits from that, the kinds of folks who showed up and why it was beneficial, why they decided to do it in the first place—that is completely germane to why we should be doing it. The simple fact, if Mr. Reid's argument were taken at face value, is all of our arguments would be of four or five words. We have this sentence. That's all you need; that sentence. That's all you need.

I think you understand that the leeway we are asking for is actually completely fair. We need to understand—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The member talks about bringing other details relevant to Bill C-15. I'll just point out that only one detail relative to Bill C-15 is actually relevant to this committee and that is the fact that the committee studying Bill C-15 travelled to different cities. Everything else about it actually is irrelevant and ought to be viewed as inadmissible in this committee because it is not on question of travel of this committee, which was the motion in debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I accept that there are limits to that, but I do have the right to bring in other details about Bill C-15 and not have it shut down because they don't want to hear any more about Bill C-15, and the fact that I say the letter and the two numbers, C-15, does not mean that I am making repetitive arguments. It means that I am referring to subject matter.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I agree, Chair, however, I would assume that doesn't extend to the point that every time I say the words “Bill C-15” I'm out of order because it's already been mentioned. I accept that—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Several minutes have gone by and the member has spoken at considerable length about how—essentially an editorial—he feels that debate has been hastened along too much, which isn't really a new introduction of facts. Now he's about to return to Bill C-15, which is also not new. Could you encourage him to stick to actual new information as a way of being respectful of both the rules of the committee and also of the sensibilities of the rest of us who are actually hoping to have a substantive debate?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

So they spent the whole day talking about Bill C-15 in Yellowknife, which is exactly the kind of thing I'm asking in my motion. Yes, I feel the noose tightening and I hope people are watching and understanding the kind of abuse—my word—of the majority that we're seeing. It's on the big stuff and it's on the small stuff, up to and including they've now got a play in motion to end my speaking. My job is to continue to push this as far as I can.

I would just point out to you, Chair, that there is a fine line between what someone else considers to be going on and on versus someone else's ability to make a point that they think is important. I appreciate that—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Chair, I have a point of order.

My understanding of the rules is that a member is required to be both relevant and also to be actually making new points, as opposed to restating the same point over and over again. It seems to me when it comes to Bill C-15, a bill that has now been discussed through several different meetings over a period of a number of hours, the same point is being made, the point being that there is a precedent for a committee to travel out of Ottawa on a bill. This is not an unprecedented point. I accept that is a point that is germane to the argument, but it's one point and it's not many points. It's certainly not sufficient material to be repeated over and over again and still be in order. I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that this means in effect that when a member returns to the subject he is effectively out of order and ought to be superseded so that we can move on with actual debate on actual points.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is by comparison, though, Chair. It is about the comparison because my motion is to have us do what Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development did with their bill. I'm not reaching back to 1891, not even to the 1900s. I'm talking about just a couple months ago, so the relevancy is that my motion calls for witnesses and I believe that the witnesses are germane to the bill at hand, just as the witnesses were on Bill C-15. That's why I'm making sure that we understand this point and I'm trying to make it as clearly as I can.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Actually, I got to Yellowknife when I was at Queen's Park, before I came here. It's a very beautiful city and it would be a great place for this committee to go because we now know that if my motion was adopted, this could be one of the places we go to. I want the members of the government to know that it looks like a pretty secure place. I know they were very frightened of going out on the road and having Canadians say impolite things on their placards outside of a meeting. And remember, this is the government that considered the input of Canadians to be a gong show and a circus. I just wanted to mention this, specifically. That's why C-15 provides a great opportunity for me to show direct comparisons between what my motion is requesting this committee do, and exactly what another committee did in the same situation not more than two months ago.

I'm talking about the witnesses. Who did they have, relative to C-15, so that we can be sure the people I've listed in my motion are important and relative to our bill, C-23, in the same way these witnesses were? Right off the bat, as much as it makes no sense for us to be dealing with this without the input of the Chief Electoral Officer, the very first person that the committee.... By the way, the proper name, Chair, is the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I apologize to that committee for not having it at the tip of my fingers.

The first witness for the government was the Hon. Bob McLeod, who is the premier of the Northwest Territories. He brought legal counsel, James Fulford, and Shaleen Woodward was the assistant deputy minister. There were representatives there: the Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, former member, chairperson; Frank Andrew, the grand chief; and Daryn Leas was there as his legal counsel. You can see the kinds of people they invited, Chair, are directly related to Bill C-15, and that's why my motion—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I was mentioning the importance of witnesses in my motion as it relates to the bill in front of us, and comparing it to the witnesses to C-15, and to give an example of a relevancy that they saw for these witnesses to come, vis-à-vis Bill C-15.

Now, remember, this is in Yellowknife.

Have you been to Yellowknife, Chair?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Now my colleague has come back to one of the examples—we mentioned two examples in the past, C-15 and C-10—that, I think, is the most important feature of our argument, in terms of the history of this place, that committees in fact do go on tour sometimes for bills. What I'm wondering is—this is a point of order—assuming my colleague is going to be speaking for a while, whether or not there's any provision in the rules, or just common practice, for a request from the committee for any quick research from the Library on whether there have been other bills that have gone on tour, to help inform our debate, and whether there's any precedent for doing that in the middle of discussion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's hard to come up with new material. However, I have some. I know you were worried for a moment, but through the chair, I want you to know that I have ample material that's clearly within the lines. But as an insurance policy, anything more I can use to fill the time that I have in front of me, obviously, I would do that.

But your point's well taken, and the point of order was in order. I accept your comments, Chair, and I will obviously continue to respect them. So I'll try to keep it tighter, sir.

In doing that, I am talking about Bill C-15, which I didn't talk about much before, other than to make some reference to it. Now I'm talking about it specifically, because I believe the details of what happened on Bill C-15 bear direct relationship to the motion that I have in front of us, and that is: should the committee travel to other places outside Ottawa to hear Canadians on the bill in front of us?

That, sir, is exactly the same question that was in front of the.... I'm trying to find the committee that sponsored that. It was the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs...probably the same committee. Anyway, the committee was faced with the same thing that we are faced with. They could have made the same decision. They could have said that no, they don't normally do that, so why would they. I wasn't there, but I can only presume, based on what happened, that there was a common-sense discussion about “Gee, it concerns the Northwest Territories. Do you think we maybe should drop by and see if anybody there has something to say about an act that's only about them?”

It's the same thing with this bill. It's about the election laws, and those election laws apply exactly the same to the richest Canadian as they do to the poorest Canadian. Those rights apply to the most important Canadians as they do to every other Canadian, because we're talking about our vote, and the procedures of whether or not our vote matters.

And as we see in Ukraine, when they fight for democracy, built into that word for them is the right to vote and the right to a—wait for it—fair election process. That's why countries like Canada spend tens of thousands of dollars to send MPs, in certain cases, to other countries to be election observers. We spend tens of thousands of dollars. And fellow Canadian citizens, through CANADEM, they coordinate citizens going. Remember, the Government of Canada leased an entire plane because there were over 500 Canadians—MPs and citizens—who went to Ukraine in 2004 during the orange revolution to monitor the election to ensure that the process was fair and transparent.

Yet we live with the hypocrisy of this government saying how great democracy is everywhere else and how hard they're willing to fight for it everywhere else. They're willing to spend bags of taxpayers' money to fight for it everywhere else and make all kinds of speeches about it, even create a whole ministry of democratic reform. But when the crunch comes, they don't really believe in democracy. No, they really don't.

They accept that they have to live by certain rules, and when that becomes a problem, what do they do? They change the rules. They believe in the rule of law, as long as it's their law. It's easy to follow the rule of law when it's your law. My motion is an attempt to make sure that it's not just the government's law, that we give Canadians themselves—whose election this belongs to—a say in this.

We actually saw, Chair, the intent of my motion played out less than two months ago in Yellowknife. My motion speaks to the kinds of witnesses. It's not limited.

It's not an exhaustive list, but it gives an example of the kinds of people we'd like to be hearing from. The motion, I think, contains examples of some of those witnesses who are very appropriate to the bill before us, just like, Chair, they did with C-15. My motion says these are some of the witnesses we should bring in—on C-15, they had witnesses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I consider that everything said is moving us forward, but I also accept that not everyone would see it that way, and that's fine.

I don't know exactly where I left off. I'm not sure that it matters all that much that I have clear, succinct continuity, given the context of making the remarks. However, I know that, at some point prior to our suspending to go up and vote in the House on a motion, I was talking about Bill C-15.

There are a number of reasons why I've raised Bill C-15 in the context of my motion and why, Chair, I believe that talking about Bill C-15 is germane to my motion. That is because, first of all, the government has made arguments that there's something extraordinary about our request, that committees only travel to do studies and, for the most part, don't travel when we're considering actual pieces of legislation. For the most part is correct, but it is for the most part, not that this is the only way, or it must be this way. That's just the way that the tradition of this place has been.

I suspect, Chair, that the reason for that is the size of the country and having people constantly moving around on every bill would create problems.

Although I have to say, Chair, again in talking about my motion and its relationship to what they did on Bill C-15 up in Yellowknife, that was the opportunity for the government to make its case is clear. They've said that there is no reason for us to go there as another reason. Why would we? Yet Bill C-15 to me is a perfect example of why we would. First of all, it's about the Northwest Territories. So did they stay in Ottawa and talk about it in the safe and secure bubble here under the guise of not travelling, only doing studies, and rarely sending committees? No, they didn't.

I imagine it's because of the backlash they likely would have gotten, especially after we saw how many witnesses they had and how much interest, how much media interest there was. I would imagine those folks would have been pretty upset if they had been told that the only way they could comment on this was to make the trek to Ottawa. Given the fact that devolution of power from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories is what it's about, having them goose-stepped across the country all the way from Yellowknife to come to Ottawa sort of belies the point of what the bill was, which is devolution, less control Ottawa, more control Northwest Territories, and so consistent with that thinking—surprise, surprise—the committee made the decision to go to Yellowknife.

That's why in my motion I'm saying that we should go to various places. I outlined some of the geographical areas. I realize we can't go everywhere. I also acknowledge that we weren't even married to everything that's in our motion when we were offering compromise. We were offering cooperation to try to get us past this process issue and into the substance of the bill. We offered, and that was rejected, so we were left with no choice but to include it in the motion and leave it there. It still stands. If the government says.... It's clear they're not, but I make the statement anyway for the public to hear the truth of what the process is. We are still interested in talking with the government about reaching a number of communities that we would travel to that we can agree on.

Would we get everything we asked for? No. Would the government get what they want, which is only in Ottawa? No. Somewhere in between we'd find a compromise. But that was rejected too.

Every single attempt to plead, to scream, to stamp our feet, to ask nicely, to ask respectfully, everything humanly possible we have done in an attempt to get the government to realize that they may have the legal right to do this but they don't have the moral right. They don't have the moral authority to ram through a Conservative election law that has no input from the opposition and no input from Elections Canada. They don't have that right, that moral right. They saw that—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Abrogation. Thank you. I appreciate the help.

I imagine that would leave you feeling pretty angry with the world and your government and your justice system.

Given that my motion, Chair, speaks to travel, I thought what I might do is enlighten the committee on exactly how my motion can work, give an example of why it's relevant, and why it's not in any way out of order or to be considered anything other than a legitimate means of looking at this bill.

The government introduced Bill C-15. I'm raising this, Chair, because I am showing that my motion is reasonable, and I am showing that within this year, in the last couple of months, this Parliament has already approved exactly what I'm asking for in my motion. The relevancy is clear.

There is government 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. The short title of that bill is the Northwest Territories Devolution Act.

On December 3, 2013, the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs introduced 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 in the House of Commons, and it was given first reading.

What's interesting is that at various times the government has said about our motion that committees don't travel on bills, that committees travel on studies. For the most part, that is accurate—for the most part. Committees of the House of Commons don't travel as much as I was accustomed to do at Queen's Park, where committees, at least in my day—

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people who are watching may find it curious that the hon. minister, perhaps moved by the sentiments of Valentine's Day, has given me half of his time. Members of the House will find it even more curious to realize that the Green Party alone will be voting against Bill C-15 in this House at third reading, as we did at second reading. I thank the hon. minister for giving me the opportunity to explain our position.

To be clear, the leadership on this bill from the hon. member for Western Arctic is nonpareil. I have no interest whatsoever in suggesting that I criticize his vote in favour of the bill. It is a difficult decision to vote against Bill C-15, and I want to explain why my hon. colleague in the Green Party and I will be doing so.

The first part of the bill is unquestionably important, and we would vote for it. It is long overdue. The devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories, as the hon. minister has mentioned, is right. It was of great benefit to the Yukon when that territory had its powers vested locally. It is about time that we have a devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories.

However, the contentious parts of this bill, as the House will now well know, is that Bill C-15 has inexplicably jammed fundamental changes to the water and resource boards of that region down the throats of first nations.

I want to go through some of the history and background on this to underscore how deeply shocking this should be to Canadians from coast to coast, whether they live in the Northwest Territories or not. These are not mere administrative arrangements, or the product of a bunch of civil servants figuring out what is one board, what is two, and what boards should be consolidated. Rather, these boards are the product of government-to-government negotiations. They are the product of the whole structure of negotiations with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Wek'eezhii, and the Tlicho. These boards are the result of government-to-government negotiations in good faith.

There is a tremendous, unassailable, and incontrovertible body of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada that first nations' rights are inherent and protected in our Constitution, and that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure those rights are not infringed upon. Therefore, if a government wishes to ignore treaty obligations and unilaterally rewrite agreements that have stood for some time, we would have to think there is a crisis of some sort that has brought this administration to run counter to the law, to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Haida, Delgamuukw, and Marshall cases. It is rare in any area of law that we would have so many cases that all say the same thing, which is that the rights of first nations are not a fringe benefit but fundamental to first nations. They are part of our Constitution. It is the obligation of the Crown to protect those rights, those treaties, and ensure that first nations are adequately consulted, particularly in cases of resource development.

That is where I find this bill so extremely disappointing. There is no case to be made that there is something wrong with the way the current boards are working. In fact, it is to the contrary. Many witnesses before the Bill C-15 committee said that the only evidence one can find is with regard to the timeliness and predictability of permit approval through the boards, which this act will unravel, and that they have been more predictable, more timely, and more efficient than other boards of a similar type in the region. In other words, if industry wants predictability and to know that its applications will be dealt with on a timely basis, the status quo is the gold standard.

This proposal is a way to unravel something that is working. It will create an untimely, unpredictable environment for resource applications of all kinds. It is also a fundamental insult, and there is no word I can find other than “insult”, to the notion that the Crown negotiates in good faith.

We had the budget tabled this week, and it made reference, at page 145, to the fact that this administration recently commissioned Mr. Douglas Eyford as a special representative on the issues that affect my constituency a great deal: proposed pipelines and tankers on the west coast. These are opposed by most of the first nations that could be impacted by that development. The budget tells us:

The Government has made public the Special Representative's final report and is closely reviewing the recommendations made in all four areas: building trust, fostering inclusion, advancing reconciliation and taking action.

I do not know how we can have an administration that so clearly talks out of the both sides of its mouth. The Prime Minister did not need to commission Mr. Doug Eyford to tell the administration about the status of first nations' rights in this country. They are constitutionally enshrined. There is a direct relationship with the Crown, going back, in some cases for centuries, but certainly decades, and the law is not unclear.

Mr. Eyford, predictably, told this administration what people know, that we cannot ignore first nations' rights. We cannot approve things and call it consultation, if we merely hold meetings where first nations say they absolutely do not agree.

In this case, it gets even more shocking. The only source of any recommendation to do away with these regional boards was a report made some time ago and referred to generally as the McCrank report. Mr. McCrank made a number of recommendations, and one of them was to restructure the board system. It was one of many recommendations. For some reason, this one, to which the first nations immediately expressed opposition, is the one that has been fast-tracked. The McCrank report also said this:

...a fundamental restructuring...would require the agreement of all parties to amend the comprehensive land claim agreements...

In other words, the very source of the recommendation upon which the contentious and unacceptable parts of Bill C-15 are based came from someone who understood it himself, and who included in the body of his report, “Don't do this over the objections of the first nations themselves”.

These boards are the result of land claims negotiations and they represent the good work of the Crown. We should not come along later with a bill like Bill C-15 and dismantle that over the clear objection of the Tlicho, of the first nations in those communities. The fact is that the boards have worked well.

I want to quote something from a letter from the Tlicho government to the department. This was from last fall. It makes it very clear about what would happen if Bill C-15 goes through. They wrote that under the proposed amendment to the Mackenzie Valley Regional Management Authority, the scenario would be changed:

The connection between First Nations and the regional boards would be substantially eviscerated under the larger board. Additional requests for consultation and environmental assessment, and even judicial review in court of the larger board's decisions, would likely become the norm, thus further undermining the system's predictability and timeliness.

This is where it becomes inexplicable. We have heard that a number of industry groups themselves let this administration know that they had no quarrel with the way the current board system is working. In fact, they praised it. On the empirical evidence, to which nothing has been adduced to suggest there is any dispute on this point, the current board system works. It is timely. It is efficient. And, it is respectful of the first nations on whose territory these developments would go forward.

The hon. minister quoted the diamond mining sector which said that they want to hurry up with things. I have heard nothing from any industry group that suggests they do not feel confidence that the current regime works for them. If there has been behind the scenes lobbying from larger developers who do not want to take the time to be respectful with first nations, then it is not just an option for this administration, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to send those developers packing. The government's obligation under the law, its fiduciary responsibility, is to protect first nations' rights, not gut them, as Bill C-15 would do.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, today is Valentine's Day, so I will share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am honoured to speak to the House in support of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, which will really be a major milestone in the history not only of the Northwest Territories, but also of our great and beautiful country.

As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have travelled across the country and throughout the north. I have talked with the warm and welcoming people who live in that vast, amazing and resource-rich territory.

I cannot overstate how important passing this bill is to the people of the Northwest Territories, the people who live and work in that magnificent place. For decades, the people of the north have been asking us to recognize them and give them the power to make decisions about their lands and their resources.

Canadians know that governance is a key pillar of our government's northern strategy. As the Prime Minister said recently, “We want to be able to see northerners...masters of their own affairs to the same degree that southerners are”. That is the purpose of the bill before the House today: to give northerners more control over their own lives.

With the passage of this bill, the people most affected by decisions will now be the ones to make them. The people with intimate knowledge of local priorities, local opportunities and local challenges will be the ones to have the final word on how public land is utilized, how water resources are managed, how mineral resources are developed and conserved, and how the environment is protected.

I cannot overstate the significance of this change for the ability of the Northwest Territories to determine its own political and economic future, but do not just take it from me.

Premier Bob McLeod, of the Northwest Territories, said it best a couple of weeks ago before members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development during committee hearings in Yellowknife. He described the bill as a game-changer for the people of the Northwest Territories.

He went on to say:

Devolution promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories. Supported by an efficient, effective, and integrated regulatory regime, devolution will give northerners the necessary tools and authorities to responsibly develop the Territories' significant natural resource potential, promote investment and economic development, and manage the land and environment sustainably.

There is no doubt that passage of this legislation would bring substantial new economic opportunities to the Northwest Territories. However, the true benefits of devolution will only be realized through a modern, efficient, and effective regulatory system that would make the Northwest Territories a competitive and attractive place to do business.

That is why this legislation also puts in place an improved regulatory framework for the Northwest Territories that would ensure that resource develop continues in a manner that respects the environment while ensuring the long-term prosperity of the Northwest Territories for generations to come.

To see proof of economic opportunities derived from devolution and regulatory improvement, one need only look west to Yukon. Since achieving devolution in 2003, Yukon has experienced a second gold rush of sorts, with investors and skilled labourers streaming in from around the world to capitalize on the region's rich resources. As a result, the GDP of Yukon has grown every year for the past nine years and has exceeded Canada's rate of national annual growth eight times out of ten. Last year the territory's total GDP was $2.5 billion, up more than $1 billion since devolution.

The Northwest Territories is equally endowed, as we all know, with impressive renewable and non-renewable resources from the Beaufort Sea to the Norman Wells oil field to the diamond mines of the southern Mackenzie Valley. It is no wonder the Conference Board of Canada predicts that the GDP of the Northwest Territories could climb nearly $5 billion, to $9.6 billion, by 2020. The potential is there.

The potential is there, but as former premier of the Northwest Territories, Floyd Roland, told the Norman Wells Chamber of Commerce a couple of years ago, “The thing about potential is that that is all it is...until we take action and realize it”.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has assumed more control over province-like responsibilities, such as highways, housing, health care, and education. The power to manage its land and natural resources is the last step in this long journey.

To quote another great northerner, Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, “It's been a long road to get here, but well worth the trip”.

It has been a long road, and we would not be here today if it were not for the impressive leadership of our Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

Since forming government in 2006, our Conservative government has made the political and economic development of the north one of its key priorities.

Our government has made tremendous efforts, more than any previous government, in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments to get to where we are today. All northerners should be proud of their accomplishments.

As the Prime Minister stated on his annual northern tour in August 2012, “those who want to see the future of this country should look north”.

It is a rare moment that we as parliamentarians are able to participate in such a nation-building moment in Canada’s history and contribute to the culmination of the promise of Confederation. That is what we are being called upon to do here, with the passage of this bill.

I therefore urge all members of this House to join with the people of the Northwest Territories in achieving their political and economic aspirations and pass this bill swiftly into law.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was the Thursday question and a question about what business we will be undertaking.

This afternoon we will continue the second day of debate on economic action plan 2014.

As we learned in Tuesday's budget, and have been hearing in this House in the debate since, our government is on track to balance the budget while keeping taxes low and protecting the programs and services Canadians count on.

Since the global recession, Canada has achieved the best job creation record in the G7, the strongest income growth and one of the best economic performances in the G7.

Economic action plan 2014 builds on this record of achievement with positive measures to grow the economy and help create jobs.

Under the terms of a motion adopted by the House yesterday, the vote on the Liberal subamendment to the budget will be held on the evening of Monday, February 24. The third and fourth days of debate on this year's budget will take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, February 25 and 26.

Of course, those dates follow the upcoming constituency week. However, before we get there, we will debate Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, at third reading tomorrow.

On Thursday, February 27, we will be sitting with a Wednesday schedule because at 11:00 a.m. that morning His Highness the Aga Khan will give an address to both Houses of Parliament, an event that I am sure all hon. members will eagerly anticipate.

That afternoon, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. This bill represents the first comprehensive overhaul of Canada's citizenship laws in a generation.

That day will also be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), for concluding the debate on concurrence on the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Monday, February 24, shall be the fifth allotted day.

Finally, while it is not reflected in Standing Order 28, tomorrow, Friday, is Valentine's Day. To this I say to my wife Cheryl:

Liberals are red,
Conservatives are blue,
this motion is not debatable,
I really love you.

In the spirit of love on Valentine's Day, I wish all the best for everyone, and those who are close to them, here in the House.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from committee, and of Motions Nos. 4 and 5.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of 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 deemed put, recorded divisions deemed demanded and the votes deferred to the end of government orders today.

When C-15 is called for debate at third reading, members rising to speak in the first round may divide their time with another member by so indicating to the Chair and any recorded division demanded on Thursday, February 13, 2014, in relation to proceedings on ways and means Motion No. 6 shall stand deferred to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Monday, February 24, 2014.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we sense the anticipation in the House moments before a minimalist budget is brought down, I am going to talk about the problem with this government, which I would describe as a serial offender, since it keeps making the same type of mistake.

We will support Bill C-15 because it is definitely in the interest of the people of the Northwest Territories. It is important to understand that the bill will re-write the constitution of the Northwest Territories.

Often people do not realize that the territories' situation is quite different from that of the provinces. In fact, the powers held by the territorial authorities are established through federal legislation. Over the decades, the federal government has transferred more powers to the territories, but they needed others and there were discussions.

Like my colleague from Vancouver East, I cannot say I am an expert on the matter. I am glad we have experts in our caucus because when the time comes to review these bills and study them, we rely heavily on our experts including the hon. member for Western Arctic, who has done tremendous work, and all the members of the committee who heard the various witnesses regarding this Bill C-15, for example, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, the hon. member for Manicouagan and the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

Like the hon. member for Vancouver East, I was particularly impressed to see that one meeting lasted nine hours. This allowed the committee to meet many people who will be affected by this type of bill.

I already rose in the House at second reading to speak to the bill. The thing that struck me at the time and that I still find amazing is that implementing this bill will require changes to 42 statutes including the Northwest Territories Act, the Territorial Lands Act, and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

Furthermore, at the November 28, 2013, meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the deputy minister confirmed that the bill would also amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and create an environmental review process for the Northwest Territories, except in the Inuvialuit settlement area. That is significant.

During debate at second reading, we had hoped that the Conservative government would listen and pay attention to the needs of the communities as well as the calls for amendments to the bill. I note that 11 amendments were proposed by the New Democratic Party, none by the Conservatives, five by the Green Party and four by the Liberals. Of these, NDP amendments 1 and 4 were accepted.

I was saying that this is a fairly minimalist government and that the Conservatives are repeat offenders. In fact, every time we go to committee and suggest amendments to improve a bill, more often than not the amendments are rejected. We have committees and meetings, we meet with witnesses, have discussions and listen. Sometimes it feels as though the Conservatives are pretending to listen. In the end, they are not really consulting.

I am always surprised by the Conservatives' use of the term “consultation”, especially when it comes to first nations. We saw the Prime Minister apologize in the House to first nations. That gave hope to many people. I think there is nothing worse than to raise people's hopes or make them think one thing and then, when the time comes to make it count, to hit them over the head again and again.

This morning, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was studying Bill C-10, and we heard the same complaint that was expressed about Bill C-15, which was that the government failed to consult first nations.

I spoke with them about the electoral reform, which is supposedly about integrity, justice and so on. I told the representatives from the great Mohawks of Kahnawake nation that this government believes that consultation simply means talking and sharing thoughts.

However, if we want to pass bills that make sense and will have the desired effect on peoples' lives, we cannot just give people a brief opportunity to share their thoughts. If they have nine hours to voice their concerns, but we do not actually listen to them, nothing positive will come of it.

That does not means that Bill C-15 is bad. We will support it because I presume that it is not entirely bad. However, why is the government always content to create something merely acceptable, instead of trying to create bills that take a stand and that are in line with what most people want?

When consulting Canadians about Bill C-10, the government will be content with a few meetings and with hearing some concerns, but there will not be any real nation to nation negotiation. The same is happening here, according to what we are hearing from some witnesses.

The same is happening with electoral reform: consulting the CEO just means that someone will meet with him and give him the opportunity to share his thoughts. It does not mean that the government told him what it wanted to do and how it wanted to do it, or asked for his opinion. Unfortunately, that is what is at stake here with this type of issue.

I am delighted that the government accepted two of the 11 amendments. I would like to commend my colleagues who are part of the committee, the members for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Manicouagan, Western Arctic and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. Members of many other committees will be jealous of their success, namely getting two of the 11 proposed amendments adopted.

However, I would really like this government to realize that, just because the official opposition puts forward amendments, that does not always reflect negatively on the government’s proposals. It is more about creating legislation that makes sense. Once again, this agreement is going to result in amendments to 42 acts, including the Northwest Territories Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and, the real crux of the issue, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

This government clearly does not give a darn about the environment. Several aspects of this act will have repercussions on the environment and our natural resources. The government would do well to get ahead of the game and prevent problems, so that it does not end up in court for decades again because treaties have not been honoured.

When you do not listen to people or you pretend to listen to them but do not really hear what they are saying, problems arise later. This is what the official opposition, in its great wisdom, often tries to tell this government, which is completely deaf to everything that comes from anywhere else but the little bubble around the Prime Minister.

I know that Bill C-15 is exciting for just about everyone in the House at the moment. It is much more interesting than what we are going to hear for the next 30 minutes, which is not a lot. That will be colourless, odourless and tasteless once more, unfortunately, because this government is a petty government.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off before question period in my speech on Bill C-15.

The NDP will continue to look at the concerns that have been raised about the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That is why we proposed amendments in committee. What the NDP wants most is to ensure that Bill C-15 meets the expectations of northerners, so we will continue to work very hard for them. The NDP firmly believes in a nation to nation dialogue, carried out with the utmost respect.

When people are consulted, they play an important role in the development of their land and resources. A project is more likely to be successful when the community is clearly informed of the steps of the project and its direct and indirect consequences, and when it is able to help improve the project. We have observed that here in Canada, in the context of citizen initiatives, for example. We have also observed it abroad, when a humanitarian project can only be successful over the long term if the local population has given its support to the project and has had its say.

I say that when this Conservative government does as it pleases, when it imposes its vision on municipalities, provinces, territories and northern residents, and when it does no public consultation or impact studies before imposing its reforms, it is completely worn out. It is tired after nine years in power. It is time to move on to other things. That is bad power. The government has to be replaced. People can count on the NDP to replace this government in 2015.

We will do it with the people, with the municipalities, with the provinces, with the territories, with people from the north, the south, the east and the west, people from across the country, from sea to sea.

One thing is for sure: a government that turns its back on a problem instead of facing it is clearly unable to face it. I say that this government is not listening to the people; it is dismissing them in the context of Bill C-15. I say enough is enough.

I think a lot of people will say that enough is enough in 2015 and that it is time to bring Canada into the 21st century. Even though this is the second-largest country in the world, it is not too big.

We can do it with people; we can do it by working with them.

I encourage all Canadians to tell themselves that they deserve better than the rotten Conservative government they have now.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motions Nos. 4 and 5.

Motions in Amendment

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15, which proposes reforming the constitution of the Northwest Territories and amends legislation regarding the creation of boards that govern land and water use in the Northwest Territories.

On December 3, 2013, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-15, which was developed after years of consultation, notably with aboriginal groups, northerners and stakeholders from the territorial governments and the industry.

Bill C-15 is designed to transfer the management of lands and resources in the Northwest Territories to the Government of the Northwest Territories. In addition, Bill C-15 would improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories by removing barriers that hamper private investment, by improving environmental stewardship and by investing in programs that support economic growth and create opportunities for northerners.

This bill is the result of a deep desire to update existing laws and bring them into the 21st century. The last significant devolution to the Northwest Territories took place in the late 1980s, when education, health care, transportation and renewable resources were transferred to them.

Bill C-15 is split into two important and distinct parts. As I mentioned earlier, the first part amends the Northwest Territories Act, which is the territory's constitution. Other laws are amended to implement the Northwest Territories Land and Resources Devolution Agreement.

The people of the Northwest Territories have been trying for decades to get powers similar to the ones that the provinces have. The NDP supports the transfer of these powers and strongly supports the Northwest Territories in its effort to take over federal responsibilities in the north.

I would like to share what the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Robert McLeod, said when the Legislative Assembly approved the agreement:

This Assembly has a vision of a strong, prosperous and sustainable territory. Devolution is the path to that future. Responsibility for our lands and resources is the key to unlocking the economic potential that will provide opportunities to all our residents.

I would also like to take this opportunity to warmly congratulate my colleague from the riding of the Northwest Territories for his excellent work on Bill C-15. I want to share what he had to say about the role the Premier of the Northwest Territories had in concluding the negotiations:

I think one of the great accomplishments of Premier McLeod, with the devolution file, has been to bring many of the first nations on board. Premier McLeod himself is of aboriginal descent and has a great deal of respect among first nations peoples—among all of us in the north—for his...fairness. I think that is something that has helped the devolution file tremendously.

I also want to share a quote from Robert Alexie Jr., the president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, when the agreement was being signed by the Government of Canada and aboriginal leaders in the Northwest Territories. He said, “We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning”.

We completely agree, which is why the NDP strongly supports the devolution of powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories. That government is in a better position to know how its own resources should be used, and it should have the final say. That is something that all the provinces can understand.

According to the agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories will keep 50% of the revenue from resource development on their public lands and the Government of Canada will keep the rest. In addition, the Government of the Northwest Territories will receive $70 million a year in compensation for delivering the programs and services off-loaded by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

The second part of Bill C-15 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act by eliminating the regional land and water boards created through land claim agreements with the first nations. Some first nations have expressed their concerns about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Here is another quote from Robert Alexie Jr., president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, commenting on the council's opposition to the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act:

We have a land-use plan. We have the land and water board. We have a claim. People know the process, and it works very well up here. It's only in the unsettled claim areas that there seems to be concern with the regulatory regimes and the speed with which they process applications, or lack of speed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak again on Bill C-15 at report stage.

We are inching our way to the meaningful devolution of federal powers to the Northwest Territories. Bill C-15 would replace the Northwest Territories Act, implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, as well as other acts, and certain orders and regulations.

In fact, this legislation amends 42 acts that will ultimately allow the Northwest Territories to take greater control of their own destiny, much in the same way that provinces do. It is an important development, which reflects the preparedness of the territory to take on a greater role in their administration and become more financially independent as well.

New Democrats continue to support the idea and have been more than willing to work with the government, and more importantly the people of the Northwest Territories, on this legislation.

The people of the Northwest Territories have been working to gain more province-like powers for decades now. New Democrats stand with them in favour of devolution and fully support the Northwest Territories in taking over federal responsibilities of the north.

As I said when Bill C-15 was heading to committee, there are some items that can be tightened up to address the concerns we heard from our partners in the Northwest Territories throughout this process. It is best that we cross our t's and dot our i's as much as possible, so we can create a strong piece of legislation that makes sense to all involved, as well as an outcome that will be better, not merely acceptable, and will allow the Northwest Territories to grow into a more independent jurisdiction.

We have heard that the pan-territorial regulator for environmental screening of industrial projects is potentially problematic. It does away with a number of regulatory boards and processes that are predictable, as well as known and understood. These are being replaced with a single regulator that will supposedly be more responsive but will also have fewer teeth. This has been very controversial.

We know that the government favours working groups or subcommittees to address more specific concerns, but we do not share their opinion that subcommittees or working groups will have the same strengths as the entities being replaced, such as regional land and water boards.

That is why we are moving that clauses 136 and 137, creating a single regulatory board for lands and waters and eliminating the regional land and water boards, be deleted. We know that this is the wish of the majority of stakeholders who have addressed Bill C-15 and feel the government has to realize that it is the best way to improve this process.

New Democrats are strong supporters of the devolution to give more power and authority to the territorial governments. We have no intention of standing in the way of devolution and are committed to working to make sure that Bill C-15 meets the expectations of northerners. They have waited too long for this.

To that point, we must remind this place that many of the concerns we heard about had to do with the changes to regulatory regimes. With respect to the single regulator, it is important to listen to the dissenting voices. Let me remind the House, once again, of previous comments by the Northwest Territory MLA Bob Bromley. In February 2012, 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.

He added:

...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation.

At the same time, we have to consider how this board will be populated. Given the history of appointments by the Conservative government, it is not surprising that the Conservatives have reserved control over appointments to the environmental review board and also maintained control over the approval of licences.

What we get with that is something like devolution with strings attached, or devolution in name only, if the real power is still dependent on decisions from the minister's desk and his or her hand-picked appointees.

We also have to ask whether this superboard should not fall into place after outstanding land claims have been settled. Is this not a case of reaching further than necessary on one item and not challenging ourselves on another front?

That said, devolution is going to happen, and this will give Northwest Territories residents a greater voice in decisions relating to their economy and environmental protection, even if they do come with strings attached.

If the Conservative government is not prepared to support the changes brought forward by the NDP motion today that reflect the voices of those directly impacted, rest assured, these are matters that the NDP will consider tackling when we form government in 2015.

The NDP recognizes that the proposed legislation before us does some important work that is welcomed as well. The bill would fix the current scheme so that the government of the Northwest Territories would start to receive revenues from resource development and rely less on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. Under the new agreement, it would keep 50% of the revenues collected from resource development on public land, up to a maximum amount that is pegged to its operating cost or gross expenditure base, and the Government of Canada would retain the remainder.

This means that the arrangement would help to generate extra money for the territories other than what is currently provided for by the federal government. However, as we have noted before, it would require resources development to proceed. It is only reasonable for us to assume that development would take place and that those monies would become available.

This is a part of the bill that makes sense, but the strength of certain parts of legislation does not create the authority to ram through the remainder without attempting to tighten up contentious items; otherwise, we would be stuck in a cycle of amending what has been overlooked. As I said, we would be prepared to do that in 2015 when we form the government.

It is true that there is a danger that we could be constantly locked in discussion mode with no action, if it remains the same. However, we have to recognize that it is just as dangerous to consult and ignore.

The Conservative government's ability to listen has been proven to be quite a challenge. It is just as challenging that the voices it is hearing from are not entirely supportive of its initiatives. In those instances, it seems particularly hard for the government to recognize when it does share goals with stakeholders who may have specific criticism or can see a different way to approach that shared goal. That is a shame. I believe it over-politicizes processes and demonizes the voices of honest criticism. We hope that is not the case with stakeholders from the Northwest Territories who can imagine other and better ways to pursue devolution.

To return to the larger concept of devolution, we have to ask ourselves if we are pursuing this in name more than in action. We also have to ask what we want from the process, what a best outcome might and should look like.

We can look at other jurisdictions, as well as the history of devolution in Canada. Surely, the heart of the matter has to do with improving independence and the ability of local populations to control their own lives. To ensure that is the outcome, it is imperative to listen to the voices of people who would navigate the new arrangement that we are debating. This is all the more true for the voices of first nations, who are significant players in this.

Unfortunately for the Conservative government, its record on that front is less than stellar. When people like Jake Heron of the Northwest Territories Métis Nation tells us, and I quote, “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”, we have to understand how that is a red flag in this process.

Also, the lukewarm acceptance of the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which would create the environmental screening process for the Northwest Territories, must be viewed for what they are. They are an acceptance that this is the best they are going to get from this government, and not any ringing endorsement.

We know that the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government, along with other individual first nations, have publicly voiced concerns on these changes to the MVRMA. Therefore, it is possible to view the signatures of the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government on the devolution agreement as being an incomplete endorsement.

With that in mind, we will continue to work on the bill, as members saw today, to make sure that Bill C-15 meets northerners' expectations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the Northwest Territories and its effort to take over certain federal responsibilities in the north, so my speech will focus on some aspects of the devolution of environmental liabilities set out in the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

There is one issue I keep coming back to: environmental liability. We talked about this when the witnesses appeared before the committee. We have already spent several hours on the subject and the legislation before us, namely Bill C-15.

The stakeholders who appeared before the committee mentioned this aspect several times. It raises a red flag. I keep coming back to this issue, but it is also an issue that keeps turning up in many of the pieces of legislation put forward by this government with respect to the relationship between the Crown and the first nations.

When I talk about transferring environmental liabilities, I am, of course, referring to abandoned mine sites and sites that have been contaminated by oil and other pollutants.

There is just such a provision, not in the legislation before us, Bill C-15, but in the agreement it refers to, which is already available. Bill C-15 provides for the creation and implementation of regulations that will govern the relationship between the parties once everything is signed. The agreement mentions the transfer of environmental liabilities.

Once the bill is ratified and the measures implemented, a transfer will take place. The witnesses' versions differed, but the government was supposed to provide the parties with a comprehensive list of all of the abandoned mine sites and contaminated sites that were slated for rehabilitation, which implies a massive injection of funds. We know that rehabilitating contaminated sites and abandoned mine sites can cost millions of dollars, or at least hundreds of thousands.

This reminds me of the situations that arose from the First Nations Land Management Act, which provided for the same kind of transfer of environmental liability and responsibility upon signing.

In the case of the First Nations Land Management Act, it was hundreds of thousands of dollars for sites in Mashteuiatsh. Looking at the specific example of Mashteuiatsh from an empirical perspective, we know that rehabilitation and environmental assessment are very costly. That is why I would like to focus on the concept of transferring environmental liabilities today. Judging from my own experience and my own understanding of the situation, that is the real problem.

I always try to play devil's advocate, that is, to take the opposing position and try to find the flaws in the arguments made. That is quite healthy in a democratic process and in a process of discussion, dialogue, exchange and communication.

Consequently, as part of a strategy based on contradictory principles inherent in justice and administration—this is where my professional background comes into play—it is imperative to forge an argument that will identify elements that could be contentious or present risks that could interfere with the implementation of the planned measures in the short or medium term.

I will introduce the systematic transfer of environmental liabilities in the agreements between the Canadian government and the first nations. In this case, as I mentioned, the agreement states that the federal government retains responsibility for abandoned and contaminated mining sites that were identified prior to ratification of the agreement.

The reason I spoke out in committee was primarily to ensure that an exhaustive list is given to the parties, because I do not want this to be an injurious relationship. However, we must remain lucid and conscious of the fact that sometimes the playing field is not level in negotiations because the government has many lawyers. There is a plethora of government lawyers and, in this case, they were asked to help draft the agreement and the bill we are examining today. Thus, when advising the government, its lawyers ensured that they put the government's interests first.

To come back to that exhaustive list of mining sites and contaminated sites, as soon as that list is given to the government, it will assume the liabilities indicated on that list; in other words, all sites identified prior to ratification will continue to be the responsibility of the Canadian government. However—and this is why the list needs to be exhaustive—if other sites are discovered after the agreement is ratified, it is the parties—in this case, the local governments and band authorities—that will be held responsible for rehabilitating those sites.

I would hope—and this is probably the case—that all parties have received legal opinions as well as a substantial amount of legal advice, but given that the balance of power can sometimes be skewed and that the Canadian government is often in a position of strength and authority, it is crucial to insist on these elements in order to avoid any potentially damaging situations.

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, when these provisions systematically reappear, often the whole thing starts to look more and more like an adhesion contract. An adhesion contract is a contract in which everything is provided and it just needs to be signed. It is a ready-made contract, you could say. It is something that comes up over and over, and lawyers always make sure to have these kinds of clauses and measures arranged. The same kind of measures can be found in the agreement associated with Bill C-15. Basically, certain aspects of the bill are strangely similar to an adhesion contract, since they can be found in other matters specific to the fiduciary relationship between the Canadian government and first nations.

The members in the House will acknowledge the preponderance of the authority exercised by the Northwest Territories regarding the use of its resources. This observation must be clarified, however, in light of the testimony gathered in committee, which tends to demonstrate the influence that the government lawyers have when it comes to drafting legislative tools submitted for our consideration.

Representatives of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, including a panel of lawyers and experts, testified at some recent committee meetings. These experts told us that government lawyers have an influence on—or at the very least, considerable involvement in—the drafting. It is quite possible that the other parties, such as provincial and regional governments, as well as aboriginal communities, may have sought informed legal advice, but we know for a fact that the Canadian government has a whole fleet of highly qualified lawyers. I also want to point out that the legislator is not an individual, but a whole group of people who are assigned to the task. There is probably also a litigation section responsible for challenges of the proposed measures.

All that to say that a fleet of government lawyers were called in to work on this. That is also why I want to put this in perspective, since there may be an imbalance with respect to strength and the prejudicial nature of this whole thing.

Canada is often in a position of strength in relation to the other parties, especially in these kinds of cases. Although I have not been to the Northwest Territories myself, I know that these are remote and isolated communities. They pay astronomical costs for lawyers and legal advisors. I have seen the same thing in my own community. It is often people from outside the community who must travel at a high cost. For example, a return plane ticket for the same day between Uashat and Montreal can easily cost over $2,000. In short, these fees can be huge, in the end. Private parties, in this case the regional governments, but also the aboriginal parties, probably had to pay out of their own pockets for this legal advice. The Canadian government would not have had to do so, since it has its own large staff to answer these questions.

I submit this respectfully.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-15 and to talk to this idea of devolution. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, for his work on behalf of the broader constituents of the NWT. I have to admit that I only had the opportunity to go there once prior to my coming to this place a number of years ago. What a wondrous place the NWT is. It is an absolutely marvellous place.

My colleague from the Western Arctic has been very clear about our support for devolution. Let me give it some context in the sense of where I grew up and came from. Scotland also went through a process of devolution. Devolution by its very nature is a difficult process. It is not simple to devolve powers to another entity. It is just not one of those things--

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we find this bill particularly worrisome when it comes to relations with first nations. That is particularly troubling. This is not just about changing a document; it is about changing our attitude.

I was part of the Standing Committee on Finance, and we heard from witnesses representing first nations and the northern government. The attitude was condescending. They were essentially criticized for costing the government money.

These people came to tell us about the terrible things they were experiencing. The suicide rate in their community was unacceptable, among youth in particular. There was a housing crisis that would never be tolerated here. There were issues with running water. In one of the municipalities, people had to boil their water before using it, and that could last two or three days. People here would never tolerate having to boil their water four days in a row, yet it is common for them. There is clearly an attitude problem.

Powers are being delegated, but not all powers, and especially not economic powers. The government is essentially telling the people that land and resource development will be for their benefit, then it is turning around and saying that that development will help lower the transfer payments they are receiving. If the resources are particularly abundant, the government tells them that it will not be like it is in Alberta. Alberta is getting rich off its own resources, but they will not. That money will go to Ottawa.

This is an important law. It merits debate. Many aspects of this law need to be amended. The major problem with this law is the attitude of the people behind it. I sometimes get the very negative impression that the government does not feel that first nations people are full-fledged Canadians. The government is okay with the fact that they are poor. It is okay with the fact that they do not have the political freedom that we have to control their social, economic and cultural environment.

For a French Canadian, taking that kind of attitude would be like saying that, in the days when our parents were called “white niggers”, low-class French Canadians and other things, the people who insulted them were right. That is why the government clearly must not act like that. There is good reason to ask for amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Clearly, the resources belong to the people living in that area. Those lands should be rightfully theirs. That is obviously not the case.

We often talk about aboriginal issues. This is one such issue. It is the delegation of authority. We have to invite people to sit at the table. In theory, we should invite them through the front door. Unfortunately, I sometimes have the sinking feeling that we are trying to make them go through a maze of legal plumbing. Let me point out that things that get into our homes through the plumbing are generally not welcome.

That is the problem. On the one hand, the government talks about democratic obligations, since we are a democratic country, and on the other hand, the government is trying to give as little as possible. We see this doublespeak in Bill C-15. That is why we think it is essential that this bill be debated and amended.

The current devolution process between Canada and the Northwest Territories seeks to transfer the control of public lands, resources and water rights to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. However, agreements must be put in place. Canada, the Northwest Territories and five of the seven aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories have signed a devolution agreement. Two still need to sign. It is essential to continue this effort so that the agreement benefits first and foremost the people who live on those lands.

All too often, those people are basically considered to cost money; that attitude has to stop. We know that the current government does not like to spend money, especially on people it does not like. Let us not kid ourselves. The government imposes the most obligations on environmentalists, unions and first nations. Cutting red tape is fine for private companies and friends, but certainly not for people who do not think along the same lines as the Conservative government. This double standard is the rub.

The NDP strongly supports the principle of devolving other powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories. These powers should increase as the northern borders come down, as those territories are developed and as the Northwest Passage is increasingly recognized as a game changer.

The development of aviation and air travel was already revolutionary, but it is going to intensify further. Now we will build facilities where workers will routinely go—and this is already the case in many places—for two or three weeks before returning to their town or village for two weeks of vacation. This will continue. We will not try to block this devolution of powers. However, we would like to improve it.

We strongly support this bill at second reading. That does not mean, however, that we do not have some reservations about many aspects of the bill, aspects that need to be improved. The half-done work needs to stop, because this work deserves to be done properly.

In that regard, first nations have expressed some troubling concerns about the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This is like getting a birthday cake and being told there is icing, but it does not come on the cake. This kind of problem is all too common with this government.

We would like to get to the bottom of things for once. There is a problem, so let us take a closer look at it and solve it completely.

These people are Canadian, and we are happy about that. Well, I am happy, in any case. I invite the government to act accordingly regarding these full-fledged Canadian citizens.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague because the support and discussion that has taken place in this House is very valuable to the people in the north right now. It will be a benchmark for the future in how we can deal with some of the issues that would be caused by Bill C-15.

If things had gone differently in the early 1990s, we might have had a single comprehensive claim for the whole Northwest Territories. However, at that time, the federal government made the choice not to proceed with that, and it encouraged the regional claims to develop.

We have now been in a process of developing strong regional aboriginal governments throughout the Northwest Territories. One of the fine examples is Inuvialuit, who still, and will continue to, retain its regional boards in charge of its territory.

How does my colleague think that this change being proposed could cause an imbalance in the system in the Northwest Territories?

We have gone forward with regional boards. We still have one regional board. However, the proposed system would very much be out of balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the NDP amendments to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I want to start on a personal note, my own observations of the glacial progress toward devolution and self-government in the Northwest Territories.

My first job out of university was with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and this was some 40 years ago when the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was appointed by the Prime Minister and acted as a colonial governor of the north. I lived there for two years, working as the deputy registrar of vital statistics and the superintendent of treaty Indian band membership. That gave me the privilege of working with first nations all across the Northwest Territories at that time. I got to know the young and emerging leaders, at that time, who are now the chiefs of the Northwest Territories.

It was also the time that the first proposal for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was made. At that time, nations were asking for time to get themselves organized to do the training they needed to organize their own government, so they could respond to development projects. What we now see, some 40 years later, is that they do have that capacity to manage their own affairs and are really asking that the federal government respect the agreements they reached with the federal government in terms of local development boards. That is why the leader of the NDP moved the amendments today, to remove the two sections that would undercut the whole purpose of devolution and self-government progress in the Northwest Territories.

When I left the NWT, I returned to UBC to do graduate work in political science, and I actually wrote my M.A. thesis on government and politics in the Northwest Territories and the contradictions that existed at that time between the colonial system and the desire for self-government among first nations in the north.

Staying on the personal note for just a while longer, after teaching for a few years I came to work for the NDP leader at the House of Commons in 1981, and I was attached to the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Self-Government. Once again, I was privileged to work with first nations all across the country in what resulted in the Penner report, which was the seminal report on self-government 30 years ago and which argued that there needed to be a firm economic basis for first nations self-government, and there needed be to recognition, which subsequently came in the Constitution, of the inherent rights of aboriginal people.

We have made some progress in terms of rights, and first nations have made lots of progress in terms of their capacity. However, we have been very slow in taking that through to a devolution of the Government of the Northwest Territories and coming up with a truly democratic processes in Canada's north.

Since that time I have only been an observer, living in a province, as most Canadians do, where there is full self-government and where there is local input into the important resource development decisions. Therefore for me, it is very frustrating to have Bill C-15 before us today in its present form. No one disputes that there are very good things in this bill and that devolution of the powers over resources to the Northwest Territories government would provide the basis for long-term economic security in the north. Devolution is supported in the north, and it is supported by all parties here in the House.

The arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was working both academically and as a researcher on this, were always made that the Northwest Territories was not really financially self-supporting and, therefore, was not really entitled to self-government. Of course, at that time and to this day, resource revenues from the north were assigned to the federal government. In fact, if we went back to the 1970s and assigned those resource revenues as they would have been in a province, then the Northwest Territories was equally as self-supporting as were any of the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. However, those resource revenues go directly to the federal government to this day.

The last time we had a transfer of responsibilities in the north was in the 1980s, when the Government of the Northwest Territories took over education, health care, transportation, and renewable resources like forestry and wildlife. It has been very successful in running a normal democratic government in the north. Now we have had a 20-year delay before we are prepared to make the transfer of those remaining responsibilities over the natural resources to the NWT. Therefore, this bill does a very positive thing, saying that, yes, now public lands and resources and waters would be governed by the Government of the Northwest Territories and 50% of the resource revenues for resource development of public lands would go to the Government of the NWT. It is not 100%, but a deal has been struck here where 50% would go to the Government of the Northwest Territories in return for an ongoing transfer by the federal government, which has probably been accepted by the north as providing some kind of resource stability, because we know that resource revenues can be quite volatile.

Unfortunately, we have another situation here like ones we have seen many times in the House of Commons. Whenever the Conservatives claim to be rolling out the red carpet, we have to take a close look for the tacks that are underneath that carpet before walking down it happily.

Here the red carpet is devolution. The tacks that are under the carpet are the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That is why the Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the member for Western Arctic, proposed to remove sections 136 and 137 from the bill this morning. It would take out those tacks that have been hidden in the bill.

As many speakers have pointed out, these two sections would take the four regional resource management boards—I should say three boards and the one board for those regions that do not have land claim settlements—and it would collapse them into one board. Then all the decisions on land and water use in the Northwest Territories, apart from those lands that are under the Inuvialuit settlement act, would fall under a single board.

That board would replace regional boards created under land claims settlements that were signed by the Sahtu, the Tlicho, and the Gwich'in first nations, signed in good faith by both parties at the time. Why try to replace those regional boards, which give local voice in development projects, with one superboard now?

It is not really clear where this idea came from. In reviewing the hearings, testimony, and consultations, we see it is not an idea that seemed to come from the north. It is an idea that is apparently modelled on what goes on in Alberta, in terms of approval of resource projects. It is certainly not something that anyone in the north asked for.

Now we are in the situation where, in order to get devolution, the Government of the Northwest Territories has had to agree to an act that includes these changes.

This morning we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development arguing that regional boards somehow interfere with resource development, but if we actually look at the facts we see the system seems to be working quite well. In the last year, both exploration activity and resource revenues in the Northwest Territories were up.

More importantly, regional boards work in respecting local rights and in building local support, which is essential for the long-term success of regional development projects.

For me, Bill C-15 illustrates, once again, the failure of the Conservatives in terms of trust and respect for local people, and trust and respect for first nations.

First nations have waited for many years for the rest of us to recognize and respect their rights, and to recognize that this respect for aboriginal rights is essential to achieving our common goals as Canadians. If we want to move forward together, we have to actually do it together as equal partners.

In these two sections of this bill, Conservatives are also demonstrating their failure to trust local residents. Local residents will support sustainable development of resource projects, but they will do so only when they provide family-supporting local jobs and at the same time respect the long-term needs of their communities, whether those are economic needs, environmental needs, social needs, or cultural needs.

In my province, we have just received the report from the joint review panel on the northern gateway pipeline. I was privileged to attend some of those hearings in Kitimat, where first nations and local residents came forward expressing their concerns about the long-term impacts of this project on their community and expressing their very strong feeling that, in fact, there were not enough jobs being created at the local level to justify the threat to existing jobs in fishing, hunting, and tourism.

I think the point here is a parallel one. Having one panel at a national level to review the northern gateway pipeline is similar to what the Conservatives are proposing for the Northwest Territories, one panel to look at the whole region.

While devolution has been long delayed and we would all like to support it, it is disturbing that it has been combined in this case with changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This could result in court challenges that would further delay the devolution that we would all like to see.

More seriously, it also demonstrates a fundamental disrespect for the land claims agreements that were signed with the Sahtu, the Gwich'in, and the Tlicho in the Northwest Territories. I would like to see us finally reach a position in this country where we recognize the necessity of moving forward as equal partners with first nations in every respect and with full respect for the agreements we signed with them, not to later try to reinterpret them according to some other definition of the words that were included.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-15. I will not give the bill's full title because I only have 10 minutes, but essentially we are talking about Northwest Territories devolution and changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

I want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Western Arctic. He has clearly outlined the NDP position on this and has indicated that the NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the Northwest Territories' taking over federal responsibilities in the north. As well, the NDP and the member for Western Arctic have acknowledged that the NWT knows best how its resources ought to be used, and that ultimate authority should rest with the Northwest Territories.

However, as we have heard, in typical Conservative fashion, instead having a straightforward, clean bill, we have one where they have inserted changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That is where the most opposition in the NWT has come from. I am going to spend my brief time talking about the opposition to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and am going to refer to it as the MVRMA.

My colleague from Victoria has quoted from the article “Devolution dishonoured” from Monday, February 10's NWT News/North, so I am not going to quote from it extensively. However, I want to start my remarks with this. The article said:

While devolution is undeniably good for the NWT, what the GNWT is losing in return—regional input, trust and co-operation, not to mention political integrity—tarnishes the accomplishment.

It goes on to say:

The regional boards, by all accounts, worked with industry and bolstered public confidence that development was being done to the benefit of the people affected.

Those are critical comments because much has been made about the need to improve regulatory management, yet in the testimony before committee and in other comments submitted in written briefs, it appears that the regulatory management under these regional boards was working.

I want to refer to a letter of January 20 to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs from the Tlicho. In their conclusion they say:

C-15 will unravel the advances in reconciliation that have been made between Canada and the Tlicho people over the past two decades. Canada has failed to recognize the unique constitutional reality in the NWT created by land claims agreements. It cannot legislate in a manner that is inconsistent with these modern treaties. This is not just about “consultation”. It is about ensuring that legislative choices are constitutionally sound and do not breach constitutionally protected treaty rights or undermine the purpose and intent of our Agreement.

When we see comments like this, we wonder about the section 35 analysis that may or may not have been conducted by the government and what that analysis might have indicated about potential breaches of agreements that have been signed. I was one of the fortunate people who was in the House when the Tlicho agreement was passed. It was a great day for Canadians. However, when we continue to see the spirit and intent of these agreements undermined by future legislation, it does raise some concerns about the government's attention to the spirit and intent of these agreements.

I want to read from the brief that was provided by Alternatives North and Ecology North on January 17. I want to read from it because it outlines very clearly the concerns about the proposed changes to the MVRMA. It talks about the legislative foundation and states:

The political and legislative base for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is co-management of the NWT's lands and waters, through an integrated regional- and territorial-level system of environmental planning and assessment and regulatory review....

This integrated co-management model arises from federal commitments made in the Sahtu and Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements in the early 1990s. The current version of the MVRMA (1998/2005) states in its preamble that “the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement require the establishment of land use planning boards and land and water boards for the settlement areas [i.e. regional boards] referred to in those Agreements and the establishment of an environmental impact review board for the Mackenzie Valley, and provide as well for the establishment of a land and water board for an area extending beyond those settlement areas....

It goes on to say that the following:

The relationship between the regional land and water boards and the territorial land and water board is clearly articulated in the land claims agreements and in the MVRMA. Section 24.4.6(b) of the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992), section 25.4.6(b) of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993), and, subsequent to the enactment of the MVRMA section 22.4.3 of the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement (2003) all state that where a territorial board is established that also has jurisdiction within the respective settlement areas, the regional boards become 'panels' of the territorial land and water board, which is how the system currently operates.

The brief continues:

In essence, this integrated co-management model, since Its legislative inception, has embraced regional planning boards, regional land and water boards/panels, an environment impact review board, and a territorial land and water board through which the regional boards/panels operated. The model also includes an adaptive management component through section 148 of the MVRMA, which calls for an independent environmental audit every five years to assess environmental trends and the integrity of the environmental management system.

The integrated co-management system, founded in land claims agreement legislation in the MVRMA and actualized through public government institutions, has operated successfully for over a decade in the Mackenzie Valley, to the benefit of all NWT residents.

It goes on to outline a number of other issues. However, I know that my time is short so I want to touch on a couple of problems that were highlighted in this document. They are under the section entitled “Problematic Amendments to the MVRMA”.

The first issue it touches on is the board/panel restructuring. It states:

First, the proposed amendments to the Preamble of the MVRMA is a significant reinterpretation of the Gwich'in and Sahtu Land Claim Agreements, and therefore the Tlicho agreement, in that it drops a key phrase. Instead of stating that “[these Agreements] require the establishment of land use planning boards and land and water boards for the settlement areas...”...the amended Preamble states that the Agreements “require the establishment of land use planning boards for the settlement areas”.

Canada has essentially unilaterally reinterpreted the intent and scope of these agreements by reneging on its commitment to regional boards. This is an important point because it is where people are suggesting that there could be court challenges because of that unilateral attempt to reinterpret these agreements signed in good faith by all parties.

Second, the definition management area in section 51 of the current act where it refers to the respective land claim settlement area is being repealed on page 100. This amendment means that Canada and the MVRMA no longer recognize the distinct nature of settlement areas within the NWT. We often talk about how important local and regional control is, and this repeals that provision.

Third, sections 54 through 57(2) and 58 through 68 of the current act, which establish and define the role of the Gwich'in, Sahtu, and Wek'eezhii land and water boards, are replaced by sections that consolidate land and water management roles and authorities in a centralized Mackenzie Valley land and water board. These amendments dislocate land and water management authorities from their respective land claims regions and diminish the sense of ownership and engagement that aboriginal regions currently have in land and water use decisions.

Fourth, section 54(2) of the amended act establishes an 11 member central board, with one member each nominated by the concluded land claims regions, two members nominated by the unsettled land claims region, two members nominated by the territorial government, and three members, excluding the chairperson, appointed by the federal minister. It goes on to say that this grants the federal minister the right to unilaterally appoint the chairperson, which is not currently the case, where the board member is nominated chairperson for appointment.

Section 56 of the amended act calls for the project panels of three members to be determined by the federally appointed chair, which may or may not include a member from the region in which a project is to occur. In that very piece itself we could have decisions being made for a region without any representation from that region. That just does not seem a logical way to proceed, particularly when this act is being sold as involving more northern control.

Finally, one of the concerns raise is increased ministerial authority. It states:

Given that the MVRMA amendments are contained in Bill C-15, which has been put forward as a bill to implement the devolution of land and water management authorities to the [GNWT], it is baffling how certain sections of Part 4 of Bill C-15 result in increased authority for the federal government at the cost of territorial and Aboriginal government authority and/or the authority of northern boards! This appears to be devolution in name only, but not in practice.

That is a good place to conclude.

Although, as the member for Western Arctic has rightly pointed out, New Democrats support devolution, the MVRMA undermines that process by taking away the regional responsibilities that have been working well over the last decade.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on Bill C-15, a very important piece of Canadian constitutional legislation. The bill would amend the Northwest Territories Act. We sometimes forget the importance of some of these foundational statutes. The NWT Act is essentially part of the Constitution of Canada, and we are amending it through this legislation.

Not long ago, in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation had a change made by a statute in England called the British North America Act. That is just another statute. This is just another statute. However, it has incredibly important ramifications for the people of the Northwest Territories, and therefore for all of Canada.

I want to start by saluting the work of the premier of the NWT, Mr. McLeod, for his negotiations and his patience in negotiating an arrangement with the Government of Canada. While I am at it, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, who has shown remarkable leadership in this entire process in educating some of us southerners about what this means to people who live and work in the NWT.

I want to start with those words of congratulations. I also want to echo something my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands said. She used an adjective to characterize her reaction to this important initiative, and that was the word “disappointed”. We must be disappointed at a bill that had such promise, which could have brought us all together in support of this remarkable enterprise of devolution. I agree with much of what the Conservatives have said, including the parliamentary secretary, who talked about the remarkable impact of a bill like this on economic development, jobs, and the future of the NWT.

Therefore, why would I be disappointed? I am disappointed that the government has seen fit to essentially ignore the wishes of aboriginal partners in the NWT, the Tlicho, the Sahtu, the Gwich'in peoples, who all want the regional boards that exist there and appear to function well. They were created as part of co-management, as part of a land claims agreement. They are part of a constitutional fabric that has been negotiated in modern times. They are disappointed that they are being replaced by a superboard.

Therefore, instead of being here and joyously celebrating an event that is important in our constitutional history, what we are doing today, as my friend said, is expressing disappointment in the government for once again doing what our leader, the hon. member for Outremont, characterized as “bundling”. I did not say “bungling”; I said “bundling”. It bundled things that we would traditionally all want to support, to stand and salute, with measures that are poison pills, to use a word that my colleague from Surrey North used earlier in this debate. That is why I am disappointed. This could have been a joyous event, but in fact it is a disappointing one.

I have seen those examples in recent weeks in this Parliament. I have seen how, in the safe injection bill, the government managed to find a way to oppose that, and, of course, in the unfair elections bill that was debated yesterday where closure was invoked. That is another example where Conservatives have put some nice measures in that we would love to support, but then they spoil it with things that no sensible parliamentarian could support if they believe in fair elections.

Therefore, I am anxious to see why the government feels it can disrespect aboriginal leaders in this way and expect us to support such an initiative. Do not take my word for it; I am not making this up for rhetorical purposes. On November 18, 2013, Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, of the Tlicho First Nation in the NWT, said this in a letter written to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:

As your treaty partner, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the path Canada is currently on in relation to the MVRMA [Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act] amendments. ...Canada is proceeding with an approach that is inconsistent with a proper interpretation of provisions in our Agreement and will constitute a breach of our Agreement and the honour of the Crown. This would result in the MVRMA being constitutionally unsound and of no force and effect to the extent that it breaches our Agreement. Canada's current approach will also damage our relationship and create regulatory uncertainty.... We hope this does not come to pass. There is a better way to move forward.

That is exactly so. There is a better way to move forward than to bundle such unpopular and unnecessary legislation into a bill that deals with something so fundamental: namely, devolution.

What is devolution? What would be the impact of this? Essentially, the NWT would keep half of its resource royalties, without losing federal transfers, up to a total of 5% of its budget expenditures. It would get some of the powers that provinces have. It would become a more representative government, a more democratic government, with the resources to do what is needed to meet its demands in the NWT.

Those royalties are just part of what would go on in this kind of initiative. Of the three northern territories, only the Yukon controls its own resources; Nunavut negotiations are still ongoing. This kind of initiative, as I am told, would allow the territory to reap about $65 million a year from resource royalties. There is about 18% of that which would be transferred to the five aboriginal governments that signed on. Ottawa would send another $65 million to the NWT to compensate for the cost of those responsibilities, including the salaries of federal bureaucrats who would go to the NWT payroll.

The concept of devolution was originally agreed to in October 2010. Here we are, in 2014, about to pass, perhaps, an initiative that is long overdue.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who said earlier in this debate that we need a robust resource regulatory system and better land management regimes or the developers would not be coming to create jobs and economic opportunity in that territory.

However, I am told by my colleague from Western Arctic that when we had committee hearings recently in Yukon, the overwhelming desire was to leave the resource regulatory boards in place. That is something that needs to be emphasized.

In emphasizing that, I want to read from an editorial in the NWT News, which was apparently written yesterday, about this very arrangement that we are talking about. It says a number of things, but let us talk about the superboard that the current government insists on making part of this initiative, the poisoned pill that I mentioned earlier.

The editorial in yesterday's NWT News states:

Whether Ottawa has the right to create a super board in the NWT is Irrelevant. What matters is three groups of people fought hard for the right to self-government and negotiated in good faith for the right to help shape decisions at the regional level. They have been abandoned by their government.

Accepting the linkage[s] of the two distinctly different legislative bills affecting the NWT betrays the Sahtu, [the] Tlicho and [the] Gwich'in governments who all worked with the [Government of the NWT] until they had built the trust to sign onto the devolution. The Gwich'in went so far as to drop a lawsuit that might have held up the deal.

It goes on to say:

While devolution is undeniably good for the NWT, what the [Government of the NWT] is losing [in return]--regional input, trust and co-operation...--tarnishes the accomplishment.

Worse, this so-called super board is nothing more than a public relations move to placate the global, cash-starved mining industry at the expense of Northerners.

I want to salute the government for finally negotiating a devolution agreement, which is so critical to our country, for the constitutional change it would make to our country. However, I wish it would reconsider what the northerners want them to reconsider, which is the creation of an unnecessary superboard.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his question.

In fact, his question deals with an extremely important point. It has to do with the way the Conservatives draft their bills. The vast majority of members, if not all the members of the House, probably agree that Bill C-15 is a good bill overall.

However, the Conservatives have added sections to this bill that do not have unanimous support and that raise deep concerns in our society, particularly among the people who will be directly affected by Bill C-15. The bill addresses major issues, such as the development of our natural resources in the north and the transfer of powers.

Nonetheless, the failure to understand the regional reality and the merging of the regional boards that manage natural resources in the Northwest Territories pose a serious problem. We need to recognize our mistakes because that is how we make good laws.

That is why we are asking that those two parts be dealt with separately. For once, let us create a piece of legislation on which everyone agrees and let us act in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15.

Before I begin, I would like to thank two people who worked extremely hard on this bill. First of all, I wish to thank our leader, the hon. member for Outremont, for his support and for listening to the Government of the Northwest Territories, the groups affected by these changes and first nations groups. The hon. member for Outremont moved an extremely important motion today concerning clauses 136 and 137 of the bill. I will come back to this point.

I would also like to extend sincere thanks to my hon. colleague from Western Arctic for the incredible job he has done. He has done an enormous amount of work, both in committee and during consultations with the affected groups. This issue is very important to the member; it affects him personally, since he represents the Northwest Territories. He was born there and knows this file very well. My colleague from Western Arctic is truly committed to representing his constituents, which he does admirably, and I thank him for his work.

The NDP believes in a fairer, greener and more prosperous world. We believe in the fair, sustainable and responsible use of our natural resources. The NDP believes that we can create better bills by consulting and listening to the public and to interest groups. We also believe that the best way to work with the first nations is to adopt a nation to nation attitude and approach—not a paternalistic approach.

When the NDP forms the government in 2015, we will honour the existing international treaties. That is why we take Bill C-15 very seriously. Today, the leader of the NDP moved motions to delete clauses 136 and 137 of Bill C-15 so that they can be examined separately from the bill.

No one here is against virtue, and almost everyone agrees that Bill C-15 generally makes sense. That is why we would like to separate clauses 136 and 137. We have some concerns with these clauses, as do the people who will be affected by Bill C-15.

We want to ensure that Bill C-15 meets the expectations of northerners, among others, and we will address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the Conservatives' plan to include changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Indeed, the problem with Bill C-15 is precisely the part regarding the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

What are clauses 136 and 137? I want to talk about them for the benefit of the Canadians who are watching today's debate in the House. These clauses would create a single land and water regulatory board and would eliminate the regional land and water boards. All of the land and water boards would be merged to create a single board. The Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories is very concerned about this, since the existing boards work very well. I want to share something that Bob Bromley, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, said in February 2012:

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.

Existing land and water boards in the Northwest Territories are working well. He is not the only person to have expressed concerns.

Later, I would like to quote others who are concerned about these provisions in Bill C-15.

Today in the House, we are wondering why we cannot debate these provisions separately. That is why our leader, the member for Outremont, moved a motion to delete them from Bill C-15, to study them thoroughly, to undertake appropriate consultations with the people who will be affected in the Northwest Territories and with first nations communities, and to adopt a nation to nation approach to these changes. We must listen to northerners' concerns about clauses 136 and 137.

The New Democrats want to delete these provisions from the bill, vote unanimously for Bill C-15, and pass the rest of the measures in Bill C-15 separately.

I also want to say that we, the NDP, strongly support devolution of other powers to the territorial governments. That is extremely important. I am from a province, not a territory, so I live in a place that has more powers than the territories. Honestly, when I found out that the Northwest Territories did not manage its own natural resources, I was a little surprised.

I would like to go into more detail about how it works with the provinces. For decades, people in the Northwest Territories have been trying to get more province-like powers. The NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the Northwest Territories in taking over some federal responsibilities in the north. The Northwest Territories knows best how its resources ought to be used, and ultimate authority should rest with it.

This is so important. It makes complete sense for the NWT to control its own natural resources.

I am pretty young, and not long ago, I completed an undergraduate degree in political science and environmental geography. During my early university years, I did an internship with Quebec's department of natural resources and wildlife in Mont-Laurier. I would like to say hi to the folks in Mont-Laurier.

That experience changed my life. I had the chance to work on different projects for an entire summer. Among other things, I worked on natural resource management, chiefly with regard to land, forests, lakes and the fishery. It was a wonderful experience and I learned a great deal. The thing that struck me the most during that experience is how respectful the people who work in natural resources are. The people I worked with had the onerous task of implementing new legislation. This meant taking a completely different management approach to forests, with regard to logging. They took this extremely seriously. I witnessed the implementation of this legislation, and I saw how the workers and the scientists worked together to fully respect the natural resources. The fact that it was the province that managed this directly changed many things in the overall approach to managing the land. I completely understand the concerns that the people of the Northwest Territories have when it comes to how their natural resources are managed, and I support them.

In closing, I would like to say that all the NDP members deeply respect the first nations' desire to manage their natural resources responsibly. It is also important to take a nation to nation approach when dealing with the first nations that will be affected by the various clauses of this bill. This is important to building a world that is more just, more green and more prosperous. Unfortunately, the Conservatives missed something in the consultation on clauses 136 and 137.

I must say that I am against an approach as paternalistic as the one used in these sections. At the same time, I fully agree with the provisions on access to natural resources and their management.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again that the government does not actually know what consultation with indigenous peoples means, whether it is on Bill C-15 or other pieces of legislation that affect indigenous people directly.

What we are talking about here is preventing parts of a piece of legislation that directly disrespect first nations and inherent rights. This is not an issue that is secondary. If we are going to support a proper avenue to devolution, it must include respect for treaty and inherent rights, with respect to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and with respect to the position of first nations in the NWT vis-à-vis the federal government.

We in the NDP believe this is a critical point. It is a non-negotiable point. It connects to our principle, the principle that is very clearly not held by the Conservative government, which is that first nations and aboriginal rights must be respected.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak to the bill, an important bill for our team.

I also want to acknowledge the very hard work of my colleague and friend, the member for Western Arctic. I have had the opportunity to work with him for a number of years, in fact since I was first elected to this House just over five years ago. As a northerner myself, I have always admired his commitment to the people of his territory and, more broadly, to the people of the north. He and I have found common ground on many issues, or perhaps it is that the bond tying all of us from the north together is the recognition that northern people must have control over what is theirs, over their territories, over decisions that matter to them, over their government.

I know very well that this same notion has guided the work of the member for Western Arctic, day in and day out in the House, and also on this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-15. As a northerner and a northern member of Parliament, I know the importance of working with first nations, not just working with them in a symbolic way but respecting their rights, their treaty rights and inherent rights as aboriginal peoples, and that their rights, including their right to self-government, are instrumental in guiding the work of the federal government.

This is not simply something that we recognize on paper. This is someone we enact in our work, certainly in our party, and which guides us in our work on the ground. I know that to be the case in my province of Manitoba.

What it also means is speaking truth when legislation comes to the House that disrespects those very rights. I wish I could say that Bill C-15 was the first example of the federal government turning a blind eye to treaty and inherent rights, but it is not. We have seen piece after piece of legislation going after those rights, disrespecting them and the absolute centrality of consultation with first nations. Once again, unfortunately, we are seeing this unfold with Bill C-15.

The member for Western Arctic, our leader, and NDP members of Parliament have said that devolution is absolutely necessary. For years the Northwest Territories has worked for this goal. People have worked hard and the people of the Northwest Territories deserve what so many other Canadians and northern Canadians have, which is a say in their destiny, in their future.

However, Bill C-15, as it stands, also neglects a very important relationship between the crown and first nations directly. Unfortunately, if Bill C-15 passes, the treaty rights of first nations in the NWT, the aboriginal rights of aboriginal people in the NWT, would not have the same kinds of protection and recognition as others, and certainly as they ought to have.

It is not our saying this. The member for Western Arctic is representing people in his constituency, people like Jake Heron from the Métis nation, who, speaking on the consultation process, said:

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.

Gabrielle Mackenzie Scott from the Tlicho government said:

Our key message to AANDC is that there is nothing wrong with the system, and it needs time to grow and improve.

Bob Bromley, an MLA, said:

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.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard people from the Gwich'in Tribal Council commenting on their opposition to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act. They said:

We have a land-use plan. We have a land and water board. We have a claim. People know the process, and it works very well up here. It's only in the unsettled claim areas that there seems to be concern with the regulatory regimes and the speed with which they process applications, or lack of speed.

John B. Zoe, the senior advisor to the Tlicho government, also commented on the lack of consultation:

We’re saying we should have a deeper involvement and have a say and have our voices heard on what those changes are, because that’s a three-party agreement that was made in 2005.

It is clear that accepting the linkage of the two distinctly different legislative bills affecting the Northwest Territories betrays important first nations.

I want to relate a news story from the Northwest Territories yesterday. It notes that the agreement in this form betrays the Sahtu, Tlicho, and Gwich'in governments, who all worked with the government of the Northwest Territories until they had built the trust to sign onto devolution.

We have the power to stop that betrayal. We have the power and the federal government have the power to deviate from this pattern that the Conservative government has undertaken, that governments before it have undertaken, frankly, since colonization: that the federal government knows best and that the rights of first nations and aboriginal people are secondary, and that if they are disrespected, it is okay.

I am proud to be part of the NDP, which represents many northern people across our country. Our party believes that treaty rights and inherent aboriginal rights not only must be respected but also must guide our work every step of the way. Full consultation is key to coming up with any legislation that would affect indigenous people's futures. We do not tolerate the paternalistic approach of the Conservative government.

While we recognize that everyone in the House agrees that devolution must happen, and in a timely way given the tremendous amount of work that the leaders and people of the Northwest Territories have done, this cannot preclude the work we must do in respecting first nations and their inherent rights.

We are asking that devolution go forward with the exception of the parts of the bill that directly impose on first nations and their inherent rights. We should do better, help create a system of devolution, and support the kind of devolution that everyone in the Northwest Territories wants, and not just some people but everyone, including having first nations at the centre of this system.

I am very honoured to have been able to speak to the bill. I am very honoured to stand in this House and represent northern people who deserve nothing more than to be heard, to have their rights respected, and to have control over their destiny in our country.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15, an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act.

I want members of the House and people who are watching today, especially those in the Northwest Territories, to know that the member for Western Arctic has been a vocal advocate for the Northwest Territories. He is a native, and that shows in his commitment to the people of the Northwest Territories. He has been vocal in bringing their views into the House and addressing some of their concerns, unlike the Conservatives, who have failed to listen to all of the stakeholders that have voiced their concerns in regard to this legislation.

Bill C-15 would transfer more powers to the Northwest Territories. The provinces already look after their resources and their waters. This legislation would amend the Northwest Territories constitution to allow it to make decisions on local interests.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said that the bill is holding hostage the development of resources in the Northwest Territories. My question for him is: What has taken the government so long? The Conservatives have been in government for eight years. They are the ones who are creating this uncertainty. They could have brought in this devolution legislation a while ago, but they chose not to do that. We on this side of the House totally agree with the Northwest Territories on transferring power in regard to managing its own resources.

There is usually a little caveat in each bill that the Conservative government brings in. There is also a caveat in this legislation. This movie has been played over and over again. The government brings in a bill containing a few good things, but there are also a few poison pills in it. This legislation is similar.

People in the Northwest Territories want proper devolution. A lot of people in the Northwest Territories are not too pleased about the proposed changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Of course they want devolution transfer of powers to make local decisions, and that makes sense. We agree with that. We agree with people in the Northwest Territories. We have been advocating for the transfer of more powers to the territories so it can make decisions with local input in its development.

Making one trip a year to the Northwest Territories does not mean the Northwest Territories are being looked after. The Conservatives have had the last eight years to bring this legislation forward, but they did not do that. We are glad that they have finally got it together.

This particular bill would basically transfer administrative powers to control of public lands, resources, and rights in respect of waters in the Northwest Territories. There is huge support among the government of the Northwest Territories, first nations, and Métis groups. They wanted this transfer of powers many years ago, and we are glad the government is going to do that.

People in the Northwest Territories are concerned about the proposed changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Their regional boards work very well and make local decisions. This bill would dissolve those local boards and put in a superboard that would look after the Northwest Territories.

I would like to quote from a number of people who have expressed concern about the proposed changes to the MVRMA.

Bob Bromley, MLA, in February 2012 pointed out, “The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional”. He went on to say that “a single board does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation”.

Again, we have seen over and over that when this House makes changes to laws, makes laws, or has legislation in front of it, our responsibility is to consult the stakeholders, to bring in experts and people who are going to be affected. We listen to them, and we make proper legislation that would have maximum benefit for Canadians.

We have seen over and over again where Conservatives fail to consult their stakeholders, people who are going to be affected by particular legislation, and that is the case with this legislation, especially in regard to the changes that would be made to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Over and over we have heard from the hon. member for Western Arctic who has spoken up for the people of Northwest Territories, that the people on the ground were not sure whether the changes to this act were going to be made by two bills: to have the devolution bill, transfer of powers in regard to resources and management control over administration in one bill; and then look at changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act separately. Yet, the Conservatives chose not to do that.

I have to hand it to the Conservatives here because they usually do not like amendments. I have seen thousands of amendments from the opposition parties being defeated in various different bills. With this particular bill, the Conservatives accepted two NDP amendments and that is because of the hard work of the hon. member for Western Arctic. As I have said, he speaks up for people from the Northwest Territories. We have seen the Conservatives not wanting to make changes that people on the ground want. We have introduced a couple of amendments at the report stage that we would like to see Conservatives support, so they can listen to the very people on the ground who are demanding these changes be made. I am hoping my Conservative colleagues will look at those changes.

There are others who have validated in support of devolution, and which we support and have encouraged the government to transfer these powers. Again, it has taken the Conservatives eight years to get to this point, to make these changes, and we support those because those changes would allow for decisions to be made at a local level, that will have local input, that will provide stability. Of course, it would provide stability for resource development in the Northwest Territories.

Here is a quote from Robert McLeod, the Premier of the Northwest Territories. He is supportive of devolution. He said:

This Assembly has a vision of a strong, prosperous and sustainable territory. Devolution is the path to that future. Responsibility for our lands and resources is the key to unlocking the economic potential that will provide opportunities to all our residents.

He said this in June 2013 in the legislative assembly. Of course this will provide for prosperity for the Northwest Territories, and the NDP has been advocating for the people of the Northwest Territories.

I encourage my hon. colleagues across the aisle to support the amendments that we are proposing so that the people of the Northwest Territories can see a change, can see sustainability, can see resource development, and can have their voices heard in this House.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill, a bill that affects my life, the life of my children, the life of my grandchildren, and the lives of all my friends and relatives who live in the Northwest Territories. The bill is part of our life, and we are the only ones who really are affected by the bill. The bill is for us. Our point of view is very important.

I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for standing and speaking to the bill at what all have said in the House is a critical moment in the constitutional development of Canada. I am very pleased that he has taken the time to do that.

Devolution is well supported in the Northwest Territories. We do not have to argue about that. We do not have to work very hard on that section of the bill. We did get one or two amendments that help a little bit and make this bill more equitable throughout the three territories.

The contentious part is the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There is a clear consensus that the one thing that is not appropriate is the change from the regional boards to a superboard. It is inappropriate, counterproductive, divisive, and destabilizing, all the things that we do not want to have happen in the Northwest Territories. These are things that go much beyond the addition of a few extra people sitting on boards that decide the future of the Northwest Territories. This has massive consequences to all.

Our amendment today to restore regional boards is a matter that will strengthen Bill C-15. It will strengthen devolution. It will ensure stability. It truly is representative of the wishes of the people in the Northwest Territories. I urge the government to support this amendment. This amendment can only help to create a bill that will heap praise on the government's shoulders. By supporting the amendment, the government will show its humanity and its desire to do the right thing.

I want to review how we got here, as presented in testimony.

The first step in that was with the McCrank report. When Mr. McCrank stood in front of the committee, he admitted that the idea of a superboard was his idea. There was no one in the Northwest Territories who had suggested that to him. That idea came from him, from an Alberta person who ran the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Of course he thought that the structure should be similar to the one in Alberta, but that is not what we have set out to do in the Northwest Territories. We have set out to have regional governments and aboriginal governments, whether they are Inuvialuit—who are keeping their regional boards, by the way—or the Sahtu, the Tlicho, and the Gwich'in, who have made agreements.

My colleague across talked about contemplation of a single board within the land claims. Contemplation does not mean agreement. Contemplation does not mean that the government can go ahead without full negotiation to change a land claim just because something is contemplated within an agreement.

After the McCrank, report the government hired Mr. John Pollard to be its chief federal negotiator. It is interesting that the testimony from the Tlicho indicated that in 2011 they gave the government a protocol framework for negotiating changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. They were willing to work with the government to do the right thing, to make changes, to make the system more efficient. They set out a protocol. That protocol was shelved.

In testimony, Mr. Pollard admitted that it was just taken as information. Nothing was done with it. As a result, governments and Mr. Pollard held many meetings, but they were not in any framework that had been agreed upon by the two elements of the land claims, the first nations who have treaty rights and treaty responsibilities to their citizens and the Government of Canada representing the crown. There was no agreement on how to negotiate changes to these land claims.

That is where the government falls flat on its face.

In the fall of this year, departmental officials then presented bills to the first nations. They presented a separate bill for devolution and a separate bill for the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. They were never taken together.

Bertha Rabesca Zoe, legal counsel for the Tlicho government, stated:

In that October session I asked the federal officials who were there doing the presentation whether those bills would be bundled as an omnibus bill, and we were never given a response....

Mr. Daryn Leas, legal counsel for the Sahtu, stated:

Never once were the federal devolution negotiators able to provide any substance or details about the Mackenzie Valley legislation in the proposed amendments.

That is the state of the consultation that was taking place on this act, Bill C-15.

The process on devolution has been going on for 20 years. The problem we had with devolution was getting first nations governments on side. Premier McLeod accomplished that for devolution. We have heard the testimony of Premier McLeod. He did not involve the first nations in discussions about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. He said that was not their business. Once again those regulation issues were designed to be kept separate.

Today, we have put forward an amendment to bring peace to this issue. Regional boards are working fine today.

I quote Mr. Tom Hoefer, executive director of the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, who stated:

We recognize that the aboriginal community is validly concerned by the loss of the existing regional panels. You should know that a number of industry members, especially those who have developed close working relationships with the regional boards, have likewise expressed reservations.

Does that sound like industry is offside on the regional boards? It does not.

How does this uncertainty serve anyone's purpose? We are likely to be caught up in litigation. We are likely to have a new government in a year and a half. Would members not agree? We will have to fix these mistakes that have been made here, because the Conservatives' attitude of ignoring the wishes of the people will eventually catch up to them, and they will be thrown out of office.

I would say to the Conservatives that they should do their job, listen to people, hear what they have to say, and hear what the people in the Northwest Territories have to say about the laws that affect only us, the laws with respect to how we want to develop.

We are asking the Conservatives to listen to us and hear us. Then, perhaps, if they follow that lesson with us, they may follow it with others and they may find that their political careers can be extended.

The north is a great adventure. I have been part of it my whole life. In the end, we will do the right thing. In the end, we will create a territory with a unique and powerful system of government. The Conservatives should join us in doing that. This is a simple amendment that does not change much at all but represents so much to us.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15.

This particular bill is of significant importance to the people of the Northwest Territories, but also to the people of Canada. The final agreement, as we see it today, would transfer the decision making and administrative control over lands and resources from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories. This agreement has been a long time coming. As we know, it was under the Paul Martin government that the first agreements were signed with the people of the Northwest Territories. Therefore, land devolution has taken quite some time to get to where we are today.

Over the last number of weeks and months, the committee of the House of Commons had the opportunity to read through this legislation and study it more closely, but most importantly, had the opportunity to hear from people across the Northwest Territories, from aboriginal governments, to business organizations, to labour organizations, to mining groups, along with the territorial government itself.

In all of the presentations, what we were able to see very clearly was that people have tremendous pride in where they come from. They have a lot of pride as people and residents of the Northwest Territories. They have a tremendous amount of respect for the land, culture, and each other. That was very evident in the presentations that were made. It was also very evident that these are people who have worked for a very long time to get to a place where they would have more authority over governing themselves, and the right to make decisions in their own territory and lands. It was an opportunity, probably for the first time in their history, in which they were able to bring the territorial government and all the aboriginal governments of the Northwest Territories together to support what was to be one of the greatest strides they would make for the future of their territory.

I also heard a lot of concern expressed by these individuals over the fact that government was not just introducing a bill of devolution to give back some power and control to the people of the Northwest Territories, but it was introducing amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, amendments they felt were going to weaken the amount of power they had in decision making, amendments that would see a number of their boards amalgamated, allowing fewer people on the boards and, therefore, less input.

There was a lot of concern raised around that particular aspect of the bill, and many questions were directed at the government as to why it would want to amalgamate amendments to both pieces of legislation under Bill C-15. They never got a clear answer as to why that was happening. Nevertheless, a lot of efforts were made to change it.

I want to acknowledge the work that was done by all of the committee members but certainly by the member for Western Arctic, who proposed a number of amendments in committee to try to change this part of the bill that would meet the expectations and satisfy the concerns that existed among many of the people he represents. Unfortunately, these amendments were not accepted in committee.

In addition, I proposed four amendments that were brought forward as a result of the consultations with and presentations from people who live in the Northwest Territories. Those amendments, unfortunately, were not accepted either. As a result, we are here today dealing with what is, relatively, a very good piece of legislation that was a long time in coming, but it has flaws that could have been fixed and avoided, and yet the government is choosing not to do that. It puts everyone in the chamber in a very difficult position, as it does a lot of people in the Northwest Territories.

During those committee hearings, I listened to people talk about their concerns about losing control to the federal government through water and land management, and having to give up seats on the board. I also asked them questions about how they would feel if this bill were to come to the House of Commons, and whether they would support it as it is or reject it because these things were not going to be changed.

Almost all the people I put that question to in committee did say they would support the overall devolution and that they realized the importance of that particular piece of the bill to the future of the people of the Northwest Territories and for them to move forward as a region.

What is very disheartening is that they feel this is being rammed down their throats. They feel their concerns are not being listened to, and while they want to see devolution and are prepared to accept what is there, as a last resort, they would certainly prefer to see changes.

They are only asking for the opportunity to have fair representation, an equal voice, and more say, to not be controlled by this particular House or by the government in Ottawa but by the Government of the Northwest Territories. It is a very fair request, and it is a request that could have been accommodated by the government opposite. However, it decided not to do that, and that was unfair.

I want to say that, even after all the attempts that were made by me, the member from the Northwest Territories, and others to make amendments to this bill, to try to accommodate the people and the aboriginal governments of the Northwest Territories, they have been to no avail, and that is unfortunate.

We cannot ignore the fact that this agreement is necessary and important for the Northwest Territories to move forward. We also heard from the Premier of the Northwest Territories and his government. When they talked about devolution and the need to have this bill passed, they talked about the fact that delays in passing the bill would have tremendous implications for them as a territory when it came to resource development.

We know that we do not want that to happen. As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

We want the Northwest Territories to have the kind of control and decision-making power of which they have long dreamed. We only hope that through the passing of this bill—however flawed it is, as indicated and pointed out—that over time, through co-operation with the Government of Canada, that the territory itself will come to that place where it can have the kind of stability, in terms of decision making, that it seeks right now, and also have a greater control than is currently being offered.

We also know, from our past experience as a Liberal government in negotiating previous deals with Yukon and Nunavut, that it takes time to work through a lot of things that often arise as a result of these agreements. We certainly wish the people of the Northwest Territories the greatest success in achieving the goals they are setting out to achieve, and we want to let them know we are here to support them and help them build the path forward.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly consultation was a key part of this bill. For over 60 years, there has been a desire for devolution in the territory, and when we talked about the regulatory changes, we also consulted on that. I mentioned the chief negotiator, John Pollard, who held more than 50 meetings in the territory with aboriginal groups, stakeholder groups, and others to get their input. As the result of that input, we actually made changes from the original agreement, which are reflected in Bill C-15, where we had regional representation when the board travels. We ensured, based on aboriginal feedback, that there would be local aboriginal representatives on that regional board, so the local knowledge and local input would be received.

We continue to consult on all of these files. Certainly on this bill, on the regulatory improvement and on devolution, we consulted widely. We heard from northerners. They want this bill, and it is time to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously we will be rejecting the amendments that have been put forward, because they would undermine the entire purpose of the bill, which is to devolve a regulatory system that is modern, efficient, and effective for the Northwest Territories.

This government's long-standing priority has been creating jobs and increasing economic growth. Later today, the House will hear our Minister of Finance deliver economic action plan 2014. Before that happens, the House will consider a game-changing and historic bill that would serve to do just that. Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, would create jobs and economic growth for northerners and all Canadians.

Nearly seven years ago, under Canada's northern strategy, our government, under the impressive leadership of our Prime Minister, committed to securing our northern sovereignty, promoting prosperity for northerners, protecting our Arctic environmental heritage, and giving the people of the north a greater say in their own affairs.

We have come a long way since then in implementing this northern strategy. Bill C-15 would help us further realize these goals by ensuring that the people of the Northwest Territories have greater control over their resources and decision-making.

On June 25, 2013, this government made an historic promise to the people of the Northwest Territories and to all Canadians. We signed the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories and five aboriginal partners: the Innuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territories Métis Nation, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, and the Tlicho Government.

Bill C-15 would bring this agreement into effect and would ensure that the people of the Northwest Territories have the tools they need to manage their own lands and resources and to ensure the long-term prosperity of their territory in a way that only they know best.

As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development stated in the House this past December:

This is a critical juncture not only in the political and economic evolution of the Northwest Territories, but also in the constitutional development of our great country.

Our government wants to help the people of the Northwest Territories achieve their rightful place in Canada's future and become full political and economic players in our great country. In order to do that, we must first improve the current regulatory framework. Second, we must put management of the NWT's land and resources under local control and modernize the Northwest Territories Act. Bill C-15 would enable us to accomplish both.

That is why Bill C-15 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to, among other things, establish beginning-to-end time limits for environmental assessments and to introduce life-of-project licensing and regulation-making authority for cost recovery.

Second, Bill C-15 would amend the Territorial Lands Act to improve environmental protection by increasing fines and by introducing administrative monetary penalties for violations under the act.

Third, Bill C-15 would modernize the Northwest Territories Waters Act by introducing life-of-projects licences, increased fines, and time limits for the water licence approval process.

In making these changes, Bill C-15 would enshrine in law not only an effective regulatory system but one that is also modern, competitive, and consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada and the world.

More specifically, Bill C-15 would align the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and Northwest Territories Waters Act with other federal environmental assessment legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, and would give authority to the Government of Canada to make regulations to recover costs the boards incur while undertaking assessments and licensing reviews.

Finally, reducing the number of boards from four to one would ensure the consistent application of the regulatory framework in the Mackenzie Valley while maintaining a regional presence through proportionate aboriginal representation on the board and through the work of regional panels.

I am convinced that all members of the House appreciate that to promote jobs and economic growth, the regulatory climate in the north must be sound and robust. We must ensure that we protect the Arctic's environmental heritage while giving northerners a greater say in their own affairs.

This is a goal we share with Premier Bob McLeod, who explained during his testimony before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development hearings in Yellowknife:

We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interest, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development.

I would also like to highlight the observation I heard in Yellowknife from Chief Harry Deneron, of the Acho Dene Koe, who contrasted the development-rich environment in my province of British Columbia with the dearth of projects due to the regulatory quagmire in his community in the Northwest Territories. He noted:

If it's not a safe place to invest for those developers, they're not going to come here. I think that's more the reason we're here today.

This is why we are here today, and this is why our government is acting.

These amendments will ensure that the regulatory process in the NWT is strong, effective, and predictable and will attract future investment.

At committee two weeks ago, we heard from Rick Meyers, of the Mining Association of Canada, who reiterated the impetus for reducing regulatory red tape by noting:

Future development in the Northwest Territories will be dependent on its ability to attract investment. Therefore, the Northwest Territories investment climate will be a highly motivating factor.

Unfortunately, there have been various misunderstandings spread about the legislation, in particular with respect to the improved Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

It has been implied, in particular by my friend across the way, the member for Western Arctic, that the improvements violate the spirit and intent of the settlement agreements signed by Canada and its aboriginal partners. I would reiterate that in section 25.4.6 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, section 24.4.6 of the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, and section 22.4.1 of the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, they clearly and specifically contemplate one larger board for the Mackenzie Valley.

Our government has been proactively consulting with aboriginal groups on these changes for a number of years now. The minister specifically empowered John Pollard, a northerner, to undertake the consultation process. Mr. Pollard held over 50 meetings with aboriginal groups, industry, and other stakeholders over the course of his mandate. A number of concerns raised by aboriginal groups, such as representation by regional nominees on committees considering projects taking place in a specific region, were included in the legislation as a direct result of these consultations.

Quite simply, the Northwest Territories devolution act would ensure that the regulatory regime the people of the Northwest Territories would work with would be efficient and effective for generations to come.

In addition, Bill C-15 would also make important changes to the Northwest Territories Act. The act guides the very governance of the territory and acts as a cornerstone of the territory's legal framework, a framework of which the new land and resource management will soon be a part. It would update the authorities of the territory's legislature and would remove the paternalistic role played thus far by the federal government. In addition, it would give the legislature of the Northwest Territories authority to govern for itself its size, oaths, and rules of procedure. It would also give the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories the authority to manage immigration and to enter into agreements with the territorial, provincial, or federal government. It would also remove archaic provisions, provisions that are no longer relevant to the modern Northwest Territories.

Ultimately, with this bill, the people most affected by decisions would now be the ones to make them. People with intimate knowledge of local priorities, local opportunities, and local challenges would be the ones to have the final word on how public land is utilized, how water resources are managed, how mineral resources are developed and conserved, and how the environment is protected.

I cannot overstate the significance of this change for the ability of the Northwest Territories to determine its own political and economic future. By passing the bill, we can make the people of NWT true partners in Canada's current and future prosperity, partners who are fully invested in the responsible use of their territory's resources, fully engaged in the policy decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods, and fully equipped to determine their own destinies.

I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-15 and its swift passage. Together let us help northerners continue to build our great nation.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments on the proposed amendments by congratulating my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

I would like to start by congratulating my friend and colleague the member for Western Arctic for the extraordinary work he has done and the leadership he has shown in this file.

The amendments proposed would delete clauses 136 and 137 of Bill C-15, and it is important to get on the record to explain why. This is quasi-constitutional work that we are doing here today. As the House knows, the travaux préparatoires and the debates follow this type of amendment if it ever has to interpreted by the courts in the future.

The people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like powers for decades. The NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the NWT in taking over federal responsibilities in the north. At the same time, Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod and his team of negotiators should be congratulated for achieving this significant evolution in the governance of the Northwest Territories.

Bill C-15 would provide the people of the NWT with something that we who live in the provinces take for granted: control over what happens on our land and the ability to profit from the development of our natural resources.

In less than 50 years, governance in the Northwest Territories has evolved from a colonial administration run by a committee of bureaucrats here in Ottawa to a fully elected and accountable government. I have had a chance to meet the members and the premier, to visit them in their House. The evolution they have gone through is quite extraordinary.

Therefore, Bill C-15 is a major step in that evolution, which the NDP fully supports.

For those of us who live in the provinces, it is only natural that we control our own resources. However, that was not the case for the Northwest Territories.

The preparatory work is often consulted by the courts when there is a constitutional matter at issue, or in this case quasi-constitutional, since this will affect the very foundation of how a territorial government is organized.

Unfortunately, the Conservative insistence that changes to the regulatory process be included in Bill C-15 is contrary to a respectful nation to nation process when dealing with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada. This, for the NDP, is crucial. An NDP government would make sure that no decision taken at our cabinet table would fail to respect first nations treaty rights, inherent rights, and Canada's international obligations.

The changes to the system of land and water boards, created through first nation land claim agreements, are disrespectful to the Dene and Métis of the Northwest Territories. The Conservatives heard over and over from the NWT's aboriginal governments and many concerned residents that they did not support these changes, but the Conservatives, unfortunately, were deaf to these concerns.

However, as a number of first nations have raised concerns about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we proposed amendments based on these concerns during the committee review, to make sure that Bill C-15 meets northerners' expectations.

Our member for Western Arctic tried splitting the bill at committee so that we would not impede devolution but allow for a full debate on the more controversial changes to the MVRMA. Once again, we are trying to find workable solutions, but the Conservatives are up to their old tricks.

At report stage, we are moving that clauses 136 and 137, creating a single regulatory board for lands and waters and eliminating the regional land and water boards, be deleted. These sections would eliminate the current system of regional land and water regulatory boards and change the structure of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to an 11 member board with a chair appointed by the federal minister. This system was created as part of the implementation for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu land claim agreements, and the Tlicho lands, resources, and self-government agreement.

However, by unilaterally changing this system, the Conservatives are ignoring the spirit and intent of these modern day treaties. The original system consisted of three regional land and water boards corresponding to the three settled land claim areas, and the Mackenzie Valley board for projects that span more than one region or are located in areas where there is no settled land claim. This system gives the people, particularly aboriginal people, of the Northwest Territories a voice in how their land and waters are developed.

It is for that reason that the official opposition, the New Democrats, believes that these sections should be deleted. Let the good parts go through. Have the proper debate. Develop a respectful nation to nation approach. That is the way for the future.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are five motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. The chair has received word from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that she does not wish to proceed with Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-15—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It has been brought to my attention that a clerical error has been found in the report to the House 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.

A consequential amendment that was adopted by the committee was omitted from the report to the House and the reprint of the bill. The report to the House should have indicated that Bill C-15, clause 2, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 32 with the following:

80. Subsections 4(3) and (4) are repealed 10 years

Therefore, I am directing that a corrigendum to the report be prepared to reflect this decision of the committee.

In addition, I am ordering the reprint of the bill also be corrected.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, entitled “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”. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House of Commons with amendments.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move that Bill C-15 in clause 224 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 203 the following:

(4) The policy directions given under this section shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Northwest Territories, as well as on the Review Board’s website.

Basically, proposed section 142.2 of Bill C-15 allows for the minister to issue written policy directions that are binding on the review board with respect to the exercise of any of its functions.

Once again, this amendment would simply require that these directions be made public, in terms of public government and in terms of respect for those that fall under this act and who don't have the opportunity to vote, as in a province, where you have the opportunity when a minister is putting policy directions that you don't agree with to vote them out of office at the next election. It's a Canadian tradition to actually hold ministers responsible. Here, we are simply asking that the minister let the public know what his policy directions are that are binding on these boards.

It's a simple matter. It's a democratic principle that public governments provide information to the public. This means that will be followed through on and that the review board's policy directions will be well understood by the public that has to live with the consequences of their decisions. I think it's useful. It's not threatening in any way. It doesn't change the direction of this bill. It may provide for some better understanding of the workings of this board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We will move to the consideration of clauses 201 to 205. There are no proposed amendments.

(Clauses 201 to 205 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 206)

On clause 206, we have four separate amendments, two of which are identical to two others. PV-7, PV-7a, PV-8 and PV-8a have been moved. I do have a ruling.

Clause 206 of Bill C-15 provides for the completion of the environmental assessment by the review board. It also provides that in some instances the federal minister or the Governor in Council may extend the limit to complete the assessment. The amendment proposes to provide the review board with the discretionary power to also extend that limit.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill.”

It is my opinion that such is the case, so we will see PV-7 and PV-7a as inadmissible. It is the same case with PV-8 and PV-8a. We will move to a vote on clause 206 unamended.

(Clause 206 agreed to)

(Clauses 207 to 223 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 224)

On clause 224, we have proposed amendment NDP-11.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

The amendment seeks to amend section 114 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.

Since section 114 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, it is the opinion of this chair that this amendment is inadmissible.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to introduce this amendment to Bill C-15.

We're suggesting that it be amended by adding after line 7 on page 175 the following new clause:

200.1 (1) Paragraph 114(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) to ensure that, before actions are taken in connection with proposed developments, their impacts on the environment are carefully considered, taking into account the nature, duration and intensity of those impacts;

(2) Section 114 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(d) to enable responsible economic development of the natural resources of the Mackenzie Valley for the benefit of its residents and that of other Canadians.

This was a direct recommendation that came to us through our committee hearings in the Northwest Territories and it was proposed by the chamber of mines in their presentations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay.

Section 111.1 of Bill C-15 gives the federal minister the power to make decisions that would normally be made by another minister; for example, the anticipated federal minister would be the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who would, under this section, be able to authorize actions that would normally be authorized by, say, the Minister of Fisheries.

The danger here is that the minister's department would not have the experience or competence to adequately determine whether the action should be authorized. This amendment would require that before the federal minister make this decision, he or she would have to consult with the minister—meaning the department—who would have the competence to determine whether the action should be authorized.

In other words, it's simply recognizing that the power to make these decisions still resides in the federal government, but has been consolidated under one minister though in many instances that may not be appropriate for decision-making. That's why this amendment is in front of you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move that Bill C-15, in clause 199, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 174 the following:

111.2 The federal Minister shall only exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions referred to in section 111.1 after consulting with the minister who was the responsible minister for the purposes of the provisions referred to in that section before the coming into force of section 111.1.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move to amend Bill C-15 in clause 132 by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 102 with the following:

(a), (b) or (c) of the definition “use”, for subsistence purposes.

This amendment removes the term “to earn income” from the definition of an instream user.

The term “instream user” is used in proposed paragraph 72(2)(b), proposed subparagraph 72.03(5)(b)(i), and proposed paragraph 72.04(2)(c).

The term “to earn income” introduces a vague term while any authorized use is included in these sections. By this term, a person earning money through an unauthorized use of lands and waters would be protected. If your unauthorized use of land and waters is as protected as a licence user, why go through the process of getting a licence?

We're looking at very much a definition of how people use the land here, and I would urge the support of the committee for this amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move that Bill C-15, in clause 131, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 100 the following:

(4) These policy directions shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation and on the planning board's website.

Proposed section 50.1 allows for the minister to issue written policy directions that are binding on the planning board with respect to the exercise of any of its functions. This amendment, simply, would require that these directions be made public. Certainly, within the scope of understanding what is going on.... Actually, having policy decisions be binding on the land use planning boards is a serious change under this act. We would have probably proposed motions to eliminate them, but quite obviously the chair would have ruled against those as he did on the even lesser issue of the chairperson.

We have put forward this amendment simply to ensure that the public understands quite clearly what's happening with the direction.

Land use planning boards can make decisions that are very important in terms of the disposition of protected areas and the use of land. Policy decisions that come ahead of those decisions can be a great influence on how those decisions are made. We obviously look at this as being a time when the public has a right to know why a planning board would be making changes and what the rational is for those. Certainly the politicians responsible for making these types of policy decisions have a responsibility to ensure that they are made in front of the public as well.

That's the purpose of this amendment. I would look for the support of the committee.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My amendment proposes that Bill C-15, in clause 122, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 97 with the following:

implement that right and the number of other members, not including the chairperson, reflect, respectively and to a reasonable degree, the population composition of the area affected by the board's decision.

This amendment I've brought forward simply because in the presentations we heard in the Northwest Territories, people were very concerned that when decisions directly related to their area were going to be made that they would have adequate representation at the board level to make those decisions. We're not increasing the size of the board, but we're ensuring that there is proper composition to take into account the areas that are being looked at.

I would ask the committee to accept the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Clause 120 of Bill C-15 provides for the position of a chairperson of a board, and creates several exceptions to the case in the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The amendment proposes to remove these exceptions.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 166, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of this chair, the amendment aims to remove the essential element of the bill, which is contrary to the principle of the bill, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

We will now move to the consideration of and a vote on clause 120, unamended.

(Clause 120 agreed to)

(Clause 121 agreed to)

(On clause 122)

I believe the Liberals have a proposed amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move to amend clause 120 of Bill C-15 by replacing line 19 on page 96 to line 11 on page 97 with the following:

12.(1) The chairperson of a board shall be appointed by the federal Minister from persons nominated by a majority of the members. (2) If a majority of the members does not nominate a person acceptable to the federal Minister within a reasonable time, the Minister may appoint any person as chairperson of the board. (3) A board may designate a member to act as its chairperson during the absence or incapacity of the chairperson or a vacancy in the office of chairperson, and that person while so acting may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties and functions of the chairperson.

This amendment changes the proposed process for appointing the chair of the super-board. Under the current MVRMA, section 12, the chair of the board, except in the case of the Wek’eezhii Land and Water Board, is a person nominated by the majority of the board.

Bill C-15 removes the role of the board members in choosing a chair. This change is contrary to devolution by removing the opportunity for anyone other than the minister having a say in the appointment of a chair. This amendment also ensures that the board members, who do the work in this regard, have a say over those who do the administration.

The chairperson of a board is—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes. I move that Bill C-15, in clause 8, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 34 with the following: “Northwest Territories: consisting of the North-”.

This amendment changes the name of the riding from “Western Arctic” to the “Northwest Territories”, which makes it consistent with the names of the other two territorial ridings. In 2007 I polled my constituents on this particular issue and found that there was great support for this. In other polls that were done on the naming of the Northwest Territories, the overwhelming choice of people in the north was to retain the name “Northwest Territories”.

The name “Northwest Territories” has historical significance for I think almost everyone in Canada. Northwest Territories was the designation for most of Canada for a long period of time. It's a name that deserves respect. The existing designation in the House of Commons does not give respect to the name “Northwest Territories”. It does not suit the region that I represent, because of course 90% of the region that I'm in is in the subarctic boreal forest.

It's simply not correct to continue this. I've tried for many years to get this done. Here's an opportunity where we can all work together to get this done very simply in this bill, and I would ask that the committee find support to do this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Amendment NDP-3 proposes that Bill C-15, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 22 on page 14. The amendment deletes the following:

(1) The Governor in Council may, in writing, direct the Commissioner to withhold his or her assent to a bill that has been introduced in the Legislative Assembly.

It also takes out the following:

(2) A bill in respect of which a direction is given must not become law without the Governor in Council’s assent, which is not to be given later than one year after the day on which the bill is adopted by the Legislative Assembly.

I think it's clear that this gives extraordinary power to the federal cabinet, power similar to that enjoyed by the Queen. If the object of devolution is to give the NWT more power over its own affairs, this section is contrary to that objective. The Yukon Act is similar, though the Nunavut Act is not, interestingly enough. These particular clauses haven't been standard in the treatment of territories. They are put in here quite clearly so that the Government of Canada will retain rights and privileges over the laws that are passed in any legislative assembly in Canada, and I think this amendment would put the Government of the Northwest Territories more in line with those of the provinces.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Amendment NDP-2 is speaking to page 14, line 1, and asks that Bill C-15, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 14 with the following:

(5) The Governor in Council may, after consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories and on the

That speaks to the requirement that the federal government, before making regulations governing the borrowing powers of the Northwest Territories government, would have to consult formally with the Government of the Northwest Territories before making any changes to the rules and regulations that surround one of the most important aspects of any government's portfolio, that is, the fiscal ability of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The absolute primary function of government is to be able to invest and to make good use of funds for the people it represents. The Government of the Northwest Territories, being a very responsible government that has a double-A credit rating from Moody's, has a better credit rating than many provinces.

We've gone through this debate a number of times in Parliament. There was a lot of support in Parliament for more borrowing powers for the Government of the Northwest Territories, yet within the bill, of course, this still remains the purview of the federal cabinet. It's important to note that it's not simply the dollar amount of the borrowing limit for the Government of the Northwest Territories, although that is very important. It's the type of consideration that's given to borrowing.

For instance, if self-financed loans are put into the borrowing limit for the Government of the Northwest Territories, that tremendously limits the ability of government to invest in the types of things that every other government in Canada has invested in over the course of our Confederation. When the Government of the Northwest Territories wants to invest in utilities to build hydroelectric facilities or transmission lines, those with this power that the federal government has to set the terms and conditions of borrowing could drastically impact on its ability to actually do that, even though the types of loans it would be making would be self-financed and would not be a burden to the taxpayers.

These are important considerations. Once again, this amendment is something to assure the Government of the Northwest Territories that it will be involved in any of those deliberations by the federal cabinet over the powers it has in borrowing. I think it's a very important amendment as well. It may well never be used, but it clearly delineates to everyone that the Government of the Northwest Territories has to be involved in these types of decisions.

I would encourage all members to support this, as they have supported the previous amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I would move that clause 2 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 5 the following:

(4) The Commissioner must, as soon as possible after receiving written instructions, make them available to the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories and cause them to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, but the written instructions are effective when they are made.

This amendment makes instructions given to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories from the Governor in Council of Canada public. This clause is similar to subsection 6(2) of the Nunavut Act.

A further amendment, NDP-4, would delete this clause 10 years after coming into force because we would be looking at those instructions being similar to the Yukon.

Basically the purpose is to ensure that the thinking behind the Northwest Territories Act is similar to what took place for other territories. I could say that if the Government of Canada doesn't give instructions to the commissioner, that would mean those instructions would not be public. In the case that they are, I think it's incumbent upon a government-to-government relationship that the person who represents the role of lieutenant governor to the greatest degree in a provincial type of setting should have some responsibility to the Government of the Northwest Territories in terms of information. It's a step down from the provinces, of course. We recognize that it will remain without the full weight of a lieutenant governor for some time yet.

Still everything possible should be done to give the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories equality with other legislative assemblies in Canada. The purpose of devolution—or if you look at it the other way, evolution—is to ensure that the people of the Northwest Territories have political rights that are as similar as possible to those of other people in this country. That is the operating principle here.

I think the government has indicated that's what it wants to do. The Nunavut Act of course was put forward by the Liberal government, and that is a historical fact. It doesn't mean we can't look for improvements to what is going on with this act.

I think this amendment respects the direction the government is taking. It may have been an oversight on its part not to include it, but I would ask that this amendment be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the 13th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our study and are moving into the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15.

We are joined by departmental officials.

Thank you for joining us and for answering our questions in our last meeting. We look forward to your assistance today. Thank you so much for being here.

We're going to move into the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As you know, consideration of the short title is postponed, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), so we will move into consideration of amendments.

(On clause 2—Enactment)

We will start with amendment NDP-1, which I believe proposes an amendment to clause 2.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

If we look back at some of Mr. Hagen's testimony, he proposed that Bill C-15 should make provision for the land and water board to dismiss an application for either a permit or a licence when a proponent consistently and repeatedly failed to provide necessary information. What are your thoughts on that idea from Mr. Hagen, and why was that not included, or is it already covered in another aspect?

[Tara Shannon]

I can't speak to whether the amendments would be supported, but you raised a couple of issues in your question.

On board member terms and term extensions as raised by the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the term set forth in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of three years is consistent with the terms set out in other acts in the north. Those include the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

As to the question of liability, that was addressed earlier by my colleague, Tom Isaac. Our view is that there is no legal difference between the two provisions that are contained within Bill C-15.

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

Based on a lot of the information we've had from testimony both here and on the ground, it's evident that a lot of amendments have been requested. I think they are fairly reasonable amendments. I think it would probably also be in the government's interest to consider those amendments seriously to prevent any further litigation here, and lengthy litigation at that, a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

These are the people who are actually living under and would be working under this agreement. When we look at this, certainly all of them are not against the devolution. They do have a lot of concerns with respect to the Mackenzie Valley piece.

I'm looking at some of the testimony that was actually provided, and I'm wondering if you could comment on what some of the impact would be on the bill itself.

For example, we have the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board talking about amending section 57 of the MVRMA, as amended by Bill C-15, to extend the terms of board members to ensure quorum until a board decision is rendered. A similar provision is found under part 3 of Bill C-15. They also talk about addressing the discrepancies regarding the standard of liability for board members so that provisions relating to board member liability under part 4 are the same as those found under part 3 of Bill C-15.

When you look at the amendments suggested by the various presenters, can you tell me what the impact would be on the bill itself, and the reasoning that it wouldn't be supportive to go through?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

We also heard from industry that although they were generally in favour of the regulatory improvement part of the bill, they didn't want to lose the regional knowledge, the capacity, the relationships they'd developed in those areas over the years.

Can you tell us how proposed Bill C-15 takes those factors into account and how the new structure will retain those features of that regional representation on the board?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much.

Some of the other testimony we heard included that of Willard Hagen, the chair and CEO of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. He raised some concerns with respect to board member liability. I think he indicated that there was a concern that the proposed bill, Bill C-15, was not as strong as what is there now to protect board members in terms of liability. I think he called it “legally inferior protection”.

Could you address that specifically? Is it legally inferior in your view, and if not, why not?

[Wayne Walsh, Director, Northwest Territories Devolution Negotiations, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Chair, if I may do so, I think it's important to provide the full contextual piece of how the consultations were done with both initiatives.

First of all, with respect to devolution, we conducted a fairly comprehensive consultation process—three phases—which took place from January 2011 up until we signed the devolution agreement. During that period, we consulted with 22 different aboriginal groups, first nation communities, and that influenced the outcome of our negotiation positions.

My understanding is that my colleagues who were working on regulatory improvement undertook similar consultations during the development of the framework of their proposal.

Where we then began to converge with respect to the two initiatives was on August 16, 2013, when the same groups, the 22 first nation communities and aboriginal groups, were sent a package. The package contained all four elements of the bill that is now before you.

We set out a timeline. It was from that point on that the consultations were coordinated on the elements of the legislative proposal. We set a deadline of October 15 to receive comments, whether they were written or through meetings with the department. From there we moved forward with our recommendations on a final approach to the government. The government then made the decision on how they wished to proceed with Bill C-15.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It is now 3:30, so I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the 12th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we continue our study of Bill C-15.

We have before us officials from the department. We want to thank you for making your time available.

Mr. Wayne Walsh and Mr. Tom Isaac, thanks for joining us.

As well, Tara Shannon and Alison Lobsinger, thank you for joining us.

We appreciate the fact that you have been working on this for some time. You are truly the resident experts with regard to what's contained in these documents, and we appreciate the fact that you've come back to answer questions as we consider amendments.

We're going to start our rounds of questions with Mr. Bevington.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

Of course, being new, I haven't had a chance to go through Bill C-15 in as much detail. However, when we were there, we did talk to folks from the Yukon. Many modern and efficient regulatory systems and settled land claims have resulted in tremendous success in the Yukon since 2003.

Also, of course, there's a wealth of oil and gas deposits in the Northwest Territories. I was just wondering what your level of confidence is in the potential of Bill C-15 to unlock the Northwest Territories' petroleum resources.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I may come back to that, but I'd just like to move on to another point you made here first. You said, in talking about the competitive markets, that companies are always comparing one country to another, one project to another, to see how the timelines that are established here under Bill C-15 compare on an international basis. How do they compare internationally to those that competitors who are looking at coming into the north would be looking at?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I want to acknowledge the work that Mr. Bevington has done in bringing this forward. I know that we've had informal discussions around this, but I think what we've heard quite clearly is that there's pretty broad support for the devolution aspect of Bill C-15. What is more problematic are the changes to the MVRMA.

Unfortunately, as committee members know, I was not able to attend on Monday because of Canada's lovely weather system, but I did read the briefing notes that were prepared. There was pretty overwhelming opposition to some of the proposed changes in the MVRMA.

It would seem that with such significant changes that are going to have such a widespread impact, it would be important for the committee to have an opportunity to consider this bill separately. I think it's in everybody's interests to see the devolution aspect of the bill move forward quickly, but the other aspect, in my view, requires substantially more attention.

I was interested to note that in Mr. Bell's testimony he was talking about the fact that devolution is seen positively in terms of giving more control to the north, yet one of the major concerns that's been raised as a result of MVRMA section is that it will in fact give the minister more control. I won't take the committee's time to read all of the sections that result in the minister having more control, but I think this should be a major red flag for people who are seeing more northern control.

So, Mr. Chair, I would encourage members of the committee to support Mr. Bevington's motion.

[Bob Bleaney, Vice-President, External Relations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Good morning, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee.

My name is Bob Bleaney. I'm the vice-president of external relations for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or CAPP.

CAPP represents Canada’s upstream oil and gas sector. Our members find and develop about 90% of Canada’s oil and natural gas resources all across the country. Together, they invest over $60 billion annually and employ more than 550,000 people across Canada.

We appreciate the opportunity to contribute our perspectives regarding Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act. This is a historic bill, as the people of the Northwest Territories are set to take control of the future path of the development of the abundant natural resources in their region.

As you are aware, the bill was tabled in early December last year. Although we are still in the process of assessing all its implications, we can say that CAPP supports the intent and the spirit of Bill C-15 and views it as a positive step that will aid northern development.

To date, CAPP has primarily focused its review on part 4 of the bill, relating to the proposed amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, or the MVRMA.

The federal government’s initiatives for regulatory reform have been a positive step forward towards improving regulatory efficiency and effectiveness while ensuring a continued high standard of environmental performance. Extending these reforms into the Northwest Territories will be important for attracting and enabling investment that creates jobs, economic growth, and prosperity for the Northwest Territories and all Canadians.

Regulatory process bottlenecks in the past have often led to project delays or outright cancellations, with the resulting adverse effects on economic and social benefits that could flow from these projects. Accordingly, CAPP is strongly supportive of the government’s objectives to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the northern regulatory regime.

The MVRMA is a core piece of regulatory legislation in the Northwest Territories, and the proposed changes to this are very important to our industry. For example, the ability for the minister to give binding policy direction to all MVRMA boards, including the land and water boards, the land use planning boards, and the environmental impact review boards should provide for a more cohesive, unified, and comprehensive review process, one that should be a benefit to all parties involved.

CAPP fully respects existing comprehensive land claim agreements and aboriginal treaty rights and supports the federal government’s protection of the these agreements and rights in the proposed amendments.

CAPP's view is that the regulatory bodies in the north should be efficient, timely, and ensure regional knowledge is appropriately considered in the review process. In this vein, we support the accommodation measure in the MVRMA that requires the chair of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to consider the inclusion of regional nominees when committees are dispatched to address proposed projects. This will be particularly important in respect of the proposed board amalgamation, in order to retain regional representation in their process.

The proposed clarification of timelines for the environmental impact assessment process is also a very positive step. The historical lack of predictability—and the resulting uncertainty—of review timelines for project proposals in the central Mackenzie Valley has been a significant concern for project proponents.

Investment and operational decisions benefit from a predictable review process, particularly as to review scope and timing. This is essential for being able to manage work activities to fit within the limited seasonal operational windows that exist in the north. Unexpected delays in the timing of authorizations can disrupt project plans, which can translate, as I mentioned, to serious delays and missed opportunities.

Critical path decisions and investment timelines have been a systemic challenge to the north and are especially pronounced when compared to timelines in competing oil and gas jurisdictions. Our industry is global in scale, and northern oil and gas exploration and development projects have to aggressively compete for limited investment dollars against opportunities elsewhere in Canada and around the world. Reducing the risks and uncertainties in project review timelines, as proposed in this legislation, will serve to improve northern competitiveness.

Devolution of federal responsibilities to the Northwest Territories, coupled with increased exploration interest, facilitates the opportunity to make the needed improvements to regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. The transition stage from April 1 forward will be a crucial time.

CAPP appreciates the mirroring of the federal legislation that’s been mandated by the devolution agreement, which will support stability, continuity, and predictability of the regulatory regime through this transition.

Such a regime is fundamental to creating a positive environment for investment, which creates jobs and economic growth, and tax and royalty revenues to government. Industry invested about $600 million in the north over the past three years, and is expected to spend an additional $650 million based on existing land commitments alone. An improved regulatory framework should help to stimulate further investment.

The north is a key area of interest to our industry, an area of vast oil and gas potential but not without its challenges, which makes regulatory effectiveness and efficiency that much more crucial to success. Being a frontier area, there is a lack of infrastructure, likely the most limiting factor for exploration and development work in this region, whether it be with regard to physical infrastructure, like roads or pipelines or facilities; community infrastructure with respect to housing and recreation; workforce availability; or service sector support.

Although there is large resource potential, most of these resources await confirmation as to whether they are economically viable, and timely assessment through exploration will be key to their realization.

I should also note that the north is not alone in its challenges. Whether in producing jurisdictions such as B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Atlantic Canada offshore, or potential new development areas, such as Quebec, New Brunswick and the Atlantic onshore, there are common challenges facing Canadian oil and gas development. They include access to domestic, North American, and other international markets; competitiveness in the areas of fiscal and regulatory policies; workforce availability; access to precious investment capital; and having the social license to operate with respect to public confidence and trust.

With devolution set to go live April 1, 2014, and the related legislative changes through Bill C-15, there is a historic opportunity for the Northwest Territories to start to address these challenges and advance its vision for oil and gas development. There will be ongoing regulatory work needed to be done to achieve this vision, as it will remain important to ensure the timely implementation of related changes to regulations and policies to support this legislative intent.

In closing, CAPP supports the federal government in its efforts to improve the regulatory framework in the Northwest Territories. These amendments have been under development and consulted upon for a number of years as part of AANDC's action plan on northern regulatory improvement. These amendments are a positive step forward on the long road towards expanded oil and gas exploration and development in the Northwest Territories.

We look forward to continuing to consult with the Northwest Territories and federal governments to work together to help this vision become a reality. I’d like to thank you for this opportunity to present to you today. I look forward to your questions.

[Rick Meyers, Vice-President, Technical and Northern Affairs, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you.

For the record, my name is Rick Meyers. I'm vice-president of technical and northern affairs for the Mining Association of Canada. Previously, between 1998 and 2007, I was director of mineral resources for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

My presentation today is based on a joint submission by the Mining Association of Canada, the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada that was presented to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in October of 2013.

In the interest of time, I'll give a very brief overview of Canada's mining industry and the contributions mining has made in the Northwest Territories, and then provide some comments that we wish to put forward on Bill C-15.

I believe most of you are familiar with the Mining Association, so I won't go into much detail here. We have more than 80 members working across all aspects of the sector. Our members are committed to sustainable development, and our performance has been publicly reported under our “towards sustainable mining” initiative

Mining contributes in a major way to Canada's economy in terms of employment and business development, capital investment, and taxes and royalties, and is the largest private sector employer of aboriginal Canadians. As a global competitor, Canada is a world leader in mineral exploration, development, and production, especially as a contributor to Canada's goods exports, at 20% of the total.

The NWT's mining industry today consists of four producing mines—three diamond mines, two of which are world-class mines, Ekati and Diavik, and a tungsten mine, Cantung, which is the western world's largest producer of tungsten concentrate—and some 33 past producers, which long ago established the Northwest Territories as a mineral-rich and productive territory.

Mining is the largest private sector contributor to the Northwest Territories economy. It does that in terms of employment; investment and spending; business development; contributions to northern infrastructure, including more than $100 million in contributions to community development; and workforce development, specifically in extensive programming in aboriginal skills training and education.

The value of the Northwest Territories' mineral production since 1999 is attributed largely to diamond production, which places Canada third by value in global production. Despite their high productivity, even some of the diamond mines are approaching their maturity. New discoveries will be needed if the Northwest Territories is to maintain the current level of economic prosperity that the mining industry has provided over the last number of years.

In terms of taxes and royalties, since 2002 the mining industry has been one of the highest-paying sectors in the territory. To the end of 2013, corporate taxes and royalties have amounted to approximately $3.6 billion. By 2020 they're projected to be in the order of $5.6 billion. The industry also contributes other major payments not included here, such as payroll income taxes and fuel and property taxes.

I'm not sure if you have a copy of the deck I'm using here, but in terms of aboriginal business development, our deck contains a list of more than 50 aboriginal companies that provide goods and services to the Northwest Territories mines. Fifteen year ago less than a handful of aboriginal companies had the capacity to do such business, so this is an incredible story of success for northern mining working so successfully with aboriginal communities.

With respect to Bill C-15, the mining industry sees devolution as an important step forward for the Northwest Territories, and long-awaited. As an indication of its recognition of the importance of our sector, the Government of the Northwest Territories has partnered with the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines to produce its new mineral development strategy.

This strategy is intended to focus on five key pillars to improve competitiveness and enhance northern opportunities: creating a competitive edge, with the NWT as an investment destination of choice; improving the Northwest Territories regulatory environment; enhancing aboriginal engagement and community capacity; promoting sustainability; and enriching workforce development and public awareness. These are all positive initiatives.

In terms of industry's participation and input, again I refer to my deck. There is a table that shows the involvement that industry has had in northern regulatory improvement over the years. I won't go into it in much detail, but the table indicates that we have been fully engaged from the beginning in several of the government's northern initiatives during the past decade.

They include, particularly, Minister Strahl's northern regulatory improvement initiative, Minister Duncan's action plan on improving regulations, and now the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act under Minister Valcourt. We have been there pretty much every step of the way.

The MVRMA defines the regulatory framework for most mining projects in the Northwest Territories, and the key proposed amendments under consideration are the addition of timelines to bring the northern processes in line and create equivalency with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The authority for ministerial policy direction to boards, the consideration for the life of project water licences, and of course the restructuring of the land and water boards are all generally considered to be improvements, or at least potential improvements, to the act. However, there are other opportunities that we think are important that we'd like to put forward. I have five points I want to make.

The first relates to timelines. Our issue is with the requirement for the completion of an environmental assessment, which can take 12 to 24 months, prior to the commencement of an environmental impact review, which is another 24 months, and that is if there is no public hearing. The solution we propose is that if an EIR is required, we recommend consolidating both processes into a single 24-month process, with full consideration for any and all evidence presented in any earlier environmental assessment process.

The second one is unwarranted referrals, and this is in reference to what we believe to be unwarranted referrals to environmental assessment of low-impact activities such as grassroots exploration projects, small drilling projects, geophysical surveys, and the like, based on undefined public concern. Our recommendation here is to put some definition on “public concern” and its scope, and apply the definition appropriately.

The next point relates to proportionality. We advocate for the flexibility for a board to tailor the scope of an environmental assessment in proportion to the magnitude and expected impacts of a project, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

The fourth is in reference to the restructuring of the land and water boards. We recognize that this proposal presents concerns and we also understand that there are advantages and efficiencies with this approach. However, in recent years we've seen an increase in the maturity and professionalism in board management and the processes that they administer. Our members have established productive working relationships with the regional panels. I particularly want to point out the Wek’eezhii board here.

We want to emphasize the importance of those relationships, going forward. We also want to stress the importance of ensuring that community representatives continue to be involved with projects coming forward in their regions.

Finally, with respect to the duty to consult, we have seen much of the responsibility for consultation delegated to industry over the past number of years, so we therefore welcome the provision to create regulations to address this. But these regulations will probably take a few years, so in the interim we suggest that this is perhaps an area where the minister could apply his or her policy direction to the boards for the clarification of responsibilities when it comes to consultation.

Looking to the future across Canada, the Mining Association of Canada has estimated some $140 billion in proposed mineral development projects that are currently in environmental assessment and permitting processes. In the Northwest Territories, most of the projects coming forward are included in this estimate. In the north, mineral development is the primary and frequently the only opportunity for economic development for many, if not most, northern remote communities. Future development in the Northwest Territories will be dependent on its ability to attract investment. Therefore, the Northwest Territories investment climate will be a highly motivating factor.

In summary, successful development attracts new investment; however, this investment cannot be taken for granted. Capital is mobile and competition for it is global.

Investment decisions are made on fairness and predictability of process, so confidence in the regulatory process is paramount. An improved regulatory environment will help provide certainty for northern operators, and Bill C-15 has the potential to support this objective. We encourage you to consider the recommendations that we're putting forward here today.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call this meeting to order. This is the 11th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we continue our study on Bill C-15, our review of the bill.

We have three witnesses for our panel this afternoon. From Dominion Diamond Holdings Ltd., we have Brendan Bell, the president. Thank you so much, Brendan, for joining us.

We have, from the Mining Association of Canada, Mr. Rick Meyers. Thanks so much as well for joining us.

Also Bob Bleaney is here representing the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Usually in committee we turn the floor over to our guests to give an opening statement of 10 minutes or less. We'll do that, and then we'll have some questions for you. We thank you for joining us today. We know that you're all very busy and have other things to do, but you have taken the time to join us and we certainly appreciate that.

Before we turn it over to our guests, I want to note that this is the continuation of our hearings. We just came back from Yellowknife. I want to take the time to thank our staff, our analysts, our clerk, as well as our logistics officers, who undertook the work that was necessary to get us to Yellowknife and back on time and on schedule, taking care of all the needs that we had. We certainly appreciate our staff, their diligence, and their continued work, as well as the work of the interpreters who travelled with us. All of them are still at work and we appreciate that.

Let's turn it over to our guests. We'll start with Mr. Bell and his statement, and then we'll turn it over to the other gentlemen before we ask questions of you all.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the aboriginal affairs committee held hearings in Yellowknife on Bill C-15, which combines devolution with the elimination of regional land and water boards.

A clear message from the hearings was that there is a strong opposition to the Conservative plan to shut down these regional boards.

These boards give a local voice to development decisions, which is a system that works. They were created through constitutionally protected land claims agreements. Even the chamber of mines said they have a good working relationship with the local boards.

The aboriginal governments of the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho have pledged that they will use every avenue available to fight these changes, meaning greater delays for future development.

“Canada has returned to the old colonial ways of thinking they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. This is not the constitutional promise made in the Tlicho agreement,” said Tlicho Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus.

[Christine Wenman]

We have submitted a rather comprehensive brief to the committee, and we're cognizant that we are the last witnesses here this afternoon so we will make this brief. We would like to emphasize three main points that were included in the brief. Our analysis is focused on the changes to the MVRMA that are included within Bill C-15.

The first point we'd like to make is that the changes to the MVRMA must be decoupled from the rest of the bill. Parliament needs to be free to debate those changes separately from the rest of Bill C-15. If these are not separated, they will be unable to show and discuss the problems with the MVRMA changes without also suggesting that they do not support devolution. These are very different issues.

We'd also like to bring forward, as has been heard here today, that the changes to the MVRMA are not in keeping with the spirit of devolution. There has been no evidence brought forward either today or previously that the changes proposed, such as amalgamating the boards or bringing more ministerial authority, will help the regulatory system to be more effective, efficient, or equitable.

Finally, as we've also heard here today very clearly, there is very little consensus on this section of the bill. This will detract from the effort to create the proper conditions for economic growth, jobs, and long-term prosperity in the NWT, which is supposed to be the intent of Bill C-15.

The second point we'd like to bring forward is that, uncoupled or not from the rest of the bill, the changes to the MVRMA need to be amended. First of all, there should be no dismantling of the regional land and water boards. The integrated co-management system that we have now works in the regions where land claims are settled. As was brought forward earlier by Mr. Willard Hagen, analyses have shown previously that the bulk of project proposals that are being sent to environmental assessment have been proposed in regions where land claim agreements have not been settled. If, however, we look to the settled regions, we can see substantial evidence that the current system can effectively fulfill the integrated co-management responsibilities that were intended in the writing of the act. Eliminating the regional boards and the regional panels will create more challenges than it will solve, for instance, by reducing clarity and increasing an adversarial environment and also by creating logistical challenges. For instance, we heard today that there is an opportunity for project panels with three board representatives. These will inevitably bring problems of quorum and also not ensure regional representation. Although it may allow for regional representation, that's not required by the legislation within the panels.

It's also unclear whether the proposed changes will lead to the closing of the regional board offices or result in cuts to the staff. Certainly it is clear that those board offices are not guaranteed in the changes to the legislation. This would diminish the regional access to board services. It would diminish the roles that the regional boards play in liaising in the regions, with the communities, and with the first nation governments. It will create a communications and relationship gap between people and decision-makers. This will be difficult not only for the first nations but also for the existing project proponents and industries that have working relationships in those regions, as we heard just recently from Mr. Hoefer. In other words, there is very little evidence that has been brought forward that these changes will in fact fix the system. They are likely to create a more adversarial environment and cause less clarity.

We would also like to emphasize the point that the changes should not be increasing the federal or ministerial authority, thus in turn diminishing the board's authority. For example, we see increased ministerial authority in setting timelines. These authorities should be kept within the discretion of the board and not of politicians. The boards are intended to perform arm's-length, independent, quasi-judicial roles. Politicizing the regulatory decision-making system in fact jeopardizes that role of the board and results in less clarity for project proponents. The increase in federal and ministerial authority diminishes co-management principles, which are quite fundamental to the whole regulatory process and fundamental to land claim agreements.

The final point we would like to make is that there is a review mechanism that's included within the MVRMA, in section 148, and this review mechanism is the environmental audits. Two audits have been completed to date: one in 2005, and one in 2010. These have been done in a comprehensive manner. They are mandated in the legislation. They involved proper consultation with all stakeholders. In spite of this, little to no progress has been made on many of the key audit recommendations, and the federal government has never issued a formal response.

I would like to bring a caveat to that point, which is that working groups at the board level did emerge in response to the recommendations in the audit, and that many of these working groups began prior to Mr. McCrank's report and were in response to the audits themselves, showing that the regulatory and adaptive management mechanism works well.

Unlike some of the changes proposed in Bill C-15, these recommendations are based on empirical evidence and analysis of those projects that have been referred to environmental assessment. They offer useful and proven recommendations of how to improve the overall land management in the NWT, and they should have been the foundation of any proposed changes.

[Tina Gargan, President, Northwest Territories Association of Communities]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, and committee staff, welcome to the Northwest Territories and our capital city of Yellowknife.

I am Tina Gargan, president of the Northwest Territories Association of Communities. I'm also the mayor of the hamlet of Fort Providence.

The NWTAC welcomes this opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act.

The NWTAC is a non-profit, non-governmental organization representing the interests of 32 incorporated NWT communities. The NWTAC represents a unified voice for communities on municipal goals and issues, based upon the membership's democratic adoption of resolution and policy. We promote these priorities through advocacy to the territorial and federal governments and through our membership in the national Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Our members are significant municipal landowners and developers; are major users of water for supply of municipal water services, have local responsibilities for economic development, environmental affairs, and emergency services; and are key partners with the territorial government in all matters relating to the delivery of municipal government services to citizens. As such, we have a keen interest in the transfer to the territorial government of resource management responsibilities that affect these interests and in responsible environmental management throughout the NWT.

Bill C-15 is a very large and detailed piece of legislation. My presentation will speak to the NWTAC's principled positions on the new legislative arrangements proposed by Bill C-15.

The NWTAC strongly supports the devolution of resource management responsibilities to the Government of the Northwest Territories as proposed in Bill C-15. For NWT municipalities pursuing their mandates, the federal resource management regime and existing programming to date, while generally effective, has presented challenges, owing to the lack of territorial control over the legislation and over the design and delivery of programs serving communities' needs.

Changes to the legislation and even to regulations have relied upon the ability to get territorial business onto the very busy national legislative agenda. It's often a simple matter of geography. Ottawa is far away, and the basic functions of meeting, discussing, and acting are aggravated by time and distance. As the advocate of municipal interests, the NWTAC has had to focus lobbying efforts at the national level on matters related to local resource management in the Northwest Territories.

The NWTAC anticipates that the transfer of resource management responsibilities to the local and accountable territorial government will make a major contribution to the ability of local government and territorial legislators to work in partnership for the continuing improvement of public services. Living, working, and leading in the Northwest Territories, our territorially elected legislators will enjoy improved opportunities to bring their local knowledge to bear, to work in even closer partnership with municipal governments and representative bodies, and to far more quickly make the legislative, regulatory, and program improvements needed to serve our citizens. The development of programs and services for related or interlocking responsibilities can more effectively be coordinated within one government administration.

Improvements in the creation of law and programs with improved sensitivity to and knowledge of territorial realities have been obvious throughout the long history of the devolution of authorities to the territorial government level. A prime example of these improvements in the resource management field has been the transfer of forest management responsibilities to the GNWT. A host of opportunities for continuing improvements will come about as a result of the Bill C-15 devolution of powers.

As landowners and developers, NWTAC member communities will benefit from the transfer of federal lands to territorial control and in future will be able to deal with one management authority for lands outside municipal boundaries. Municipalities expect to benefit in areas where there is an overlap of authorities between federal laws or in instances where the sound administration of municipal law is affected by federal legislation that is difficult to change.

For example NWTAC members have long voiced concern by resolution with legislative provisions to allow for the staking of mineral claims within communities. The concentration of authority for both mining law and land law under one government authority is expected to provide a more responsive and coordinated forum for the resolution of these and similar issues. This is just one example of the benefits expected from the concentration of legislative and program authority within one government.

Coordination in the planning and development of major infrastructure, such as integration in the development and management of territorial and municipal road systems, will be enhanced. With the transfer of funding program resources and responsibilities to the territorial government, more locally coordinated arrangements for planning and development of major intra-territorial capital projects will be possible.

Municipalities also look forward to the increase in revenue flowing to the territorial government, which is the supplier of the majority of the municipal funding. With increased territorial revenues, our member communities look forward to the prospect of increased territorial capacity to meet municipal fiscal needs. The NWTAC and our member municipalities enjoy a very positive and constructive working relationship with the Government of the Northwest Territories. With the vesting of resource management authority at the territorial level, the NWTAC and our municipalities will continue to build cooperation for the improvement of services to our citizens.

Regarding the proposed C-15 arrangements for changes to environmental legislation, the NWTAC supports the continuing and responsible improvements of environmental processes and protections. As the advocate of municipal government interests, the NWTAC places a priority upon the ability of environmental processes to respect and be responsive to local and regional interests. The proposals contained in Bill C-15 are of critical importance to the future of public government in the Northwest Territories. They are the latest stage in the historic development of the Northwest Territories toward full responsible government.

I congratulate and thank the committee for ensuring that a portion of these deliberations have taken place here in the NWT and that our citizens have had the opportunity to present their views for your thoughtful consideration.

On behalf of the NWTAC and its membership, I thank you and wish you well and safe travels home.

[Allen Stanzell]

Just briefly, we would look at Bill C-15 as a bit of a beginning. We would have the confidence that changes could continue to be made. If you look at the relationship between businesses and government throughout the course of history, that's the way things have worked.

[Sandra Lockhart]

I'd also like to go back to the statement we made that Bill C-15 should really be split into two. What's hidden inside is kind of like an omnibus bill. You have the devolution and then you have the whole Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act hidden inside of that.

We would say there is a will to support devolution, but not in the current manner in which it's being presented. It's one that is not worthy of a government wishing to be transparent and democratic, and the government represents us, both the federal and the GNWT.

So it's no—not the way it's currently being presented.

[Sandra Lockhart, Regional Vice-President, Somba K'e, Northern Territories Federation of Labour]

With the elimination of regional land and water boards, significant trust is lost. There will surely be a negative impact on the relationship between public government and the first nations people, especially in those regions that have signed treaties. Any collaborative spirit that might otherwise have underpinned an environmental assessment process will likely be lost.

Bill C-15 establishes a board system that is fundamentally different from and even hostile to that which was developed in accordance with the treaties of the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene, the Tlicho, the Dehcho, and the Inuvialuit. This unilateral attempt to reinterpret the purpose and intent of these land claim agreements, all of which were negotiated and signed in good faith, is unfortunately going to lead to strife and conflict.

This is regrettable, and it is a huge setback to the political development of the NWT. A more centralized regulatory system will inevitably threaten the growing sense of ownership and responsibility over regional boards that has been developing. Having one individual speaking on behalf of their region to a room full of representatives from other regions, who then get to vote and decide on a proposal, certainly does not guarantee that the desires of that region, of those most directly affected by the proposal, will be achieved.

There is also the issue of whether the new board will have the physical capacity to handle all environmental assessments in a timely manner. Where there was once a board in each region to handle proposals brought forward, now there will be only one, with a substantial workload.

Recent austerity measures have eliminated positions within the federal government, including those of professionals in the environmental field. These employees could have and would have been called upon to assist with environmental reviews. Is the necessary federal funding going to be allotted for needing staff to cover the dramatic increase in proposals that can be expected to be brought forward from proponents from the regions? Many northerners are concerned that the handover to the NWT of authority for the enforcement of regulations does not come with the resources necessary to do it.

Leaders are aware that many of the federal personnel employed during environmental assessment work have chosen to retire rather than transfer to the GNWT. This raises a concern about whether there are significant training dollars available so that newly hired local personnel can properly manage and enforce existing programs, not to mention implement new ones.

We also note with some disappointment the apparent lack of reference to and respect for local people who are well versed in traditional knowledge and who have much of value to say in environmental assessment matters. If they are unable to interpret regulatory legalese and to communicate these ideas to the public at large, much is lost. A mega-board hundreds of miles away in Yellowknife is not going to be able to take advantage of what these people have to offer.

Our recommendations are as follows: one, that the regional boards remain in existence to assist with the relaying and gathering of information from those who reside within the regions; two, that regional boards review any development proposal within their jurisdiction and create a regional position that reflects the informed views of those who reside within that proposed area; three, that a fail-proof auto-sent notification system be utilized to ensure email communication does not break down, and that accommodation, with time extensions, is permitted when it does; four, that procedures be put in place to ensure flight delays or cancellations don't deprive any board members of their right to participate in meetings; five, that the bill be amended to empower the regional and central boards to extend the 45-day time limit should it be necessary for the proper evaluation of a proposal; and six, that the bill require the government to adequately staff, train, and otherwise resource the boards, and should this not be done, that the time limits be waived.

In conclusion, we believe that the federal government has misplaced the priorities by putting forth Bill C-15 prior to settling the land claim agreements with the Akaitcho and the Dehcho. Recognizing the existing rights of all aboriginal peoples must be the first priority. After this is done, and only then, will Bill C-15 amended as we have suggested become a more palatable pill to swallow.

Finally, the Northern Territories Federation of Labour as a member of Alternatives North wishes to go on record as fully supporting and endorsing the analysis and recommendations in their brief.

Thank you again for your time.

[David Bob, Vice-President, Northern Territories Federation of Labour]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the record, my name is David Bob, and I am the vice-president for Northern Territories Federation of Labour. With me is Ms. Sandra Lockhart, the regional vice-president for Tlicho/Somba k'e.

On behalf of the more than 9,200 members of the Northern Territories Federation of Labour I would like to thank you for providing this opportunity to express our views on part 4 of Bill C-15.

The NTFL is comprised of many different unions representing workers from a full range of occupations in both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We have been chartered with the Canadian Labour Congress since May 1980 and are dedicated to ensuring the protection of both organized and unorganized workers' rights.

At the outset, it is important to state that we are concerned that only one day of meetings has been scheduled and that the meetings are only in Yellowknife. Bill C-15 is very important legislation that fundamentally changes how we operate in the Northwest Territories. While it is generous of you to have provided financial assistance for travel to Yellowknife, there are many other effectively silenced voices in our territory that also deserve the opportunity to be heard.

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.

To make it perfectly clear, our primary concern is with the proposed elimination of regional boards. In our opinion and the opinion of what we believe is the majority of the people in the regions of the NWT, creating one mega-board will only allow greater outside political interference in the development decision-making and will adversely affect working people in the Northwest Territories.

Jobs are the essential driving force of the local economy in our communities. Many in the outlying communities continue to suffer from impacts of the current recession. Good well-paying jobs are very hard to come by. We are not arguing that regional boards should be operated solely as a make-work project, but we argue that some of the professed savings that are claimed to result from the creation of the mega-board are at the clear and direct expense of the economies and local communities where the regional boards now reside. The loss of these local jobs takes money out of the community. That in turn impacts local often struggling businesses that rely on these consumers' dollars.

We believe that these harmful effects have not been given the weight they deserve in the drive to centralize regulatory affairs in a mega-board far from the communities its decisions affect. The development of a mega-board based in Yellowknife will surely limit the regional input, reducing people's sense that they have a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their very way of life today and forever.

Consultation and effective democratic control over development decisions are being sacrificed in the drive for some ephemeral efficiency that may or may not be achieved through the workings of Bill C-15. Though quick decision-making may help a proponent get a faster response to the proposal, it does little help to ensure that the decisions are in the wider public interest. The Northern Territories Federation of Labour believes that the timeline provided for Bill C-15 places undue hardship on the individuals who represent their regions.

An average person's ability to fully understand the language contained within a proponent's proposal may be challenging at times. The burden this places on a board member to efficiently and fully communicate the nature of the proponent's proposal to the members of his or her community is difficult. Also, to gather and represent the region's concerns can be very challenging. Making their job harder by imposing arbitrary, unrealistic, or unnecessary deadlines is counterproductive.

In particular, those who sit on the new mega-board would face increased challenges in the collection of information if they represent regions that do not have fibre optic and high-speed connectivity. It is well-known that communities outside of Yellowknife that transmit signals through means other than fibre optic cable, and this is most of them, have regular interruptions of service. The lack of reliable communication infrastructure in much of the NWT makes emailing a risky business with many outages and dropped messages.

Communications problems are compounded by the seasonal nature of winter roads and the closure of highways and airports due to weather. Even mail service cannot be counted on at all times in the NWT. These are the realities that northern members of boards and agencies deal with day in and day out.

Having board facilities, services, and meetings in Yellowknife will greatly reduce the smooth and reliable flow of information, both inwards and outwards. The very attendance of board members and their ability to stand and speak for the concerns of those who reside within their regions are jeopardized by moving decision-making out of their communities and regions.

[Allen Stanzell, First Vice-President, Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce]

Mr. Chair, and committee members, thank you for coming to Yellowknife and providing us with an opportunity to speak with you today.

The NWT Chamber of Commerce is the largest business organization north of 60 and we've long been a champion of devolution. We firmly believe the closer the authority is to the affected jurisdiction, the better the overall decision-making in the interests of that jurisdiction. As part of our preparation for this address, we polled our members to get a collective opinion regarding our position. With few exceptions, our members of the chamber network from Hay River to Inuvik support the points we wish to leave with you today.

First and foremost, the business community of the Northwest Territories supports the legislation as a whole and wishes to congratulate the federal and our aboriginal and territorial governments for their hard work and foresight in moving related agreements and this legislation forward. Is Bill C-15 perfect? No. Nothing visionary is ever perfect. In our view Bill C-15 is indicative of the vision shared by the people of the NWT.

To reinforce that statement I wish to refer to a poll conducted in early March 2013. The research was commissioned by an independent third party and conducted by an independent research firm. The methodology included interviews with 400 NWT adults balanced between larger centres and small communities. The key finding of that research was that nearly 7 in 10 respondents were either in favour of the devolution agreement or not opposed to it, while fewer than 2 in 10 were opposed. Clearly devolution of resource land and water authorities is a vision shared not just by the NWT business community but also by the vast majority of NWT residents.

We know some groups would have us roll back the hands of time and leave things as they were. While we respect their voice and thank them for their contribution, we disagree. We believe it's time for the NWT to make meaningful progress towards its maturity as a larger, more important contributor to the nation that is Canada.

We support the overarching intent and spirit of proposed amendments to the MVRMA and believe they are a positive step toward development and resource management in the NWT. We also believe there is more work to be done and challenges to be addressed. The NWT ranks very high in resource potential but very low with regard to mining and oil and gas investments because of regulatory infrastructure and other issues.

In short, Mr. Chair, we have a lot riding on the success of devolution and the efficacy of regulatory reform.

I think we would all agree that it's difficult to optimize devolution of authorities without effective legislation and regulations. Therefore in the limited time we have, I will focus on the five key points of MVRMA reforms that we hope will be addressed by the federal government.

First, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for clear criteria to define projects of public concern and subsequently advocates for the NWT's regulator to make that determination rather than Ottawa. Specifically, there needs to be statutory criteria for the expansive interpretation of what might be of public concern in section 125 of the MVRMA. Clear criteria do not exist for determining public concern and that leaves the regulator with an open-ended obligation to accept such interventions without regard for merit.

There's an underlying belief that AANDC does not have authority to amend section 125 because it may violate land claim agreements. We believe that section 125 can be amended without contravening land claim agreements and in a manner that would better align the MVRMA with those agreements. The critical point here is to establish criteria for defining projects of public concern or thresholds that limit interventions to those of merit. As importantly, we believe the determination for defining a project of public concern should continue to reside with the territorial regulator, which would filter interventions through the new criteria.

Second, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for more specificity with regard to referral of projects to preliminary screening in section 124 of the MVRMA. None of the amendments to the MVRMA address the issues related to preliminary screening of applications. Too often, proponents are ordered to undertake environmental assessments regardless of the scale of projects. We're aware of simple exploration drilling applications being referred to EA. When the process costs more than the project, proponents have no choice but to withdraw their applications.

Such actions only drive investors out of the NWT. For a variety of reasons, we are already one of the most costly jurisdictions in the country in which to undertake exploration and project development. It makes no sense to burden resource investors with process costs that are unwarranted.

To be clear, we are not advocating for the elimination of the environmental assessment process; we are advocating for a more reasonable definition for project referral to an EA, perhaps based on the scale of projects.

Third, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for environmental assessment and environmental impact review decision-making caps of not more than one year for simple applications, including brownfield projects, and not more than two years for greenfield projects.

We are aware of projects taking far too long to get to approval. De Beers' Gahcho Kué project took seven years to receive approval. In fairness, the proponent slowed the application process during the global recession of 2008. However, the uncertainty related to regulatory decisions in the NWT is one of the major concerns of mining and oil and gas executives around the world. Capital goes where it can grow, so investors move on to other jurisdictions that provide greater certainty. We are fortunate that De Beers is committed to northern projects and is very well capitalized. Other investors would not take the chance on a regulatory process that has no defined decision-making caps.

The duration and cost of the decision-making process affects every applicant, including the crown. It took more than two years for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to receive a water licence renewal for the Taltson power plant. The plant has been operating since 1965. The corporation filed for a 15-year licence renewal, which is standard. The facilities were not being altered. Stream flows were not being altered. Yet the crown corporation was subjected to a costly two-year process, a cost that ratepayers had to pick up.

The current legislation and regulations need to be tightened up so that common sense may prevail. In our view, that begins with decision-making caps. The Yukon Territory provides applicants and investors with decision-making certainty through the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The NWT must absolutely provide the same degree of certainty.

Fourth, the NWT Chamber of Commerce supports the creation of a single regulatory board for the entire NWT. We realize that this is a point of contention. However, in our view, federal legislation enables the government to create a single board with overarching authority. Notwithstanding that local boards have some merit, we don't believe the volume of applications in the NWT warrants multiple boards. Smaller boards don't have the resources to review complex applications. A single board would afford appropriate resources.

When powers were devolved to the Yukon, the Yukon environmental and socio-economic board was created as a central decision-making body for the territory. YESAB retained a local presence by establishing six designated regional offices that act as entry points for applicants. The same could happen in the NWT, where regional boards exist today. In that manner, a local presence and community ties are maintained when reviews take place in a central organization with the technical capacity to manage them efficiently.

Fifth, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for a single-window application process for the NWT resource exploration and development projects—that is, a one-stop window for land and water use permits as well as licences.

Again, when powers were devolved to the Yukon, the right to issue mining licences remained with the federal government. In discussion with our industry colleagues in the Yukon, it seems that was an oversight. We have the opportunity here to ensure that the authority to issue licences resides in the NWT.

We are advocating for a single application window. In simple terms, when an application arrives for a resource exploration or development project, it triggers the system to address all aspects of the application concurrently, including all related federal and territorial authorities. This model is employed elsewhere in Canada. It creates vast efficiencies relative to the current system, where federal and territorial authorities work in a disintegrated fashion that leads to inconsistencies and regulatory duplication.

In the past 30 years, the transfer of responsibilities to the Government of the Northwest Territories has taken place for several programs and services, including the delivery of health care, social services, education, administration of airports, and forestry management. In our view, Bill C-15 is the next logical and single biggest step forward in history in the devolution of powers to our territorial government.

We are a resource-based economy. Managing our resources effectively and creating a healthy investment climate will support a strong local and national economy, and provide significant benefits to all of our communities and all of our residents.

Bill C-15 is a new beginning for the Northwest Territories.

That concludes our remarks, and again, thank you for the opportunity.

[Tom Hoefer, Executive Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and the folks here. My name is Tom Hoefer. I'm the executive director of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines.

We are an industry association and champions for mining in the two territories. Our review of Bill C-15 was also done collectively with our sister national organizations, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and the Mining Association of Canada.

I'm joined by our legal counsel, Michael Hardin, who has helped us with our submissions and who has a wealth of northern regulatory knowledge, having worked with us for over 20 years.

We would like to start by thanking the minister of AANDC and his staff for their consultations with us and for the very detailed response to our concerns. Although we did not get everything we were hoping for in Bill C-15, we are thankful for the improvements being proposed and for the minister's assurances of our continued involvement in the regulatory improvement process.

We have submitted to you a detailed brief, and I will now take you through the deck that we also provided in advance.

Turning to slide 2, we have a number of key messages. Our minerals industry is the foundation of the NWT economy. We support the devolution of land and resources to the new landlord, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and our interest in Bill C-15 will focus on regulatory improvement, specifically amendments to the MVRMA.

There has been a significant decline in exploration spending. We are encouraged by amendments to the MVRMA that can help turn this around, but more amendments are needed, especially with respect to unwarranted referrals of small exploration projects to environmental assessment. Therefore we believe that more changes are required to create certainty again for investors.

I'll turn to slide 3 to introduce the importance of our industry. Over the past 80 years the value of NWT mineral production has exceeded $60 billion.

In the next slide you will see that mining is the biggest business in the Northwest Territories. We're the largest single private-sector contributor to the economy, and we add even further benefits through construction, transportation, and real estate.

In the next slide, mining creates huge value for the NWT as data from Natural Resources Canada demonstrates. As you can see, the value of NWT mining production is many times greater than that of Nunavut and the Yukon.

In fact in the next slide you can see that we're globally significant. Our diamond mines have established the Northwest Territories and Canada as the third most valuable producer in the world.

In the next slide you will see that our mines turn that production value into benefits for the NWT and Canada, and for aboriginal and northern residents and businesses. For detail beyond the figures shown here, I encourage you to download from our website the publication “Measuring Success”. There's a picture of the cover shown on that slide.

The next slide shows the unfortunate reality that no mine lasts forever. This chart shows the current lives of our NWT mines. While we are hopeful that their owners may be able to find ways to extend them in the future, there is no guarantee of this. Importantly since discovering and permitting a mine is a 10-year-plus process, we need to be attracting a constant flow of exploration investment annually. This is where the dilemma lies.

The next slide shows the annual exploration spending. I draw your attention to the Northwest Territories in blue. Note how it declines and essentially flatlines compared to our neighbours. Note how successful Nunavut and the Yukon have been in attracting investments over the same time period. Since our mineral potential is at least equal to that of our neighbours, we know something is structurally wrong here in the Northwest Territories.

Let me emphasize that in the next slide, which reveals a steady decline in the NWT's competitiveness and our loss of Canadian market share. Let me note too that the small uptick projected for 2013 is not due to an increase in exploration but is rather due to investment in just a very few of our advanced projects.

Why, you will ask, have exploration dollars fled the Northwest Territories? The next slide gives two principal reasons. First is the uncertainty caused by unsettled land claims in two of the most prospective parts of the territories, namely the Akaitcho region and the Dehcho region.

The second reason is the complex, costly, and unpredictable nature of the regulatory process under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. For these reasons, we continue to emphasize the urgency of quickly settling land claims. We also look to devolution to play an important role, particularly with the NWT government's launch and implementation of its first-ever NWT mineral development strategy. We are also hopeful that the amendments to the MVRMA proposed in Bill C-15 will be seen by investors as a step in the right direction.

However, we respectfully submit that the Bill C-15 reforms will not achieve the full turnaround that is needed without additional key amendments to the MVRMA beyond those in the current bill.

The next slide shows our many attempts to get regulatory improvements to the MVRMA just over the past six years. During the same period, we watched the steady decline of investment in the Northwest Territories. If we are to sustain the great benefits our industry is providing, we must seek improvements in the MVRMA to rejuvenate exploration investment. We're hopeful that following our submission today, the committee will help drive that point home and get additional changes made.

Let me speak now to the important changes that we support in Bill C-15, as shown on the next slide. Overall, we are happy to see definitive timelines. However, there is one proviso to this, which I will speak to when we reach the next slide.

We also support the expanded ministerial authority to issue policy directions to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. As well, we're happy to see that there is a clear mechanism included to authorize changes to the new development certificates without the need for a project to undergo a new environmental assessment.

Amalgamation of land and water boards has attracted considerable commentary. We recognize that the aboriginal community is validly concerned by the loss of the existing regional panels. You should know that a number of industry members, especially those who have developed close working relationships with the regional boards, have likewise expressed reservations.

On balance, we support the amalgamation proposal provided that it does not negate the existing working relationships that applicants and licence holders have developed with the regional board panels, that the amalgamated board maintains a strong regional presence, and that the board chair is authorized to appoint a representative from the settled land claim area that hosts the project under review. We're encouraged that the minister has indicated that AANDC will take this into consideration.

I will turn now to our final slide. We believe that further reform to the bill is needed in five key areas.

First is the unwarranted referral of the small exploration projects to environmental assessment. Mineral investors repeatedly identify the risk of an unwarranted referral as the number one reason to vote with their feet and invest elsewhere. These referrals are frequently made on the basis of public concern, an important term that is not defined anywhere in the act. Therefore, we recommend that the MVRMA set down clear and consistent standards for referring any development proposal to environmental assessment, especially those for small preliminary exploration programs. Unless that fundamental change is made, we fear that exploration spending in the NWT will continue to fall behind activity in competing regions.

The second area for reform relates to the need for proportionality in environmental assessments and the importance of ensuring a balance between environmental and economic objectives throughout the regulatory regime. With respect to proportionality, we have suggested a change to the MVRMA to establish that the scope and intensity of the process be scaled according to the potential adverse impacts of the projects in question. In the same section, we have proposed an amendment that expressly acknowledges the need to balance environmental and economic objectives and priorities.

Our third recommendation relates to timeframes. We support the approximate two-year timeframe for an environmental review. However, the proposed bill carries a real risk where a project nears the end of a two-year environmental assessment process and is then bumped to another conceivably two-year environmental impact review process. The result could be a two-plus-two, or a four-year review process. While the bill does allow for information from an EA to be considered in an EIR, there is no guarantee that this will occur. We recommend, therefore, that the act be amended so that the total time for an EA-to-EIR process is two years. Otherwise, it drives the unintended consequence of proponents demanding at the outset the highest level of review, an EIR, to guarantee them a two-year timeframe.

Our fourth concern is around aboriginal consultation. In November 2012, AANDC's minister indicated that the MVRMA would be amended to clarify the roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation. However, Bill C-15 includes only a preliminary step in this direction, namely, a provision to enact regulations for this critically important area. While we are pleased that AANDC is committed to involving our industry in the development of these regulations, we believe their creation will take some time. We recommend, therefore, that consideration be given to using the expanded ministerial powers to issue policy directions to more quickly bring greater clarity and certainty to this area.

Our final concern is with the proposed cost-recovery regulations. The NWT is already one of the highest-cost jurisdictions in the land. Therefore, we urge a cautionary approach to minimize killing the goose that lays the golden egg by imposing burdensome financial requirements that will be another deterrent to investment in the NWT. We do look forward to contributing to the development and review of these regulations, or in fact, the decision to postpone putting them into place.

That brings us to the end of our presentation. Thank you for your attention to our comments.

My colleague Mike Hardin and I would be glad to answer any questions.

[Bill Enge]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, panel members.

My name is Bill Enge, and I am the president of the North Slave Métis Alliance. I have been president since 2004. With me is my legal counsel, Christopher Devlin, who is assisting me with any questions you may have respecting my presentation.

To begin, I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide the views of the North Slave Métis Alliance, or the NSMA, on the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement and amendments to other acts in the Northwest Territories.

Since the devolution agreement forms the framework upon which all the amendments included in Bill C-15 are built, the North Slave Métis Alliance's presentation focuses on that key document.

The North Slave Métis Alliance represents a contemporary section 35.1 aboriginal rights-bearing Métis community within the Great Slave Lake area of the Northwest Territories. In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories declared that NSMA and its members have a good prima facie claim as a Métis community that holds aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in the area north and east of Great Slave Lake, Northwest Territories.

Because the North Slave Métis Alliance and its members hold these section 35 aboriginal rights in the region to the north and east of Great Slave Lake, we cannot support the devolution agreement in its current form. This is because the devolution agreement in its current form runs roughshod over our members' aboriginal rights.

Today I'll give you a brief overview of our community and then describe some of the questionable actions the crown has taken in the devolution process respecting the North Slave Métis Alliance and its members' section 35 aboriginal rights.

In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories handed down a decision about our community. The court accepted thousands of pages of historical research and sworn affidavits that revealed that an historical community of Métis people had its ethnogenesis in the Great Slave Lake area in the early 18th century. That Métis community was regionally based rather than based in any one particular fort, village, or town, and was ethnically distinct from the Dene and European people who also used and occupied the Great Slave Lake area.

The Métis community of the Great Slave Lake area has continued from historical to present time. The Métis community continues to exercise its collectively held, unextinguished aboriginal rights as Métis people to the north, south, east, and west of Great Slave Lake.

All of this historical research is consistent with the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Powley, respecting the identification of Métis communities that hold aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Currently the contemporary Métis community of the Great Slave Lake area is subdivided into different constituencies, each represented by incorporated societies. The North Slave Métis Alliance was incorporated in 1996 by the contemporary constituency that uses and occupies the traditional Métis lands north and east of Great Slave Lake. In 1997 three other constituencies to the south of Great Slave Lake incorporated an umbrella group, the South Slave Métis Tribal Council, now known as the Northwest Territory Métis Nation.

The Northwest Territory Métis Nation was created by Métis constituencies in Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, and Hay River to promote the unity and aspirations of the Métis of the South Slave region. The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories noted the distinct and different goals of the North Slave Métis Alliance and those of the Northwest Territory Métis Nation.

The record shows that the North Slave Métis Alliance and the Northwest Territory Métis Nation have both been representing their constituents for all intents and purposes for the same number of years.

This leads me directly to one of the questionable actions the crown has taken in the devolution process respecting the North Slave Métis Alliance and its members' section 35 aboriginal rights. Why was the North Slave Métis Alliance a part of the devolution discussions when they began, in 2001, but not now, in 2014?

The North Slave Métis Alliance was a party to the devolution discussions in 2001, when they began. The North Slave Métis Alliance was a founding member of the aboriginal summit, a group created as a vehicle for aboriginal government leaders in the Northwest Territories to work together on the devolution process.

Devolution negotiations stalled in 2005. When they started up again, the North Slave Métis Alliance was not invited back to the table.

When the North Slave Métis Alliance was part of the devolution negotiations, the definition for who could be a member included aboriginal groups, in a process to obtain recognition of their rights. When the North Slave Métis Alliance requested inclusion in the reinvigorated devolution negotiations, Canada told the North Slave Métis Alliance that the North Slave Métis Alliance cannot be included because the North Slave Métis Alliance does not meet the new definition for who can be a member. The new definition provides that an aboriginal group can only be a member if the crown chooses to engage in a formal process with the crown for the negotiation of a land claim agreement with that aboriginal group.

The NSMA asked to engage with Canada. Instead of engaging, Canada has stonewalled engagement with the North Slave Métis Alliance by repeatedly asking the North Slave Métis Alliance for more information about its organization and members.

The North Slave Métis Alliance provided Canada with the information it requested. In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories ruled in favour of the North Slave Métis Alliance on exactly the same information that the North Slave Métis Alliance provided to Canada. With that in mind, if the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories has found that the North Slave Métis Alliance has a good case for aboriginal rights, why then does the crown continue to refuse to recognize that the North Slave Métis Alliance is an aboriginal rights-bearing group and to facilitate its inclusion in the devolution agreement?

Why is Canada privileging the Northwest Territory Métis Nation over the North Slave Métis Alliance? The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada wrote the North Slave Métis Alliance a letter in August 2013, acknowledging that the North Slave Métis Alliance members have a good claim to Métis hunting rights north of Great Slave Lake. Regardless, Canada has told us that the North Slave Métis Alliance has to go somewhere else and be someone else if we want to participate in devolution.

Canada's position is that all self-government and land claim negotiations in the Northwest Territories are derived from Dene ancestry. Canada refuses to negotiate land claims and self-government on the basis of Métis ethnicity. Consequently, Canada is negotiating with the Northwest Territory Métis Nation and other aboriginal groups purely on a policy basis.

In other words, Canada's policy is to negotiate aboriginal rights and titles in the Northwest Territories based on aboriginal people's Dene ancestry, rather than on the basis of any assessment of their Métis rights. Canada informed the North Slave Métis Alliance that its members would be better off having their rights represented by the Northwest Territory Métis Nation.

The Northwest Territory Métis Nation is poised to sign a land and resources agreement in principle with Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, which will clarify ownership and rights of the Northwest Territory Métis Nation in relation to lands and resources in the South Slave region. But if North Slave Métis Alliance members join the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, they would voluntarily forfeit their Métis rights north of Great Slave Lake, which the court and the minister so recently recognized.

Is this fair? Is this right? Is this a nation that upholds the rule of law? The law and the minister have recognized our Métis rights, but Canada is telling us to give up those Métis rights to our traditional lands north of Great Slave Lake because of its national policy directive.

This brings me to my final question. Is the North Slave Métis Alliance's exclusion from the devolution agreement just about money?

The devolution agreement and the various intergovernmental agreements flowing from it provide numerous benefits to the aboriginal parties that have been allowed to participate. The benefits range from representation on an intergovernmental council on land and resource management, which provides a forum for the parties to influence land and resource management policy in the Northwest Territories, to the receipt of funding pursuant to a resource revenue-sharing program.

But the North Slave Métis Alliance members are being left out in the cold. The structure of schedule 17 of the devolution agreement, the “Northwest Territories Intergovernmental Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement”, reflects that reality.

The revenue-sharing schedule clearly states that the Northwest Territory Métis Nation includes only three communities: Fort Smith, Hay River, and Fort Resolution, all of which are south of Great Slave Lake. To the north of Great Slave Lake, there are only Indian groups named in the schedule. This means that there is no Métis organization representing Métis rights in the region to the north of Great Slave Lake. So North Slave Métis Alliance members have nowhere to go to have their Métis rights, so recently recognized by the courts and the minister, represented in the devolution process.

The revenue-sharing schedule also provides that the funding transfers to aboriginal groups will be based on membership numbers of each group. The addition of North Slave Métis Alliance members to any of the other aboriginal organizations will mean that these organizations will get more money when devolution is effected. This per capita distribution of the devolution funding is undoubtedly desirable from the point of view of any aboriginal organizations that will get more money if they get our members on their membership lists. It seems to us our members' Métis rights are just a political and financial windfall for the lucky group or groups our members get frogmarched into.

In conclusion, in the Northwest Territories the crown is not honouring Métis rights. The crown refuses to recognized the North Slave Métis Alliance as an aboriginal rights-bearing Métis collective. Canada maintains this position in spite of substantial evidence and a court ruling in the North Slave Métis Alliance's favour. Canada is only negotiating with the Northwest Territory Métis Nation because of policy decisions, which have nothing to do with Métis rights. These policy decisions have driven Canada to tell us that North Slave Métis Alliance members' rights would be better represented by the Northwest Territory Métis Nation. But joining the Northwest Territory Métis Nation would require North Slave Métis Alliance members to voluntarily forfeit their Métis rights north of Great Slave Lake. This is not a legitimate choice for our members. It's not fair. It's not right. Forcing our members to do this is arguably a contravention of the laws of this nation.

To Canada, the North Slave Métis Alliance is an inconvenient truth. Canada wants certainty in the Northwest Territories but is attempting to achieve it at the expense of our members' section 35 constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. The North Slave Métis Alliance cannot and will not stand idly by and let this happen.

This concludes my presentation. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Chief Harry Deneron, Chief, Acho Dene Koe First Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Harry Deneron, and I represent the Acho Dene Koe First Nation from the southwest of the territory.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it's pretty hard for me to pull up a chair here after the previous presentation, and sitting next to Mr. Fabian over here.

I was born and raised in northeast B.C. Today all the development is happening in the Horn River basin and the Liard basin, and yet the B.C. government doesn't recognize us there. Today they confiscate the wildlife we get, and we're threatened not to set nets in certain lakes. It's very difficult.

I became a chief in 1975. That's a long time ago. At that time we had one voice, one organization, the Dene Nation. We laid claim to the entire north to the ocean. Of course we don't think alike, and we don't speak alike. I think it was in 1990 that a group from a different region walked out, and we were left alone with the Dehcho First Nations.

Five and a half years ago, we asked the government to see if we could do a stand-alone land comprehensive claim. I guess today I can say that in early December last year we signed off on our AIP. It's in the hands of the minister to either sign on or reject it. I'm hoping he will sign on so that we can move forward.

I guess we're here because of devolution, and Bill C-15, and the super-board. I've been through all of these before. Devolution I don't have any problem with. It's nothing new. Where I have a problem with devolution is if we think we're going to create lots of work and be prosperous. I know that to work in northeast B.C., you have to have some skill and be certified with six tickets to work for an oil company.

I think in 1978 it was the last time in the territory, in and around Liard, that we had some training undertaken by “Hire North”, as it was called. They were the ones who built the highway north of the B.C. border. Every one of those people who went through that training, who were in the workforce, and who had skills have either gotten old, or I'm sorry to say, passed away.

Every time you leave human resources development with no training, you're asking for big trouble. I don't see that we're going to greatly benefit from devolution, but I believe it's not too late. I think we can start training, and I think we can undertake those developments that will happen in our region.

The super-board I have no problem with either. We have to say that in the past the Mackenzie Valley water board made recommendations, only to find that enforcing the recommendations were federal Fisheries and Oceans or federal land-use inspectors.

So if we feel that there should be a new way to protect our environment, we must have something with enforceable rules that apply to those recommendations.

I work in northeast B.C. where there is a board or commission called the BC Oil and Gas Commission. They send you a notification telling you that certain companies have made an application to work in your area, and you have 30 days to respond or no response is required. That's it. I don't have a problem with that.

They also have very strong enforcement people if someone breaks the environmental rules and regulations. I believe that it's about $10,000 a day. We don't have that in the territory. I've never seen it. So if there is a change, I don't have any problem with it if we do it right. I know some people are very protective of the treaty that happened for us in 1921 or so. Today we find that the only thing our kids do is play games and none of them are out in the bush. I believe there are only two people who trap in our area today. We have 776 members, so we do have a problem there too.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

[Peter Redvers, Consultation Facilitator, Katlodeeche First Nation]

Thank you. A few of the points that were made in the brief just need to be reiterated or emphasized.

First of all, the Katlodeeche First Nation has taken the position that Bill C-15, particularly part 4, the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act—more specifically, the restructuring of the land and water boards—will actually prejudice KFN's ability to negotiate with Canada and the GNWT full implementation of its land and resource management rights within its traditional territory, either on its own or through a regional body set up through the Dehcho First Nations. That opportunity is denied.

KFN would also like to point out that a question has arisen a couple of times this morning about why certain clauses might have been in the land claims agreements, specifically the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements, if they weren't contemplating the creation of a territorial board and the loss of regional boards.

We would respectfully point out that, in fact, once the two claims, the Sahtu and Gwich'in claims, were settled and the boards were established, there's a section in both of those claims that says when there's a territorial board established, “it shall assume” the authorities of the regional boards. Also, then, sections 24.4.6 and 25.4.6 of those agreements—which is the key section—say, “Legislation may provide for regional panels of the Land and Water Board”, and say that the respective first nations will be consulted.

I think the point we're making is that those sections of the agreement were actually completed and fulfilled in 2000. The regional boards were established. Then, for sections 24.4.6 of the Gwich'in agreement and 25.4.6 of the Sahtu, where the territorial board was established in 2000 under the MVRMA, that was completed. Check that one off.

At the same time, paragraphs 24.4.6(b) and 25.4.6(b) were also implemented, so that the regional boards became “panels” of the land and water board. So in a sense, that section of the agreement was fulfilled. It was completed. It was done by the creation of the territorial board with the regional panels in 2000.

To say that these amendments are implementing the agreement is in fact not true. They are actually overriding sections of the agreement that have fully been implemented as per the agreements and as per the establishment of the MVRMA and the territorial and regional panels in 2000. Changing that again will affect KFN's ability to negotiate its own authorities.

The other point, which I think might be becoming a little obvious here, is that the intent of these changes was to create a more efficient and effective system. Well, with all due respect, you don't do that by pissing people off. I have lived in the north for 38 years, and I can assure you that development, proper and sustainable development, and proper discourse, and respectful discourse occur when parties speak and act respectfully towards each other. When one party imposes their will on another, it creates a situation where there is going to be more confrontation and a more adversarial relationship. So I'm going to predict there will be more challenges to decisions made by the body set up under this amended board, and that's something you need to take into account.

A quick point also in the KFN.... With all due respect to Mr. Pollard, when he met with the first nations—and I was a part of those most recent consultations—he was throwing numbers out about how this board structure would result in up to 50 members of the board. That was completely fallacious.

He knew at the time—or the minister knew at the time—that there were only the five regional boards that were likely to be set up, that the other claimant groups were not in fact requesting, and that in some cases their AIPs did not include the establishment of land and water boards, so that was incorrect. The maximum for board members might be 30. With the reduction in some of the regional board members, that could be anywhere from 20 to 25.

There are some options that were put forward. None of those were considered as to whether or not there was some way to do this that would allow the regional boards, so in that sense the consultation process failed because it did not make an attempt to accommodate.

Third is time limits. Along with no regional boards, the imposition of time limits, particularly ministerial-controlled time limits, will affect the procedural aspects of consultation. One of the things that seems to be overlooked is that the regional boards fulfill a very important role in the procedural aspects of section 35 consultation. There was buy-in through the claims agreements. They were respected and accepted, which meant that the deliberations and processes carried out through those boards could be seen to be fulfilling procedural aspects of consultation.

That opportunity is now lost. I believe it's going to result in more time being spent by the Government of Canada in having to carry out its own consultation processes, because the procedural aspects will not be adequately fulfilled. Again, that's KFN's position in the brief that's been submitted.

There are two points. On ministerial authority, whether it be federal or territorial authority, there is no reason for the increase in that. It will undermine the credibility of the board. It may put the boards in a position of being biased, particularly in the appointment of the chair, and ultimately you'd end up with a system that's micromanaged by politicians rather than being managed under legislation and regulation.

If you are wanting to look for a way to slow down processes or make them less effective, with all due respect to you who are politicians, let's get politicians involved, because as soon as decisions become political rather than technical, governed by legislation and regulation, the world becomes a little more complicated. I think you are going to find ministerial authority is not going to make things more efficient and effective, but in fact micromanagement is going to again undermine those processes.

Getting down to real specifics, there are two specific amendments that could be made to those sections and aspects of the bill, the MVRMA amendments, that are reasonable.

In terms of that ministerial authority, particularly with the environmental reviews on page 4 of the brief, the following could be added: “If the review board deems a development to be particularly complex due to its scope, technological or infrastructure requirements, location within or near an ecosystem recognized or designated as requiring special protection, and/or potential for high impacts on treaty or aboriginal rights, the board may set or adjust time limits at its own discretion, as long as all affected parties are notified in advance of these decisions.” The boards need to be given the flexibility they need in order to accommodate the complex geocultural and geopolitical nature of the NWT. That would be proposed subsection 128(2.5).

Another proposed amendment would be that proposed subsection 128(2.4) could read, “If the review board requires the person or body that proposes to carry out the development, or a first nation directly affected by the proposed development, to provide information...”. In essence they can call a time out. Basically the legislation allows the board to call a time out when industry requires and needs to gather information. It doesn't give a time out for first nations to gather information, and that would be traditional knowledge information of relevance to deliberations of the board. Traditional knowledge is recognized in the act but there is no mechanism by which first nations can use time within that process to carry out traditional knowledge research to better represent their interests.

Finally, in the latter part of the KFN brief that was presented, pages 6 to 8 point out in detail the formal consultation process that was carried out between June and essentially October and November of this past year. As you can see if you follow through that, and I ask you to review it, there were considerable problems with the formal consultation process. I know the term “consultation” has been applied to the work Mr. Pollard has done. I have not yet seen any documentation tabled by Mr. Pollard in terms of the details of that consultation process, such as who said what where, and how the decisions that he arrived at were reached. KFN would like to point out that in its view the formal process of consultation carried out in the last period of time was utterly inadequate under the law, and you as the committee need to be made aware of that.

Thank you.

[Larry Innes, Legal Counsel, Dehcho First Nations]

Perhaps I could just add some specifics to what Mr. Balsillie has said.

One of the principles that Canada has had in its negotiations with aboriginal peoples in respect of the co-management of lands and resources is that there's a degree of parity between the aboriginal perspective and that of crown governments.

What we see in the specific changes being made under Bill C-15 is that this balance is no longer present. In fact it has radically shifted in favour of federal representatives, and the numbers of representatives, to the extent that the chair would be federally chosen. A quorum on the super-board, on the reconstituted MVRMA, would no longer even require a representative from the region.

So we fail to see, from the perspective of the Dehcho First Nations, how Canada is fulfilling its obligations to maintain some parity, some equality, either at the table with the Dehcho First Nations in its negotiations or indeed for the Dehcho in its reconstituted super-board. Neither is being maintained.

This is fundamentally disrespectful to the principles under which the Dehcho have entered these negotiations, and it's fundamentally at odds with the honour of the crown.

[Francois Paulette, Chief, Dene Nation Elder's Council]

I will work on being as diplomatic as I can be. You young people who are sitting here know very little of our history. I'm a direct descendant of the headmen and leaders who entered into treaty at Smith’s Landing in 1899.

At the age of 21, I became a chief in my community. I'm a non-elected chief. A year after that, we engaged in the Paulette case that's been talked about. I'm not going to get into that.

What I do want to say about the Paulette case is that Judge Morrow in his ruling says that your version of the treaty, Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, where we extinguished.... That's what the crown says. As for Justice Morrow's ruling, in his words he doubted that the Dene ever surrendered. I want you to look at that case.

I'm going to get right into the 1930 NRTA act in the south and Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In 1930 Canada, the crown, deliberately made omission of the treaty first nations at these talks about the resources, their lands, and their way of life, and to this day the first nations are struggling and talking about their resources. You just look south of the 60th parallel and the tar sands.

Neil Young's concert honoured the treaties. Bill C-15 devolution resembles and perhaps is the NRTA act that is now being imposed on the Dene up here. It is no different. The Dene play a very small part, if any, in the bilateral relations that you have with the crown.

This NWT Act does not have a constitution. There was an attempt in 1990 to have a constitution developed by all people, including non-indigenous people. Why hasn't that happened? It should have happened or we wouldn't have this discussion. That's a huge oversight of the territorial government and the crown, but now you want to implement and change the NWT Act without consulting the people, without consulting the treaty first nations. That's a sin.

In 1967, forty civil servants got off the plane here in Yellowknife, and today there are about 5,000 civil servants controlling every facet of our lands that you are about to transfer to the north. These legal documents, by convention, by Parliament, you are dismantling them. I find that to be very unconstitutional. I find that to dishonour our forefathers and your forefathers.

By the way, the NWT Act is weaker than the Indian Act. The Indian Act has more power and authority over the NWT Act by law and by Constitution.

These are my final comments as I want to keep this short. Below the 49th parallel there was the George Bush doctrine where he said that if you are not with us, then you are against us. Harper has adopted this philosophy, this doctrine. Your standing committee is carrying out this doctrine because your minds are already made up. You are just rubber-stamping. I feel very dishonoured that our treaties are not being respected.

We have two unfinished pieces of business with treaties. Dehcho Treaty 8, are you expecting these people to be harnessed into this mega-regulatory board? I doubt it. I would ask you to ease off these lands. These resources are going to be here. They are not going anywhere. It's a pity where we are in our history. What you call democracy is not being followed.

Are you adhering to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Are you adhering to other conventions that were made at the UN? No.

All the rules and laws that were there to protect our waters have been lifted. Where is our protection?

I'm very embarrassed and insulted that you are carrying this out on the people who are the rightful owners of this land.

I want to stop there. Thank you.

[Grand Chief Herb Norwegian, Grand Chief, Dehcho First Nations]

Mr. Chair and standing committee members, thank you for allowing me to come before you to talk about some really important issues that we all face here in this part of Canada.

It wasn't too long ago when the Canadian government was just a visitor in our homeland. It wasn't too long ago when we started talking about trust and peace among our people. Today when we take a look at the various laws and government positions that are being taken on our homeland, it puts us in a real awkward position, because for many of us, we're still landlords. None of us have given up our land, particularly in the Dehcho territory. Not one grain of sand belongs to the Government of Canada. That is our position and it will remain our position.

When we see these positions that are being put before us, such as the bill on the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and devolution, it puts us at a disadvantage. Here we are dealing with a situation that we have no control over. Instead, what happens is that the door is left wide open for an onslaught of development where it would only be the minister who would have final say over such development.

In the Dehcho territory right now we are negotiating with Canada trying to reach an agreement to put us back on track where we should be. Over the last few years it's been difficult especially when we had the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act dropped on us. In the same breath, our people have been looking at a number of ways of how we can actually start managing our land. We have always taken the view that we needed something that would be equivalent to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, something that we call the Dehcho resource management authority. That was created about 10 or 12 years ago. We had some great discussions. We had Canada on side with it. There were a number of agreements in place. Today, it is still our belief that the Dehcho resource management act is still very much alive in the minds of our people.

This whole act, Bill C-15, puts us in a real awkward position. What we're seeing here is that as the bill is being put into place and as devolution unfolds and empowers the territorial government, it puts us in a very difficult position. The very authorities that we seek for ourselves are the things that are going to be transferred to the territorial government.

For us, the territorial government has always been a government that has just sat on the sidelines. It's more of an interim government. When we see governments unfold in our different regions throughout the valley, such as the Dehcho, you will see a new style of life in the valley. You will see Dehcho governments. You will see Tlicho governments. You will see Sahtu governments. These are the governments that will be thriving new governments once we have some final agreements. Once devolution and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are in play, it will take that ability away from us.

We've always had these concerns. It really hasn't fit well with the kinds of things we're trying to do in our territory. It creates a lot of problems, especially when we're trying to negotiate with Canada and trying to reach a final agreement. Every step of the way we have had to fight in order to get where we are today. Right now in our Dehcho process agreements we're probably about 60% concluded. Every inch of the way it has been like climbing this incredible mountain. Every time we have taken a step, there has been something in our way; an avalanche of some magnitude seems to have come in our direction, but we've prevailed. We've weathered the storm, and we've stayed right on track.

Thanks to the great elders and to the ones who have passed on. These are the ones who have given us that spiritual strength and the guidance to stay there and stay on top of these issues. This is what we're dealing with. It's not just the Dehcho. It's people right down the valley, the people in the communities who are just up in arms and wondering what is going on. Why is this being shoved down our throats?

Like the rest of the regions, the Dehcho have taken a very firm position, especially on devolution. The Dehcho have not taken a position on whether we support it or not. We're still exploring and we're still trying to analyze what this is going to mean to us in the long run. Today, I'm hoping that you people who sit on this committee have a real serious look at this Bill C-15, because you're actually going to change the whole lifestyle and the way that our people live here in the north, and that is a pretty serious step.

I have to speak on behalf of our people, and our young people especially, because it's their tomorrow that we're dealing with here. The elders came from yesterday and told us exactly the very thing that I'm talking about here today. What we're dealing with here is the future of our young people, the young people who want to take on this new future, this new creation, this new thing that we're creating for them. If it doesn't happen, only one person is to blame, and it's got to be Canada. We're still standing firm and we are going to continue to move forward.

These are the things that I think are firm, that we feel in our hearts, and we'll continue to stand. It's important that Canada, and you, understand that we want to do business with Canada, but how can we do business with them when they can't be trusted? Every inch of the way we had to fight. When I say “we”, I'm talking about people in the north here, us people. We're the ones who have to put up with every bill and every act that you've put before us. I think today we're together more than anything else, and I think that we need to continue to keep this pressure on because it's making life miserable for a lot of our people.

I hope that people who are on this committee understand exactly where it is that we're coming from because I'm sure that, once it goes ahead, there will be some serious problems. The things that are just happening at this pace, it's incredible. I'd like to think that there is a solution in this. I'd like to try to be as diplomatic as possible and try to grab some results. But at the same time, when you're being stonewalled and you're dealing with a tsunami of issues that the federal government is dealing with, it's really, really hard to deal with a government in that kind of situation.

I'd like to leave it at that. My assistant here might want to say a few words.

Again, I want to thank you for these comments. Thank you very much.

[Don Balsillie, Chief Negotiator, Akaitcho First Nations, NWT Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation]

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the forum for making themselves available to the Akaitcho people to express at this particular forum some of the concerns that we have relating to Bill C-15.

Before I begin, I did read, as did many others in the north, the papers in which Mr. Bevington stated that a forum of this nature, to a large degree, has limitations regarding what it can actually persuade governments to consider when we hear concerns, suggestions, and recommendations on matters of this nature. To some degree, in the back of my mind, I ask myself whether I should save my breath to cool my porridge here or whether we are just barking into the wind. What sort of opportunity do we as northerners have here to actually see some beneficial changes possibly coming out of what is being discussed here today? It would be very interesting to see how these things move forward.

Nevertheless, it's a good venue at which to have all the stakeholders and the aboriginal governments gather in a room to have a dialogue. With some degree of interest this morning I heard Mr. McCrank speak, as well as Mr. Pollard, with reference to the work that they undertook to help lead us to this point we are at today.

One of the things that were mentioned was the gap that existed and how to bridge this gap. It became very apparent to me that there really is a lack of proper communication among all the parties. Just before I spoke this morning, you heard the chief speaking his language. There's no interpretation available here. From what I understand, in many venues where these matters were talked about, there wasn't proper translation equipment. People missed the point and people were not allowed to speak. With the technology we have available to us, it behooves me to ask why this sort of thing would be allowed to happen. You can see here today that we don't have interpretation equipment available for our elders who are very interested in seeing what is happening. These elders have been around these processes for the last 50 years. This is their homeland. This is where they reside. This is where their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren are going to continue to live. They want to prosper, be involved, and hear what other people have to say so they can in turn articulate in a proper fashion what they believe are the appropriate measures to be taken on behalf of everyone. That is a bit of a concern I want to express here before I get into my point.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I do take a bit of umbrage with Mr. Bevington's concerns when I raised the questions I raised. I think it's important to focus on best practices across the three territories to see what works. Certainly, that was the nature of my questions, to determine what those best practices are and to see if we can deploy them across the three territories. It may be a bit of a cliché, but as we say, there's no sense in reinventing the wheel. If we find a system that's working, we want to be able to take the good from that system, and we also want to eliminate the things that aren't unique to a particular region or that don't work so well.

I will correct the record for Mr. Bevington. Clearly, while he's talking about 2008-09 and Yukon's mining practices, in 2010, 2011, and 2012, Yukon contributed to 10% of Canada's GDP in exploration alone. We have three operating mines going right now and three more in the permitting phase, so I'm not sure where he's getting his facts about the Yukon territory stalling out in mining.

When we're looking at those best practices, we're looking at what worked in a jurisdiction and what didn't. We have the Yukon example. The Yukon has had devolution for over 10 years now.

Maybe Mr. Pollard can answer these questions, or you, Mr. McCrank, if they're well suited to you.

What experiences from the Yukon were taken into consideration? What were seen as positive measures and mechanisms built into the devolution agreement in Bill C-15, and what was left out because it wasn't working? What did we learn from the Yukon experience, both the good and the bad, that we were able to take or that we were able to leave behind?

[Willard Hagen]

Again, I have no comment on any changes to or approval of Bill C-15. We're just here to regulate, and that's what we choose to do.

Thank you.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pollard, again, I think it's always beneficial to maybe speak to an audience that is broader than just those of us around the table. Can you explain the changes that have been proposed? What does this mean? How many people, how many boards, are we talking about coming into the single board? How many board members are there under the current system and how many are envisioned under the system proposed in Bill C-15?

[Willard Hagen, Chair, Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome you, your committee members, and your staff to Yellowknife. It's great to see you here to listen to those who may be directly affected by Bill C-15.

I am pleased to appear before the committee today as chair of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Accompanying me is Mr. John Donihee, the board’s legal counsel.

Both John and I have been involved in the northern regulatory system for many years. John, following many years with the territorial government, has been board counsel since 2000, when part 4 of the MVRMA came into force. I am a past president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council and have been the chair of the Gwich’in Land and Water Board. Since 2006, I have been the chair of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.

I would like to congratulate governments—federal, territorial, and aboriginal—on reaching the agreements necessary to make devolution a reality. The devolution provisions set out in Bill C-15 represent a milestone in the constitutional evolution of the Northwest Territories.

I have long been a supporter of greater territorial control and decision-making over resources. My colleagues and I on the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board look forward to working with the GNWT and making decisions about northern lands, waters, and resources.

We are aware that during the consultation on the provisions contained in this bill, there has been significant discussion—and many strong opinions expressed—on the matter of land and water board amalgamation. This is one subject upon which the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has consistently provided no comment. It is our opinion that it would not be appropriate for us to comment on proposals affecting the structure of the very board we were appointed to.

Land and water board structure is nevertheless an important matter, and the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board is of the view that it is best discussed amongst governments—federal, territorial, and aboriginal.

To put our advice to the committee in context, I want to briefly review some recent board initiatives. The board is committed to providing certainty, predictability, and consistency for all parties involved in applications for water licences and land use permits under the MVRMA.

The MVLWB has been doing its share to contribute to improvements in the regulatory framework for development in the Mackenzie Valley. These board initiatives are currently possible under sections 65 and 106 of the MVRMA, and we have relied on these authorities to complete this work. In my time as chair of the board, we have worked hard to contribute to a regulatory system that is clear, accessible, and efficient.

Since 2006, the land and water boards of the Mackenzie Valley have implemented a standard procedures and consistency program to develop new policies and procedures applicable to land use permitting and water licensing throughout the Mackenzie Valley.

To give some examples, the board has developed a consultation and engagement policy and guidelines, waste management guidelines, a water quality policy, closure and reclamation guidelines developed in conjunction with AANDC, a Mackenzie Valley-wide guide to land use permitting, and standards for GIS submissions, to name but a few.

As part of this program, we have also developed standardized language for the terms and conditions in land use permits, and we have a similar effort under way to standardize water licensing provisions.

The results of this work contribute to consistency in process and predictability in decisions for all parties involved in the development process. They will also assist with enforcement, when that is necessary, and ensure clarity in environmental standards for all who are interested in the board’s work.

I join with other commentators and reviewers of the regulatory system in the Mackenzie Valley to re-emphasize the importance of settling land claims and land use planning. Completing this work would ensure long-term certainty for all parties involved in resource development, but there is still a lot of work to be done. It should be noted that of a total of 61 environmental assessment referrals since the MVRMA came into force in 1998; 53 of those have come from regions of the Mackenzie Valley without settled land claim agreements.

So while the effective legislative framework will be a key contributor to certainty, we suggest that coming to agreement with the first nations whose claims to rights and lands are outstanding, and then eventually some land use planning for those areas, are equally important steps toward certainty for development.

There are a number of provisions in this proposed legislation that will improve the consistency and predictability of the regulatory process. For example, the board supports timelines for licence proceedings and supports the development of enforceable project certificates. The improved and updated enforcement provisions, including administrative monetary penalties, should ensure compliance with the law and provide an expedited process to address those few instances where enforcement is necessary.

The board’s overall approach to reviewing the bill and to commenting to government has focused on identifying changes that we felt could improve the legislation by enhancing certainty, predictability, and timelines.

There are five points that I have here. I'm not too sure if I have time within the five minutes, but they are on file with you. If you would like me to proceed with some of them, I could.

[John Pollard, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is John Pollard. I'm from Hay River, Northwest Territories. I'm the chief federal negotiator responsible for the restructuring piece that's contained in Bill C-15.

I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Daryn Leas]

I think it's worth pointing out that there's a certain amount of irony in this process. We've been working for many years in negotiating devolution of land resource powers and legislative powers from Ottawa to Yellowknife. Now, as part of this process, we have that done. It's part of Bill C-15. But the other part of Bill C-15 is taking those powers that were routed for reviews of processes from the regions and moving them to Ottawa.

So on the one hand we have devolution working well and empowering people from the Northwest Territories to manage lands and resources, but on the other hand it appears that in many ways the assessment reviews of projects by the regions are now being moved back to Yellowknife and out of the regions. That is contradictory. There is an irony there that isn't lost on us.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly thank all of you for your presentations this morning, which were obviously very well thought out, with very good points and questions that you asked. I guess it's unfortunate that as a committee we don't have the answers for you, but I'd like to explore some of the points you've made. I think they are very important in further debating this legislation and how it passes in the House of Commons.

Mr. Bevington asked you about consultation on the legislation and how these changes were presented. It is my understanding that what you were consulted on as aboriginal governments, and what you signed on to and became signatories to, was not what we see eventually evolving as Bill C-15 in the House of Commons. I'd like to make sure that is clarified.

That would be my first question for you.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

I'll just build on what Ethel was saying about the framework agreement.

I have here, and I will submit it to the clerk of the committee when we're done, a draft framework agreement called “Draft Framework for Process Respecting Changes to MVRMA and the Regulatory System in NWT”. What we're saying here, and what we've been saying here, is that we're working in collaboration with the aboriginal coalition group. This is all the aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories, including northern provincial aboriginal groups that have overlapping territorial interests. We worked together as an aboriginal coalition with the Government of Canada to try to work out a collaborative process as to how we can make changes to the MVRMA, but that was totally rejected.

This framework was tabled with the officials in November of 2011. It was sent to the minister, and it was also given to the Prime Minister during the crown-first nations gathering meetings in January. Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, along with another former leader, presented the Prime Minister with this framework. We took it to the highest office to see if we could work out, nation to nation, based on our collective interests, how we could work together in a collaborative way to achieve what's best for all of us in terms of amendments to the MVRMA.

So it's not like we didn't try, but it was totally rejected. Canada has chosen to unilaterally embark on the path they have embarked on, adding insult to all of this by bundling it all together under Bill C-15.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

I appreciate your comments. Welcome to the north. I'm glad you came up. Every member of Parliament should enjoy this part of the country.

I would answer your question but it's really not relevant to me being here today. I'm here to talk about Bill C-15 not devolution.

Thank you.

[Daryn Leas, Legal Counsel, Sahtu Secretariat Inc.]

I just want to make one further comment to Bertha's. I really want to emphasize that the devolution negotiations, discussions, and the action plan related to streamlining, or whatever the phrase is, for the federal government on environmental legislation were separate but concurrent processes. Never once were the federal devolution negotiators able to provide any substance or details about the Mackenzie Valley legislation in the proposed amendments. So they were very distinct, and they made it very clear that it wasn't part of their mandate and they had no authority to speak to those matters.

Separate from that we had some discussions last winter with federal officials who spoke about process but not details, certainly nothing about the reconstituted board or things of that sort. So it's a surprise to us that now these separate but concurrent processes are bundled into one bill, Bill C-15, when they haven't been treated like that for the previous four or five years.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe, Legal Counsel, Tlicho Government]

Thank you.

I'm Bertha Rabesca Zoe.

Canada, because of devolution, is making certain amendments to federal legislation, and GNWT is developing and drafting mirror legislation so that devolution can happen.

We're quite involved in that work, those of us who are parties and technical people and persons and legal counsels from the various groups involved in that process. All the various drafts of the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, and the Northwest Territories Act were shared with us. But in all of our work with Canada and GNWT—mostly with Canada—we have always maintained, as aboriginal parties and aboriginal groups and governments in the Northwest Territories, that MVRMA is a totally different process, because we've been very concerned about the proposed amendments and particularly the restructuring of the board.

We didn't see the bundling of the bills until it was introduced in Parliament. I've been involved in the work on both devolution and the MVRMA, so I have first-hand information and knowledge about that process. As a matter of fact the October session we attended—and we put this on record—wasn't a consultation session as far as we are concerned because the key and fundamental principles of working together in a collaborative manner in that process were totally ignored. That's the process we wanted to embark on. In that October session I asked the federal officials who were there doing the presentation whether those bills would be bundled as an omnibus bill, and we were never given a response as to what they would do. So we didn't know they would be bundled until they were introduced into Parliament as Bill C-15.

Mahsi.

[Robert Alexie, President, Gwich'in Tribal Council]

Thank you.

I would like to lend support to and reiterate a lot of the points that Ms. Blondin-Andrew and Grand Chief Erasmus have stated. I wish I could put forth my points as passionately as they did.

First of all, I would like to say that I am the president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. I was elected in 2012. I would also like to point out that from 1990 to 1992 I was the chief negotiator for the Gwich'in claim, which resulted in the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, the starting point for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which gave us in the Gwich'in settlement area the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board, the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board, and territorially the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

I served two terms as the vice-president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council in the mid to late 1990s, and played a role in the implementation of the Gwich'in agreement. In the last decade I've been working as the executive director for the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. Therefore, I have a good understanding of not only the Gwich'in agreement but also the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Gwich'in live in a very resource-poor area. We have no development in our area. We have no known resources. We look to the south and we see oil and gas development in the Sahtu. We see diamond mining in the Tlicho. We look to the north and we see the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk highway. We see oil and gas in the Inuvialuit settlement region. If we look to the southwest there's gas development in the Eagle Plains area in the traditional territory of the Vuntut Gwitchin. However, in the Gwich'in settlement area, there is no development, period.

We have 3,400 people. Last year we realized that more than 50% of our people live outside the Gwich'in settlement region. We are tasked with the very big job of providing for our people.

The Gwich'in are in full support of devolution. There was a time prior to this administration when the Gwich'in were in litigation with the government over the devolution, but since then we've come on board with the other parties. We have said in the past that we fully support devolution, but little did we know that the NWT devolution act, which I have said that we do support, contains amendments to amend the MVRMA that the Gwich'in do not support. The amendments to the MVRMA go against the spirit and intent of the Gwich'in agreement.

One of the objectives of the Gwich'in agreement was to give meaningful participation to the Gwich'in in the management of lands and resources, which we believe the Gwich'in Land and Water Board provides. We have two representatives on the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the government has two, and there's a chair. It's been 22 years since we signed the Gwich'in agreement in 1992, and for the most part, it's been a good working relationship with government. The few times that we've had to disagree, it has not been an easy process.

I would like to let the committee know that the Gwich'in Tribal Council will be submitting a report that contains 25 recommendations. One that I think Ms. Blondin-Andrew touched on is a “regional presence”, as we call it. We are looking to keep the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. The other issue we have is about how the chair of the super-board is appointed. It's a decision made arbitrarily by the minister and we are not in favour of that. The other one that Ms. Blondin-Andrew also touched on was the binding policy direction on the land use planning boards. Once again, we are totally against that.

As I mentioned, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board was established in our area in I believe 1996, but it wasn't given effect until December of 1998. The land and water board issues land use permits, water licences, and authorizations in the Gwich'in settlement area. For the last decade or more since it came into effect, the board has worked. We've had no major problems that I can remember with regard to processing any application in the Gwich'in settlement area.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council has always had meaningful participation in the management of their land and resources by nominating their people to the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. As Grand Chief Erasmus said, like their people, our people have very close ties to the land. We've had discussions on this issue for many months and we are not in support of any amendments to the MVRMA, but like I said, we are put in a very tough position because we are in support of devolution.

The Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement was supposed to make our lives easier by providing clarity in our participation in our lands, waters, and resources. Too many times, the Gwich'in Tribal Council has been caught up in a state of conflict with other signatories to the Gwich'in agreement. This is one of them.

As you know, in the last couple of days and weeks we've had another very serious issue that we are dealing with. That's the protection of the Peel watershed and the support that we, the Gwich'in of the NWT, have for the Peel commission's final recommended plan. That's another area that we have to deal with.

Another issue is the ongoing concern we have regarding the implementation of our agreement. It seems to be a long, drawn-out process.

I don't have too much more to say. I think the main issue is that we support devolution. We are not in support of any amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As I said, it puts us in a very tough position because the two are included in Bill C-15. As the premier said earlier, the changes will give more authority to the people in the NWT in due course, due course meaning five years. We have to take a good look at that, because while the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Gwich'in can probably wait and see what happens after five years, the bigger issue is the amendments to the MVRMA. To those we have to voice our opposition.

I would like to thank you very much.

[Grand Chief Edward Erasmus, Grand Chief, Tlicho Government]

[Witness speaks in the Tlicho language]

I would just like to say that I do have people here with me. If you have any questions, I have legal counsel here to answer any technical questions that may arise. I also have people here in the audience. We brought our elders here, and elders' advisers, and also Tlicho government assembly members. They are all here in the room.

My name is Eddie Erasmus. I am the Grand Chief for the Tlicho Nation. I will be making the Tlicho presentation this morning. I have here with me, as I said earlier, Bertha Rabesca Zoe, our legal counsel. She will answer any technical questions you may have.

I would like to take this opportunity to voice our deep disappointment with the committee in the process here, giving us only an hour to speak to the committee on such an important issue that affects our way of life, our equal say in development of our lands, and a bill that seeks to destroy what we had agreed to in our Tlicho agreement.

It has been nine years since the Tlicho agreement came into force and our governments, lands, and jurisdictions were recognized. We have taken on huge tasks in setting up our institutions, building our laws, responding to the needs of our people, promoting a thriving economy, and building upon our rich cultural traditions. We have come so far in such a short period of time, and all the parties to the agreement should feel a great sense of pride in how much we accomplished when we entered into the Tlicho treaty. This is the foundation for a strong and prosperous relationship for decades to come.

However, there is a serious issue that threatens all this good work, our future, and our way of life. We, the Tlicho people, are tied to our lands. We are active users of our traditional lands. Our lands are central to our everyday way of life. It is for this reason that our elders told us that we have to have an equal say on what kind of development would be allowed on our lands, because only with that equal say could the importance of these lands be taken into account in decisions about large developments.

Tlicho's equal voice in those decisions about the use of land or water was at the heart of a promise enshrined in the Tlicho agreement. It took 13 years of negotiations, negotiations with Canada and the GNWT, to arrive at the compromise that could have true co-management in the Wek'eezhii region, what we call the heart of the territory and the management region that affects our way of life. The parties to the Tlicho agreement set up an independent board that we call the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. The Tlicho government appoints half of the members, and half are appointed by Canada and the GNWT. This way we find a balance between the interests of Canada and the interests of Tlicho in preserving our way of life. We have an equal say about development that could profoundly affect our way of life.

In terms of how it works, the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has been a huge success here in the north. It has approved development. It has done a great job of taking into account the Tlicho way of life. In fact, the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has never turned down development proposals. Better yet, because we are involved in the process as equals, none of the decisions made by the board have ever been legally challenged. The reason for this is that the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board process has a confidence of industry, government, and the Tlicho. Furthermore, the Auditor General of Canada reviewed the board and found that not only was it doing a great job but it was significantly more efficient than any other larger boards in the Northwest Territories.

The board works and it works well, but Bill C-15 wants to take all that away. It wants to destroy what took so long to build. It wants to do so with no rational reason whatsoever. Bill C-15 seeks to destroy the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. It wants to terminate it and replace it with a super-board with jurisdiction over the whole Mackenzie Valley where the Tlicho will have only a 0.1 member.

If Bill C-15 becomes law, the Tlicho will no longer have equality as decision-makers because of the use of land and water in Wek'eezhii. In fact, decisions about development in the heart of our territory, Wek'eezhii, will be made with no Tlicho input whatsoever. This is devastating to our ability to protect our way of life. Our voice is being silenced. It is contrary to our agreement and the constitutional promises that we will be joint decision-makers about the use of land and waters in Wek'eezhii. We cannot and will not let this happen.

We cannot let down our elders who told us that protecting our way of life was the most important thing. Why is Canada doing this? Why, when according to the Auditor General the board is working so effectively, is Canada trying to kill the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board? Why, when the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has worked so well to bring peace to the development approval process, would Canada try to set up a system that will result in development approval delays and legal challenges? They will strangle development and hurt the economy of the north. The Tlicho have always been open to development. The largest diamond mine industry in Canada has played out in Wek'eezhii. It has been a huge economic and regulatory process. It's a huge success. It has been at the heart of the economic engine in the Northwest Territories, so it cannot be that economic development demands removing the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board.

Is it because of devolution? We supported devolution. Nothing in the devolution deal requires that the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board be terminated. Devolution would be more successful with the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board and the system we have put in place.

Simply put, there is no good reason for killing the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board.

There are profound problems with this super-board. Canada is taking the northern regulatory process from one where aboriginal people had confidence in a proven reliable and efficient set of regional boards, and it's imposing another board in which we do not have confidence, which has zero experience dealing on a territorial basis with all the matters that would be before it.

Canada better prepare industry for the reality of opposition with the land claims settlement people and the probable systematic delays that this will cause. Every aboriginal government and organization in the Northwest Territories has opposed Canada's initiative to revise the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and kill the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board and other regional boards.

Canada has returned to the old colonial way of thinking, that they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. That cannot be the way of the future. That is not the constitutional promise made in the Tlicho agreement. We demand better. We will stand up to this proposed law and challenge it if need be. We need to be equal in decisions about the use of land and water in Wek'eezhii. There is no other way we can ensure that our way of life is protected. To the Tlicho there is nothing more important than this.

Thank you.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

I had 18 years of it, by the way.

On time limits...did I do that? I did that. I'm sorry. See what happens? We get here nice and fresh and we get all screwed up.

On point nine, fines and administrative monetary penalties, Bill C-15 proposes that the fine amounts in the MVRMA would be increased to be consistent with other federal regulatory laws. Inspectors would be authorized to issue administrative monetary penalties rather than prosecutions. The SSI supports the establishment of greater penalties and administrative penalties under the MVRMA, but submits that guidelines and regulations must be established to provide some direction to inspectors with respect to the appropriate use of prosecutions or administrative penalties to ensure consistency and transparency to proponents and regulators.

The tenth and final point is on the role of the Sahtu Renewable Resource Councils. The SSI submits that the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board and Renewable Resource Councils must have opportunities to participate in all screenings and reviews of projects proposed in the Sahtu settlement area relating to wildlife and wildlife habitat. This would ensure that there is some level of regional participation in those screenings and reviews, and that regional data and information are considered.

In closing, Mr. Chair, the Sahtu appreciate the opportunity to make this submission to you. The proposed amendments to MVRMA relating to the action plan raise deep concerns for the Sahtu. We have not asked for these amendments and do not support them. These amendments are proposed to address the interests of others, not the Sahtu.

We ask that you give due consideration to this submission. The impacts of Bill C-15 would be profound in the Sahtu settlement area. It will undermine the constitutional commitments made by the Sahtu Dene, Métis, and the Government of Canada to work together and establish a new relationship on the basis of the land claim agreement.

It undermines our commitment to work together to manage and protect the lands and waters of the Sahtu settlement area in the Mackenzie Valley. If the MVRMA cannot protect the lands and waters of the Sahtu settlement area, the Sahtu will be forced to employ other means to protect its interests and maintain the integrity of the land claim agreement, including litigation. While such measures would likely result in protracted timelines and higher costs, the Sahtu may have no other option.

The matters raised in the submission were approved by the SSI board in October 2013 and submitted in writing to federal ministers and officials.

Mahsi cho.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Chairperson, Sahtu Secretariat Inc.]

First of all I would like to say something in my language, the North Slavey Dene language.

[Witness speaks in North Slavey]

Basically you've come here to bring a big law to us. It is a big thing. It is very major in that you say that this is the way things will be conducted on our land with this piece of legislation. We have our own opinions on that and we want to present them.

My name is Ethel Blondin-Andrew, and I am the chair of Sahtu Secretariat Inc. I represent and work for the Sahtu land claim beneficiaries. I am pleased to present the submission to you on behalf of SSI with respect to the proposed amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, MVRMA, that are set out in Bill C-15.

Daryn Leas is our legal counsel and is attending with me this morning. Grand Chief Frank Andrew of the Sahtu Dene Council is accompanying us as well. The Sahtu leadership delegation here includes Frank, Daryn, and me, as well as Chief Alvin Orilas of Colville Lake, and Wilbert Kochon, the president of the land corporation in Colville. Joseph Kochon is here as well. There is Charles McNeely, vice-chair of SSI and the president of the Fort Good Hope Métis, as well as Gina Dolphus, the president for the Deline Land Corporation and a director for SSI.

To give some background, the Sahtu Dene and Métis have lived in the Sahtu settlement area since time immemorial and now live primarily in the communities of Norman Wells, Tulita, Deline, Fort Good Hope, and Colville Lake. The Sahtu Dene and Métis entered into the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, as it's known, with the Government of Canada in 1993.

Among other matters the Government of Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Métis committed to the land claim agreement to work together to manage and preserve the lands and waters of the Sahtu settlement area in accordance with the MVRMA that was developed pursuant to the terms of the land claim agreement.

Following six years of negotiations, the SSI signed the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement on June 25, 2013. Now we are working with the other signatories to implement its terms. It is not an easy task.

Before making any specific comments about Bill C-15, the SSI confirms its general support to amend the federal legislation to give effect to the devolution agreement. We also support the enactment of territorial legislation to implement the devolution agreement, including territorial legislation to continue the obligation for proponents to negotiate benefits planned with the Sahtu relating to oil and gas activities in accordance with section 22.2 of the land claim agreement. This, I stress, is very important for the Sahtu. This is the real deal-breaker, section 22.2.

While Bill C-15 proposes amendments to the Northwest Territories Act, Territorial Lands Act, Northwest Territories Waters Act, and other federal legislation in order to implement provisions of the devolution agreement, it also proposes to amend the MVRMA to give effect to the federal action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. SSI reiterates its opposition to the proposed amendments that serve only to implement the action plan.

In particular, SSI opposes the federal intention to eliminate the Sahtu land and water board and other regional panels and have the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board manage all land use and water licence applications. These proposed amendments serve to implement the federal action plan.

They are not related to devolution but are proposed to be lumped into Bill C-15. I heard said this morning that these are two separate things. They were until they were omnibused. We got very late notice on that.

The SSI has consistently voiced this opposition over the past five years to federal officials as well as to federal representatives and ministers throughout the devolution negotiations. Most recently we expressed this concern again, which is shared with the Gwich'in and Tlicho, to the federal officials in our written comments in October 2013. The SSI questions the need for these amendments since we do not see any need to change or alter the operation of MVRMA.

In this short presentation I will summarize our key concerns relating to Bill C-15. First, the SSI is opposed to the elimination of the Sahtu Land and Water Board. In accordance with the terms of the land claim agreement, the current provisions of the MVRMA establish a land and resource management system for the Mackenzie Valley that is effective, efficient, and honours the spirit of co-management as set out in the land claim agreement.

For the past 15 years the Sahtu Land and Water Board and other regional land and water boards have been able to balance various values and perspectives, and ensure that the affected communities are involved in the reviews. The involvement of communities and the consideration of regional information have led to better decisions with respect to land and water management.

The proposed elimination of the Sahtu Land and Water Board is contrary to the principle of partnership and co-management embodied in the current terms of the MVRMA, which underlie the land claim agreement. There will be less regional engagement with respect to the review of applications or proposed development. The proposed reconstituted board will not be able to foster regional participation and obtain community input as effectively as the regional boards have been able to achieve over the past 15 years.

The federal officials have failed to provide any justification or rationale for the elimination of the Sahtu Land and Water Board. While they have pointed out that there have been protracted delays or reviews under the MVRMA, these delays have been caused largely by the lack of federal coordination to review the decisions made by the regional boards, and that goes all the way up to the minister's office. Some of those applications have been sitting there in excess of a year.

Committees of the board is the second point. In the place of the Sahtu Land and Water Board, the regional land and water boards, Bill C-15 proposes that the chair of the board may designate three members of the board to deal with any application made to the board. A decision made by a majority of the three members would be considered to be a decision of the board.

Bill C-15 proposes that Sahtu will nominate one of the 11 members of the board. It is unacceptable that the Sahtu would only have one single representative on the reconstituted board. There are no assurances that the single board member nominated by Sahtu would be able to participate in the review of proposed activities located within the Sahtu settlement area. As a result these reviews may be conducted without any regional participation or representation. This is unacceptable and contrary to the spirit and intent of the land claim agreement. Therefore the SSI seeks assurances that these reviews will include regional representation, engage with communities, and take into account local information and knowledge.

Third is the office of the board. Bill C-15 provides that the main office of the board would be at Yellowknife or another place in the Mackenzie Valley that is designated by the Governor in Council. The minister advised that he has instructed his departmental officials to work closely with aboriginal organizations, governments, and boards throughout the implementation process to address the retention of a limited administrative function in each region. The SSI submits that an office of the board must be established in the Sahtu settlement area that can serve the northern portion of the Mackenzie Valley.

The board must have a presence and a working office in the Sahtu settlement area where a significant volume of development continues to be proposed. The office must be more than the retention of limited administrative function in the Sahtu settlement area. The regional office would be well suited to certain functions including reviewing applications, undertaking conformity checks with the Sahtu land use plan, and carrying out certain aspects of the consultation process, such as facilitating the hearings, doing community visits, and running technical sessions. The centralization of decision-making powers in Yellowknife does not benefit the public or promote effective and efficient resource management under the MVRMA.

The fourth point deals with consultation regulations. Bill C-15proposes that, following consultations by the federal minister with the territorial minister, first nations and the Tlicho government, the review board may make regulations relating to a consultation with the first nation including those with regard to the manner in which it is to be conducted. The SSI submits that this consultation process must be established in order to provide certainty about the consultation and accommodation process and to clarify roles and responsibilities. Given that Bill C-15 proposes the consolidation of federal decision-making, this certainty and clarity will be required.

The SSI must be involved in the development of this consultation process. The consultation provisions cannot simply incorporate the consultation process defined in section 3 of the MVRMA, since that definition does not incorporate the obligation of the crown to take steps to accommodate the matters raised by the first nations during the consultations.

Consultation with Sahtu is the fifth point. Throughout the MVRMA the federal minister is directed to consult with the Tlicho government, and in some cases there is no corresponding consultation provision relating to the Sahtu. For instance, a federal minister and the Tlicho must consult each other before making appointments to the board, and the federal minister must consult with the board and the Tlicho government before giving written policy directions binding on the board with respect to the exercise of its function under MVRMA. While some of these consultation provisions are rooted in the Tlicho land claim agreement, there is no reason why these provisions cannot be extended to the Sahtu and other aboriginal groups. Our focus is on how the government is doing this—not necessarily on the Tlicho themselves but the process. While the SSI supports the broad consultation obligations owed to the Tlicho, this shows the inconsistent approach of Canada in dealing with aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, SSI submits that the MVRMA be amended to ensure that similar consultations are carried out with the Sahtu.

Number six is on policy directions. Bill C-15 proposes that the federal minister, after consultation with the planning board, give written policy directions binding on the planning board with respect to the exercise of its functions under MVRMA. Perhaps such a policy direction could relate to an amendment of a land use plan. Given the broad range of his or her proposed authority to give policy direction, the SSI submits that the federal minister must be required to consult with SSI about proposed policy directions. The Sahtu land use plan was recently approved by SSI and must protect its integrity. This is very important to us.

Number seven is the regional studies. Bill C-15 proposes that the federal minister may establish a committee to conduct a study of the effects of existing or future activities carried out in the region of the Mackenzie Valley. The federal minister would establish terms of reference for the committee and appoint the bodies and the members of the committees including any person or body with relevant knowledge or expertise. In our view these regional studies could be a valuable tool in the review of proposed developments. The SSI submits that the MVRMA must direct a federal minister to include a person nominated by the SSI to any such committee when the study affects or is related to the matter of the Sahtu settlement area.

The SSI further submits that where a committee is dealing with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat relating to the Sahtu settlement area, the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board or the Sahtu Renewable Resource Councils must also be part of the membership. The SSI submits that the federal minister must be required to submit and consider a request from the Sahtu or other aboriginal groups to establish a committee to conduct the regional study.

In regard to time limits, Bill C-15 proposes fixed time limits for the completion of reviews. While the minister could have the authority to extend the time limits, that authority is limited, and only the federal cabinet would have the authority to grant further limits.

The SSI acknowledges the importance of a timely process, but the process must be flexible to deal with complex matters and accommodate new issues. The minister or the federal cabinet must have the authority to stop the clock to deal with certain matters, including the crown's duty to consult and accommodate. It would be nonsensical if neither the minister nor the federal cabinet were able to grant an extension for any reason—for instance, due to delays stemming from a federal election—or if the crown's duty to consult were left unfulfilled.

In regard to fines and administrative monetary penalties, Bill C-15 proposes that the fine amounts in the MVRMA.... This is point number nine. Sorry. I haven't talked this fast since I left Parliament.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Premier, there have been claims that the current systems in terms of the regulatory review are working, but we have certainly heard testimony that the differences that exist between and within some of the northern jurisdictions can be confusing and a bit counterproductive; that some of the processes are complex, costly, unpredictable, and time-consuming.

Obviously it is our desire, and the desire of the Northwest Territories, I would think, that Bill C-15 would streamline the regulatory process by putting appropriate time limits in place and allowing for a consolidation of federal decision-making and measures that will include and improve environmental protection—for example, an increase in fines.

When we look at investment, as an example, across the country, where regions have a more favourable review process that's consistent and predictable, where it's effective and timely, where it's basically welcoming to business, that tends to be what people will be attracted to. Would that not be the same in the regions in the north? The Northwest Territories is a huge territory. If you have different processes existing in different regions, some will benefit and some will not, simply because people will seek out those regional locations that are straightforward, that are effective, that are understandable and workable.

Would you agree that the advantage to having one consistent review process across the entire territory will ensure equalized opportunity for every region, and not one region benefiting where another might not just because of confusing or complex differences that currently exist?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think, Premier McLeod, the work that you've been doing to bring first nations into the devolution agreement has been commendable. I said that in Parliament. I think that's something that you can rest very well on, but this bill is not simply about that.

I want to go back. When did the federal government inform you that Bill C-15 would contain the regulatory changes? When did they tell you that this bill was going to come forward as a single entity?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Premier, it's good to see you again. It's always a pleasure to be back in the Northwest Territories. I've been here quite a few times in the last year.

I'm a fellow northerner, and we always like to talk about our weather first. It seems every time I come here, it's to get a true taste of what winter is like. We sure have been enjoying some mild stuff in Whitehorse. In fact, the other day when I left, it was 13 degrees.

So there's my update on our weather. It's a necessary northern weather discussion.

It's good to breathe that arctic air, as Ms. Jones was saying.

Mr. Premier, awhile ago you wrote in an article in The Hill Times that this is fulfilling the promise made 46 years ago, secured through the ongoing development of a fully elected and representative legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories.

There has been some discussion around the level of consultation. Of course that's why we're here in the Northwest Territories again today, to further consult on Bill C-15. There have been numerous discussions going on. It certainly hasn't just happened over the last year or handful of years. As you noted, it's been a long time coming.

Could you give us a little bit of background on the history of devolution talks in the Northwest Territories and the input that has gone into it over the years? Perhaps you can build a bit on the comments you've made in the past about aboriginal governments being critical partners in the negotiation of devolution, and the fact that they're necessary to its successful implementation. I know you were able to highlight that your government has agreed to share 25% of resource revenues with aboriginal governments as part of devolution, which I think is important and significant.

Perhaps you could quickly touch on the long-term goal of the Northwest Territories to realize devolution and how much discussion has gone on in this territory over the years toward that goal.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Have you had an open discussion in the legislative assembly about the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act proposed in Bill C-15?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Many bills that go before the House of Commons on many issues will have a review process within them.

Would you support an amendment that would clearly outline what a review process would be within Bill C-15 so that this process, which is in the agreement, will be very well spelled out under law?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod, for...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...in Yellowknife. I'm glad to have the hearings here, although I think with the volume of witnesses we have in front of us, our work is really cut out to accomplish this in one day.

There are many issues with this. Also there is a great deal of agreement with...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...part of the devolution bill, or Bill C-15 . We are discussing the bill and not really the agreement. I think that's the important part of the work I do in Parliament—to look at the bill, not the agreement, because the bill is actually what will govern many of the aspects of our life here in the north. We need to always keep that in mind, that the bill is what we're here for today.

Certainly one aspect of the bill that you've mentioned, and you've mentioned again in an article in the newspaper here today, was about a review of the terms of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. You say it agrees to discuss devolving these powers within five years.

Is that your position on that?

[Bob McLeod, Premier of the Northwest Territories, Government of the Northwest Territories]

Honourable members, thank you for the invitation to address the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories to speak to you about Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act.

Devolution of responsibility for public lands, resources, and water has been a priority for the people and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories for many years. This is a momentous change for our territory and its people. We are pleased that your committee recognizes the significance of this step and has chosen to hold hearings on Bill C-15 in the north. This bill is a game-changer for northerners, and it is entirely appropriate that you hear directly from them as you review the proposed legislation.

Devolution promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories. Supported by an efficient, effective, and integrated regulatory regime, devolution will give northerners the necessary tools and authorities to responsibly develop the Territories' significant natural resource potential, promote investment and economic development, and manage the land and environment sustainably.

The north wants devolution. In a vote last June, members of the legislative assembly voted 17 to 1 in favour of the devolution agreement. The Government of the Northwest Territories and our five partner aboriginal governments have worked together to negotiate a deal that is in the best interests of all of our residents. After years of hard work, we are almost there, but we need to stay focused if we want to cross the finish line.

I want to thank all those who have worked with us to make the dream of a strong and autonomous Northwest Territories a reality: the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, and the Tlicho government.

Interest in being a part of devolution and enjoying the benefits it will bring to the people of the Northwest Territories is strong. Recent talks with the Akaitcho Dene First Nation and the Deninu K'ue First Nation look to be clearing the way for them to become signatories to the devolution agreement. We also continue to work with the Dehcho First Nations and the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation, the remaining two regional aboriginal governments. We are hopeful that they will eventually sign on to devolution as well.

You will hear some alternative and maybe even opposing viewpoints on Bill C-15 while you are here in Yellowknife. Some of these are based on inaccurate or incorrect information. Some reflect different governance philosophies. Some simply reflect partisan viewpoints.

Whatever their views on this specific legislation, I hope that everybody in the Northwest Territories supports its basic premise: that decisions about the north should be made as close to home as possible. We want enhanced authority and self-determination for the people of the Northwest Territories and their elected representatives in the Northwest Territories legislative assembly.

Some people have asked whether the legislative powers and authorities of the Government of the Northwest Territories will really be expanded by devolution.

They will. As a result of devolution and Bill C-15, authority for 26 federal acts and regulations will be transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories. Through devolution, members of the legislative assembly will gain the authority to make laws that they cannot make now. That is power that they do not have today but will have on April 1, 2014.

Some people have asked whether our government will be exercising independent authority when powers are delegated to us under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

We will. The Government of the Northwest Territories already has responsibility for environmental management and regulation delegated to it under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, and we have been exercising it for years. We will have more responsibilities after devolution.

These new powers and authorities are outlined in the negotiated and legally binding devolution agreement. I am confident that Canada intends to honour it. Some people point to the fact that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act will continue to be federal legislation as a sign that Canada is trying to withhold powers from northerners or retain an ability to control and direct our government's decisions. That is simply untrue. We understand that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a unique piece of legislation required by the land claims and providing for integrated environmental regulation on all lands in the Mackenzie Valley including federal and territorial lands, settlement lands, and private lands. Its continuation as federal law for the next five years reflects its unique nature, and we are satisfied with the provisions and the devolution agreement to review the status and potential power of these delegated powers to our government within five years.

I would also like to note that there is nothing to prevent us from initiating those discussions earlier. Some point to language in the bill allowing the federal government to disallow territorial legislation as an opportunistic expansion of federal powers in the Northwest Territories. This is a specious argument. There are comparable clauses in the 1867 Constitution Act that apply to all provinces and territories. This is not a new power and it does not diminish the authority of our government.

You will hear witnesses today express concerns about some of the changes to the Northwest Territories regulatory system that are being proposed as part of Bill C-15. Some northerners will find these changes difficult to accept, and that is what is behind some of the opposition you will encounter today. We need to be clear that devolution and regulatory reform are two different initiatives. Our government understands that regulatory improvement is a national priority that Canada is committed to pursuing. We recognize that the Northwest Territories does not exist in a vacuum and that there are national interests at play in this initiative. We respect that people are worried about the proposed regulatory improvements but we do not believe that is a reason to delay the devolution we have been seeking for so long.

As we consider Bill C-15, I want to urge the committee and the people of the Northwest Territories to not confuse the two initiatives. We need to focus on devolution and the ultimate goal we have been pursuing as a territory for decades: to enhance authority and autonomy for the people of the Northwest Territories. We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interest, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development.

I have always said that we would devolve and then evolve, and that continues to be our approach. The system that will be in place on the effective day will not be chiselled in stone. Our territory will continue to grow and evolve as we work with Canada and our aboriginal government partners to implement devolution in a way that respects the values and interests of all residents. Many of the proposed regulatory changes will be phased in over time. The proposed amalgamation of the land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley will not take place until April 1, 2015, a year after the effective date for devolution.

We, the Government of the Northwest Territories, aboriginal governments, and Canada, will continue to work together to develop a regulatory system that will work for all of us, one that includes important features like retained regional capacity.

Decision-making closer to home has been our goal, and it is almost here. April 1, 2014, marks the beginning of a new chapter for our territory, one in which northern governments work together to create the kind of future we see for ourselves. Never before can I recall such a time of potential and future prosperity facing the people of our territory.

Soon the Government of the Northwest Territories will go from administering surface rights for only 1% of the Northwest Territories' land mass to being responsible for surface and subsurface rights on approximately 80%. We are the stewards of a great expanse of Canada's land mass. We look forward to a future where northern priorities are reflected in resource development and environmental management decisions.

We know our land. We know what matters to us. We have a vested interest in ensuring the long-term sustainability of our land. Our integrated co-management system will protect the economic, social, and cultural well-being of all of our people. Our time has come. It is time for northerners to make our own decisions about our economy, our environment, and our society.

Devolution is critical to the long-term well-being and prosperity of the people of the Northwest Territories and of Canada. The Government of the Northwest Territories supports the timely passage of this bill.

Thank you.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, again, in the last couple of debates on Bill C-9 and Bill C-15, the NDP members have brought forward witness testimony that they say the government should consider. However, at the same time they refuse to consider the witness testimony of people like Ron Evans of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, who say that they want this bill, they want it the way it is, they want it to go forward and they want to be able to opt in.

The one thing I have heard the most from the NDP members is concern about clause 3, that the minister can choose to put a first nation into this election provision as opposed to back into the Indian Act. I find it ironic that they are concerned about that, when members of the NDP have contacted the minister recently and demanded that he intervene in an election in a first nation in Ontario.

The NDP members do not seem to want the Bill C-9 provisions, but they have no trouble asking the minister to intervene under the current act.

Maybe the member could address the hypocrisy of that position of the NDP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the ninth meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our study of Bill C-15.

We have the privilege of having the officials back to answer our questions, most importantly, but to begin with, they will have an opening statement. We'll turn it over to them, and then we'll have some questions.

It looks like we have enough folks in the room to have answers for every question. Thanks so much for being here. We really appreciate it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your earlier explanation as to why it is that the amendments are coming forward at report stage. I appreciate your consideration of the fact that due to a clerical error at committee, we did not receive notice to bring amendments forward at committee.

I must say that I am pleased. I have found that the so-called invitations to committees circumvent rights. I am able, at this point, to speak at report stage to what is a very significant flaw in this bill.

As everyone in the House knows, Bill C-9 initially came to us through the Senate as Bill S-6. It is a first nations elections act. Except for everything I am attempting to amend this morning, it is a good bill. It provides more precision in first nations elections. The bulk of the bill is a result of recommendations that came from first nations themselves, specifically from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, which represents the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy first nations of Atlantic Canada.

Before I move to my amendments, the intent of the good parts of the bill was to provide greater precision, to create set terms, and to provide for those first nations that had already opted in to elections under the terms of the Indian Act. That is worth underlining. The recommendations that came from the first nations themselves were to apply only to those first nations that had themselves already opted in to elections under the Canada Elections Act and not to those many first nations that elect their councils through traditional customs and methods other than under the Indian Act.

In any case, I will set aside the parts of the bill that are acceptable and will focus only on the amendments you have just read before the House of Commons. They both go to correct the mistakes that are found in clause 3 of the bill.

Parenthetically, I want to note that today is international Human Rights Day. Today is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Declaration, which brought respect for human rights to the entire community of nations. Why is it relevant that we are looking at a first nations elections act? What about that is relevant to the fact that ironically, today is Human Rights Day?

The problem with this bill and the sections I hope to correct is also found in other bills that have come forward from this administration, such as the bill, not yet tabled, on first nations education. It is also found in bills that have been tabled, such as the NWT devolution in Bill C-15 and this bill, Bill C-9. What they all have in common is a failure to respect the constitutionally enshrined right of first nations to be consulted about changes that impact them directly.

In Bill C-15, in addition to the NWT devolution, which everyone supports, there are substantial changes to the Mackenzie Valley regulatory systems that are part of first nations agreements and treaties, without consultation with or the consent of first nations. This brings to mind that these changes are actually questionable constitutionally under section 35 of the Constitution, as interpreted in many Supreme Court decisions. From the Haida case and the Delgamuukw case to the Marshall case, it is clear that first nations in this country are protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Further, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility, a constitutionally enshrined obligation, to consult with first nations.

In this case, we have something that is, in my view, outrageous. Under paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c), there are two ways in which the minister may impose upon first nations, based on his or her own discretion, a different system for elections within the first nation. What could be more critical in touching on the rights of first nations than changing the way a first nation conducts its own internal elections?

These two paragraphs that are objectionable state that the minister may add the name of the first nations to the schedule of first nations that must conduct their elections as under the act. In other words, the bulk of the act is for first nations themselves to opt in and request to be seen under these sections of a new Indian Act procedure found in Bill C-9.

These are the two exceptions that are outrageous. Paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c) state that the minister may add the name of a first nation to the schedule if:

(b) the Minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of the First Nation; or

(c) the Governor in Council has set aside an election of the Chief and councillors of that First Nation under section 79 of the Indian Act on a report of the Minister that there was corrupt practice in connection with that election.

As the Canadian Bar Association aboriginal law subsection has pointed out, the bill does not provide any guidance as to what the corrupt practice might be or what threshold the minister has for making this change.

It is offensive in a couple of ways. One is that it appears to apply to not only those nations that have already opted in to the current version of the Indian Act in their internal elections. It would apply to those first nations that have explicitly not wanted to operate under the Indian Act and that operate under their tradition and custom. Again, what could be more directly a denial of rights?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says very clearly, in article 3:

Indigenous people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4 states:

Indigenous people, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal or local affairs...

These changes in paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c) strike directly at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and further offend the Canadian Constitution section 35.

I would have wished that these sections had been corrected inside the committee, but I hope that today we may give them fair consideration.

What is being proposed in amendment 2, line 9, on page 3 is a proviso to protect those first nations that have been operating under their own customs. The amendment states:

For greater certainty, the Minister may not add to the schedule the name of a First Nation that governs its elections according to the custom of the band, unless such an addition has been approved in accordance with prevailing customary practices.

In other words, self-determination is protected within those first nations that have already decided that they will not opt in under the Indian Act. They will preserve that ability, which is enshrined in our Constitution and enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is therefore further protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which today has its 20th anniversary.

I appeal to my colleagues in the House to assess this amendment. It would preserve the right of first nations that are operating their elections under traditional custom to maintain those rights.

The second amendment would deal with this quite discretionary notion of protracted leadership disputes. We have seen instances when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, or DIAND, as it was in the past, decides that, for instance, the ministry does not like the way things are going, to use an example, in the first nations of the Algonquin of Barriere Lake. The dispute is real, and the minister ends up taking sides. That is hardly respect for a first nations' right to self-determination and self-government.

In this amendment, I propose that the minister may not take that step unless, having obtained the opinion of a representative sample of electors of that first nation, those within the first nation are satisfied that they need to have the minister take this step. Otherwise, we have made a mockery in Bill C-9 of first nations rights under our constitution.

We will again do so if we fail to change Bill C-15 for the first nations within the Northwest Territories and some that are affected in neighbouring areas of the Yukon, where the first nations in that area have competing land claims issues. The leadership of the Tlicho as well as the Dene and other nations are appealing to have the bill split apart so that we can proceed with NWT devolution without offending first nations rights.

There is a pattern here with this administration of, bit by bit, chipping away at some fundamental rights in this country that are constitutionally enshrined and further protected by international law.

With the amendments I am proposing, we could pass Bill C-9 in good conscience. We would know that we had contributed to good governance, fairer elections, and clearer terms. However, to pass it as it is would be an insult to first nations, and this House would be violating our own constitution.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the bill. In one of my previous incarnations I was assistant deputy of resources for Yukon and I had the privilege of participating in some of the devolution negotiations for Yukon.

I also had the privilege of working in the Northwest Territories back in the 1960s. I know that dates me, but I worked at a fishing camp in Great Bear Lake. That was the moment in time that vested a deep love of the north in me. I look for every opportunity that I can to visit the north and for every opportunity to meet with representatives of northern Canada when they come to the Hill.

I have a high level of respect for all three governments in Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I admire the determination in seeking independence and governance of their own peoples and I have incredible respect for the hard work that has been invested in the settlement of first nation final agreements and in moving toward their implementation. Unfortunately, some of those remain unresolved, and I certainly wish those first nation peoples the best in resolving the outstanding issues. They can know that we are behind them so they can move toward self-governance as well.

It is important to understand the governance of the north. Much of the north is also under first nation final agreements and self-government agreements, so there are really three levels of governance. The federal government plays a role in the north. There is the Government of the Northwest Territories and then there are the governments of the distinct first nations and Inuit peoples who have moved forward toward their own system of self-governance. That is why these negotiations take so long: it is because it is important to show respect and due consideration for the rights and interests of all peoples and to carry out consultation.

With regard to Bill C-15, as my colleagues have said clearly, we have every intention to support moving the bill forward to committee for review. I will be encouraging my colleagues who sit on that committee to call for part of the review by the committee to occur in the communities of the north. I make this call in every committee I sit on.

I was very pleased that when I was the environment critic, we did a review of the impact of the oil sands on water. Our committee actually travelled to several communities in Alberta, including Fort Chipewyan, which has borne the brunt of a lot of the impacts of the development there. It is very important that those people who are most directly impacted have the opportunity to participate, not just as witnesses, but to attend and hear first hand what their friends, neighbours, and leaders are saying and what other interested parties are saying on the bill.

I know a good number of the communities of the Northwest Territories are tuning in and watching this debate. Toward the end of my brief comments, I intend to share some of the comments that they asked me to pass on directly, and I will be most pleased to do that.

This is indeed a complex bill. As we have heard, there has been some level of frustration by the peoples of the north of the decision to combine together the legislation moving forward on devolution of powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories with other measures, in particular the measures in part 4 that will provide for changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Most of my comments relate to part 4, because it is on those measures that we have heard the most concerns and have heard the hope that there may be amendments at committee stage and later in the House.

It is important to keep in mind that there has been devolution of powers previously. I believe it was almost 30 years ago that powers over education, health care, transport, forestry, and wildlife were devolved to the Northwest Territories government, so clearly the NWT government was found even three decades ago to have the competence and the capability to deliver governance. We should therefore move forward and further devolve those powers, because the governments for the first nations, the Inuvialuit, and the other peoples of the Northwest Territories deserve to have a government close at hand that they can speak to and that they can influence in making decisions about their future, including the exploitation of resources.

The devolution provisions clearly will be very important because the government of the Northwest Territories will be able to shift away from simply getting a transfer from the federal government, having to bow and scrape and say, “We will do thus and so; can you please transfer resources to us?” I think the government would now be able to appreciate at least up to 50% of the dollars that come from revenue from resource extraction, as it should. I am sure that into the future the Northwest Territories hopes that it too will become a full provincial entity, fully controlling decisions about its peoples, its lands, and its waters.

It is also important to point out that the statute would amend up to 42 statutes, including the Canada Student Loans Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Divorce Act, the Privacy Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Northern Pipeline Act, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Canada Water Act. Clearly it is a very complex bill that merits very careful review and understanding by all the members of this place and certainly at committee, so that members feel fully competent and informed in order to pass judgment and to vote yea or nay on the eventual bill.

Part 4 is the area where most of my colleagues in the House have raised concerns. Part 4 deals with the many changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the most significant being the devolution of a system of co-management between the first nation peoples and other governments.

I know from my direct experience in working on these matters in Yukon that for the first nations and indigenous peoples of this country to have a right to have a say in the management of wildlife, water, and other resources in their territories is a matter that has been fought for long and hard. They do have their own distinct territories, and then they have the right for traditional harvest in additional lands. It is very important that they have the opportunity to have a direct say.

Those are the significant provisions that we are hearing from peoples of the north. They wish potential amendments to be tabled in committee and debated, and it should be their right and privilege to come before the committee and to suggest amendments to the bill that would then be given due consideration.

The issue has been raised of the inherent potential contradiction between part 1 of Bill C-15 and part 4, in that part 1 provides for the devolution of powers to the people of the north and then part 4 pulls back the rights and powers of northern peoples to actually make decisions in a lot of matters, including water, wildlife, and so forth.

There has been particular concern with shifting decision-making from the peoples of the north to the federal ministers and cabinet. It has been pointed out that there are specific provisions whereby federal ministers and the federal cabinet would have the power to direct that the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories must withhold final assent to any legislation that is brought forward by the legislature in the Northwest Territories for up to a year.

A lot of concern has been expressed about that. Either they are going to be given the powers to move forward or they are not going to be given the powers to move forward.

I took the time to phone some of the first nations in the North and I want to share some of their feedback.

This comes from president Robert Alexie and vice-president Norman Snowshoe of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. They wish to have their comments on part 4 shared in the House:

The Gwich'in Tribal Council fully supports the Devolution of authority to the GNWT and strong economic development in its region and in the NWT. The MVRMA amendments, however, increase the authority of the federal Minister at the expense of regional decision-making. The Gwich'in have less authority over their Settlement Area now because of these amendments. The residents of the NWT have less authority over the regulatory system under these amendments. Therefore, the Gwich'in support NWT Devolution and reject the MVRMA amendments.

In closing, I will say that a number of other first nations governments express the same concerns and wish to have the opportunity to come forward and share their concerns at committee.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish first to point out that we are supporting this bill in the hope that it will be referred to committee, so that if there are shortcomings in terms of building consensus with first nations in the Northwest Territories, we will be able to correct them. The NDP accordingly supports the bill, but we do think it will have to be studied very carefully in committee, so that it actually addresses the needs and questions of the people who live in the Northwest Territories.

The constituency of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou borders my own, and I meet him very frequently. He has negotiated similar agreements in the past, including the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. He has emphasized the importance of recognizing the principles of equality and respect between nations. He has also raised significant concerns about the lack of dialogue and unilateral amendments in the drafting of Bill C-15.

One thing that particularly intrigues me about the bill is how long it took the federal government to act on a nation's demands. While the 500-page James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was negotiated and signed in just one year, successive federal governments took over 13 years to introduce Bill C-15. First there were the Liberals, and now this Conservative government has come up with what we are considering today. One thing I am especially concerned about, therefore, is why it took so many years to reach this point.

The economic emancipation of the Northwest Territories is one important aspect. As assistant critic on energy and natural resources, I know very well that development in Canada’s north will generate jobs. It is hoped that this development will serve the best interests of the people who live there and give them a prosperous and sustainable future without harming the environment.

Yesterday, addressing the Economic Club of Canada, the member for Outremont and NDP leader talked about this party’s vision to build a sustainable, balanced and prosperous energy future in the 21st century.

Natural resources are a blessing, and the energy sector drives the Canadian economy. The people of the north have a unique opportunity to become a major cog in our economy.

It is hoped that there will be good jobs for northern families, including first nations, so that they can derive the maximum potential from our natural resources in a responsible way that is fair to future generations.

I am aware that energy rates and other costs are high for people in the north. This leads to higher prices for all consumer products. I hope that it will at last become possible to make the cost of living affordable for people in the Northwest Territories.

Sustained development is crucial if everyone is to be included in Canada’s economy. We have to promote more sharing of the benefits of development and make sure we put in place conditions so that future developments proceed in a responsible way. “Responsible” means planning so as to take environmental factors into consideration. Where appropriate, it also means including arrangements whereby the polluter pays.

The example of the huge industrial dump that sits close to one of the world’s deepest freshwater lakes—the Giant mine tailings pond near Great Slave Lake in Yellowknife—reminds us of the fragility of northern ecosystems.

For decades, those who live in the Northwest Territories have endeavoured to secure powers resembling those wielded by the provinces. The NDP favours the transfer of powers and supports the Northwest Territories in their efforts to assume some federal responsibilities in the north.

Through this transfer affecting land and resources in the Northwest Territories, we are writing a new page in Canadian history. To paraphrase Peter Parker, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

I hope that our political leaders and businesses operating in the north will be diligent in doing their duty in the interests of those who live there. I know they will.

One might say that it is always easier to accept such responsibilities when things are being done in practice on our own turf.

The people of the Northwest Territories are best placed to know how their resources should be used, and they should have the final say in the matter. I trust that future developments will take place in partnership with everyone and that instead of regarding first nations as people who need convincing, we will take the opportunity to forge a genuine and sustainable partnership.

We have to develop a true nation-to-nation relationship with first peoples. I can bear witness to the importance of including them as participants in our economy. To that end, we have to support northern communities in order to develop local talents, so that skilled workers can find employment locally.

After reading this bill, and on the basis of my personal experience, although I do not live in the Northwest Territories, I would really like to take the time to emphasize something. I come from a northern region and I can say to what extent people sometimes feel that the decisions taken make no sense. They wonder whether these people have ever visited the north and if they know how things are done.

With this bill, I am really happy to see that power and authority are being restored to first nations communities and the Government of the Northwest Territories. They will thus be able to manage their natural resources and their public land themselves. This is only logical. When we make our own decisions, they are often more enlightened and better understood.

This bill may still have some shortcomings, however. They will be addressed in committee and, I hope, during consultations with the communities affected and the governments concerned.

This bill will restore power to communities, where there will perhaps be more effective management of their natural resources. We are aware of the potential of our natural resources in the north in the years ahead. Being able to restore this power to communities will give them a real opportunity to build a long-term vision and determine what they want for themselves and for the Northwest Territories and how they wish to develop.

Many such bills are fairly complex, in that they contain numerous clauses and conditions. Detailed study in committee will make it possible to make any needed adjustments to this one. I hope that if amendments are proposed after the witnesses are heard and their evidence is discussed, they will be accepted. The most important thing for all members, however, is to ensure that the bill meets the needs of the people of the north. I hope we will manage to do this.

In the case that concerns us, it is very important not to develop a bill that meets the needs of the government, in the narrow sense. The bill really has to meet the needs of the communities in the Northwest Territories and respond to their desire for emancipation.

In the context of this bill, there is no room for an attitude that seeks to impose things. This really has to be done in consultation, through a process of discussion and in harmony with what these communities want, so that we end up with a practical bill that meets their needs.

There should be no need to revise the bill because errors have crept in, if we take the time to discuss it seriously and welcome open debate, on a basis of equality. We can achieve good results, and the beneficiaries will be the people of our northern communities.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments across the way and I respect her legal ability, so I would like to suggest that it would not be too difficult for her to read the act. If she looks in the first 30 clauses, she will see the main issues. We all know that if Moses had been a lawyer, the Ten Commandments would have taken 50 tablets instead of two, but the essence of it is there.

I also want to reassure my colleague across the way that Bill C-15 was developed only after consultation with aboriginal groups, northerners, territorial governments, and industry. In fact, aboriginal groups have been active participants in the devolution negotiations with Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Since 2010, when the government announced its action plan to improve the northern regulatory regimes, there have been extensive discussions on the land and water board restructuring proposal. Over 50 meetings were held with aboriginal governments and organizations.

Does my friend not think it is time that this place found the political will to finally move on and complete this devolution?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to what my Liberal colleague said.

As far as agreements with the first nations go, this is one of the biggest problems in this country. Everyone is trying to be known as the one who did the best, but nothing ends up getting done. That is what is unfortunate.

My Liberal friends are quick to reference the Kelowna accord. My parents always told me that when you wait until the last minute to solve a major issue, you can make mistakes. That is what happened in the last months of the Liberal regime. I know something about that, since I lost the election in 2006.

That said, I wanted to talk about humility, since Bill C-15 addresses a topic I am not very familiar with, nor are many Canadians. That is because we come from communities where we do not know much about this topic. Everyone wants to be sympathetic, but we do not know everything about the situation. I think this is connected to the importance of democracy.

I have found the debate on Bill C-15 at second reading absolutely fascinating. It has been interesting for a girl like me from Gatineau, a suburb not too far from here where we don't necessarily see these kinds of problems. It has helped me understand the problem facing my colleague from Western Arctic, whose riding represents the third largest land mass, after Nunavut and Quebec. That is not nothing. There may be fewer people, but he still has to meet all of their needs.

This morning, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin said that the member for Western Arctic had to visit the communities in his riding by airplane, whereas I only had to cross the bridge. Every evening, when I have finished here, I can take part in activities in my riding. I may finish late, but I sleep in my own bed and I am in my own place. It is quite a small area and therefore not very hard to get around, even though there are more people.

It is another reality. That is when this exercise in which the 308 members of the House may have something interesting to say about a bill becomes extremely important. Not everyone necessarily wants to speak on all topics. In his Thursday question to the government House leader, our House leader said that the second reading debate on Bill C-15 would very probably end quite naturally.

However, debates in the House rarely end quite naturally. Instead an end is usually imposed on them. It feels good to be able to act that way. You come out a winner. Sometimes, even when we tell the government that we support a bill, it throws a brick in our face. For the government, it is never enough to say that we agree and that we will vote at second reading to send the bill to committee.

Is there anything more natural than to take the time to study a fairly long and complex bill in committee? As a lawyer, I never had the pleasure of practising aboriginal law. When I spoke with colleagues of mine who did, they told me it was quite a specialty. I listened to them talk about treaties, rights and what all that is about. I saw that it could be a complex specialty.

When we sit down with a nation like the first nations and claim we are equals, then we try to impose our ideas, sparks can fly. It is not always easy. Sometimes we hear reactions from certain groups that, rightly or wrongly, are not completely satisfied with the bill.

Those people have a right to be heard as part of the democratic process in place in Canada. This week, importance was attached to a bill that was said to be about democratic reform, whereas in fact it concerns only a few very minor aspects of democratic life in this country. For people who say they are great democrats, one of the most important issues should be the right of members, of duly elected representatives, to speak in the House. They should have the right, in committee, to examine the various issues that may arise, to ensure that when the bill returns to the House, we are able to continue the debate on points that we have to defend in the circumstances in order to produce the best possible act.

Bill C-15 replaces 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 heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development becoming upset because a few members of the official opposition were asking questions and because some speakers were wondering what certain protections or certain provisions might actually mean. This makes me fear the worst. It makes me think that, when we find ourselves in committee again, there will be none of the respect that we expect from colleagues who play the same role we do and represent their constituents. We have a role to play. However, when we ask questions or when we put forward the viewpoint of a particular witness, they tell us automatically that we know nothing about the matter and that we just want to prevent things from going smoothly and moving forward quickly.

As I was saying, when these matters come to the House, they may perhaps be a tiny bit urgent, but this is because the government side has been procrastinating for quite a while. The NDP members will not carry the torch of procrastination that the Liberals and Conservatives have carried so blithely over the years.

I will never be uncomfortable to rise and say that I will be working seriously in committee. We are always going to be doing this work, work that goes beyond words, especially if it involves the first nations and aboriginal groups, as it does here. They have the right to be heard. We have so much baggage from working on other bills. Again this morning, at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we were looking at the issue of contraband tobacco. We were meeting with representatives of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. They told us they had not really been consulted. It appears they have been told they are a big part of the problem but at the same time they are not being consulted.

Consulting, as my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard said, is making sure that we are talking as equals, not just pretending.

Frequently, the way in which conclusions to bills are drafted leaves the impression that the first nations are being told that they have to take what we give them or they will have nothing. If that is what negotiation is, they are going to find themselves in court and we will not be any further ahead. It will take a lot longer to fix that than if we sat down and talked as equals.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could just say that it is a good thing the member was able to express his frustration.

However, the fact remains that during the 13 years that the Liberals were in power, and despite the repeated requests of the residents of the Northwest Territories, these people never saw a bill that fulfilled their desires. The facts speak for themselves, and I am sorry if that upsets my colleague. Maybe he was not here during those 13 years; I do not know.

I hope that Bill C-15 will allow us to move forward and that it will meet the expectations of the residents of the Northwest Territories.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech on Bill C-15, I would like to send a message to the community of Kuujjuaq and the team and students at Jaanimmarik School, where I taught. It is a place where I had some great times. Before beginning my speech on Bill C-15, I would like to send the people there my warm greetings and my best wishes for the holidays.

Yesterday, I was in the House when my colleague from Western Arctic gave his speech on this bill. I can say that I felt privileged to hear a speech from a member who is in such a good position to express opinions and criticisms of the bill. The member works very hard on behalf of his constituents and he knows the reality in the Northwest Territories.

I am going to paraphrase his ideas because I do not have an exact quotation from his speech. The member for Western Arctic said a number of times that they wanted the same powers as we have. I use the word “they” to mean his community. His community wanted the same powers as every other provincial community in this country. That really touched me. He also said he had witnessed a number of the phases of colonialism in the years that he had lived in the Northwest Territories. Again, I found it quite moving and powerful to hear him say this in a debate.

As the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, I cannot say the things he said. However, I can say that I feel somewhat uncomfortable knowing that people have more or fewer powers depending on where they live. I find it interesting and it also makes me uneasy.

The people of the Northwest Territories want more powers like the powers the provinces have. They have been asking and fighting for them for very long time. However, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have never managed to give them the powers they have been demanding for so long.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15. This bill is a step in the right direction, and I am not the only person who thinks that. I feel that important players sat around the table and that they have given their support in principle to Bill C-15, which is a step in the right direction in meeting the demands of the residents of the Northwest Territories and their elected representatives.

Yesterday I had the honour to hear the speech by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It was another inspiring and well-informed speech. That member has negotiated historic agreements on behalf of first nations. He said he had previously seen very important agreements negotiated in one year. This proves that very important and complex agreements can be negotiated when there is the political will on all sides to co-operate and move forward.

I am once again paraphrasing my colleague, who is in a very good position to offer such important opinions. An equally important agreement was previously signed within one year. Once again, I repeat that successive Liberal and Conservative governments failed to keep their promises over all those years of struggle by the residents of the Northwest Territories, so congratulations on Bill C-15, which is before us.

I want to emphasize, however, that this bill is not perfect. As my NDP colleagues have noted several times, it has deficiencies. We hope to see improvements made to it before it goes any further.

Consultation and partnership are two concepts that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth mentioned a little earlier. He did a very good job of explaining and elaborating on them. I will not go back over all the details.

However, I would like to talk about an Auditor General's report that was published in June 2011 and specifically about chapter 4 of that report on programs for first nations on reserves. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for two years and was there when it examined that specific chapter of the Auditor General's report. You will see the connection I make with Bill C-15 and consultations a little later.

The report was very critical and very alarming with respect to the quality of life and living conditions of people living on first nations reserves in Canada. This is what it said:

Notwithstanding the considerable efforts made, conditions have generally not improved for First Nations in each of the areas subject to our audit.

The report addressed many issues, including the widening education gap among first nations, the worsening housing shortage and the burden of reporting requirements for first nations, which remains heavy.

Despite investments and efforts, results are slow in coming. Not just any results; we are talking about results in education, housing and other matters essential to human dignity. That is happening here in this country.

I want to point out that this report was released in June 2011 as something of a follow-up to a report released in 2006. It represents an ongoing effort on the part of the auditor general of the time to shed light on what was not working and to make practical suggestions and recommendations to the government. Unfortunately, despite that follow-up, the auditor general did not see any improvements.

What I am saying is important because the auditor general suggested structural changes after observing major problems and challenges. I will not go into detail about the structural changes she recommended, but I want to emphasize how the auditor general recommended going about making the kind of structural changes that would produce meaningful results for people, for children and for families. Once again, in her words:

We recognize that the federal government cannot put all of these structural changes in place by itself since they would fundamentally alter its relationship with First Nations. For this reason, First Nations themselves would have to play an important role in bringing about the changes. They would have to become actively engaged in developing service standards and determining how the standards will be monitored and enforced. They would have to fully participate in the development of legislative reforms. First Nations would also have to co-lead discussions on identifying credible funding mechanisms that are administratively workable and that ensure accountable governance within their communities. First Nations would have to play an active role in the development and administration of new organizations to support the local delivery of services to their communities.

Addressing these structural impediments will be a challenge. The federal government and First Nations will have to work together and decide how they will deal with numerous obstacles that surely lie ahead.

That is the background behind the suggestions made by the government's own independent expert and the importance she gives to the role of first nations in any decision-making process, in selecting and implementing any changes. According to the former auditor general, that was crucial to achieving any positive results. That report was released a little over two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago. I hope to see some results. I hope the recommendations of that report will be implemented, which is what the government promised.

Now let us get back to Bill C-15. I drew the parallel and I took the time to clearly describe the context because if consultations were in fact held for the drafting of Bill C-15, then it is troubling to hear the Conservatives say that the bill has the support of the people. It is important to remember that first nations and Métis people are still worried and find it unfortunate that their voices did not carry enough weight in those consultations. Indeed, the role of the government, of any government, is not to simply listen and then make unilateral decisions regardless.

I would like to quote a senior adviser of the Tlicho government:

We believe that more dialogue is needed and that we should be able to make observations regarding the changes. Our point of view must be heard. After all, three parties signed the agreement in 2005.

In closing, I would like to say that work still needs to be done on this bill. I will be proud to support Bill C-15 at second reading, but I hope it will be the subject of serious work in committee. People still want to be heard. They do not want just to be listened to, but rather they want their opinions and their suggestions to really be considered. I have every hope that this will happen in committee. We will see how it turns out and how this bill evolves.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member for Toronto—Danforth just said, there are specific provisions in the land claim agreements with the Gwich'in, Sahtu, and Tlicho first nations that allow for a single larger board. These were contemplated during those land claims negotiations. There are specific provisions in each of those agreements that allow specifically for this board. Again, if we want to talk about witness testimony, we heard that today from the minister from the GNWT.

Perhaps the member can talk about how the land claim agreements of those three areas specifically allow for the board that has been envisioned in Bill C-15.

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate and I am happy to say that my speech will be 10 minutes.

The debate is on Bill C-15, which sets the table for the meaningful devolution of federal powers to the Northwest Territories under the lengthy title, “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”. Who would think of having such a long title except the Conservatives, given the fact that we have seen all of the omnibus bills they have put through. This is basically an omnibus act, just about.

It is easy to tell by the length of the title that we are dealing with a large bill, so it is not surprising that the legislation would amend 42 acts as part of the process that would allow the Northwest Territories to take greater control of their own destiny, much the same way as provinces do. It is an important development that reflects the preparedness of the territories to take on a greater role in their administration and become more financially independent as well. We have heard over and over again from first nations, Inuit and Metis people who certainly want this. They want to be as independent as possible.

The New Democrats support the idea and are willing to work with the government on this legislation. We hope that some items can be tightened up at committee to address the concerns we are hearing from our partners in the Northwest Territories throughout this process and look forward to creating stronger legislation that makes sense to all involved, as well as an outcome that will be better than merely acceptable and would allow the Northwest Territories to grow into a more independent jurisdiction.

I want to repeat we hope to tighten this. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said a while ago, the witness in committee this morning did not say that he did not want any changes. It was very clear that he knew there should be some changes. However, what he said was that what was put forward by the government was basically the direction it had to take in order to move this forward at this point. He never said that he did not want any changes.

I want to be clear that we are not under the impression that this legislation does not have issues that require attention. There are items of concern that must be addressed and we are hopeful there is some willingness on the government side to work with Parliament to address outstanding stakeholder concerns. Again, it is not about just one witness, it is about many witnesses to come and hopefully the government will not to try to rush this stage of committee. This has been a challenge for the government in the past, but we remain hopeful at this point.

Certainly, the pan-territorial regulator for the environmental screening of industrial projects is potentially problematic. It does away with a number of regulatory boards and processes, which are known and understood, and replaces them with a single regulator that will supposedly be more responsive, but will also have fewer teeth. We have heard from the government benches today that working groups or subcommittees would be able to address more specific concerns. However, it does not require a leap of faith to imagine that subcommittees or working groups will have the same strength as the entities being replaced, such as regional land and water boards.

The New Democrats are strong supporters of the devolution of more power and authorities to the territorial governments. Although we have no intention of standing in the way of devolution, we are committed to work to ensure that Bill C-15 meets northerners' expectations, not the government's expectations. Many of the reservations we hear about have to do with the changes to regulatory regimes.

With respect to the single regulator, it is important to listen to dissenting voices who speak from experience, people like the Northwest Territories' MLA Bob Bromley, who said in February of 2012, “The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional”. He went on to describe it as “a single board does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation”.

We also have to recognize that the Conservatives have reserved control over appointments to the environmental review board and maintain control over the approval of licences. This is more like devolution with strings attached than it may seem at first blush. It may be more of a case of devolution in name only if the real power is still dependent on decisions from the minister's desk and his or her hand-picked appointees.

We can also ask if this superboard should not fall into place after outstanding land claims are settled. Is this a case of reaching further than necessary on one item and not challenging ourselves enough on another front? That said, devolution is an idea that has legs and that would give the Northwest Territories residents a greater voice in decisions related to their economy and environmental protection, even if it comes with strings attached. However, it would be best to fix those strings attached. I stress that we have to address ongoing concerns about the legislation in committee. That stage must be taken seriously by the government. It should not assume that we cannot improve the bill.

The proposed legislation would do some important work that is welcome. It would fix the current scheme so that the government of the Northwest Territories would start to receive revenues from resource development and would rely less on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. Under the new agreement, the NWT would keep 50% of the revenues collected from resource development on public land, up to a maximum amount that would be pegged to their operating costs or their gross expenditure base. The Government of Canada would retain the remainder. To reiterate, that would be 50% of the revenues collected from resource development.

I can tell members that when it comes to resource development, the NDP has always advocated that shared resources with first nations, first and foremost, are key when we are looking at major investments.

It is my understanding that this arrangement would allow for a little more money to remain in the territories than what is currently provided for by the federal government. That would require that resource development proceed, but it seems reasonable for us to assume that development would take place and that those moneys would become available.

This is a part of the bill that makes sense. However, the strength of a certain part of a bill does not create the authority to ram through the remainder without attempting to tighten up contentious items. If we do not, we will be stuck in a cycle of amending what has been missed at this critical stage. We are tired of seeing that. More and more of taxpayers' dollars are being spent in litigation trying to fix some of the critical pieces.

It is true that there is a danger that we could be constantly locked in discussion mode with no action, but we have to recognize that it is just as dangerous to consult and ignore. The desire of any government to notch an achievement in its belt has to be balanced with the strength of that achievement, which depends on the inclusion of the multiple voices who will be affected.

For the Conservative government, the ability to listen has proven to be a challenge. It is even more of a challenge if the voices the Conservatives are hearing are not entirely supportive of their initiatives. Often there is little in the way of acknowledgement of shared goals with stakeholders if the path to reach them is not virtually the same as that proposed by the government. We see that time and again in the way the Conservative government characterizes New Democrat views on resource development. The Conservatives present our views and policy initiatives in uncomplimentary ways, which is politically convenient but incorrect.

We would not be doing the job we were elected to do if we did not scrutinize legislation and propose changes. The Conservatives know as much and have even performed that role themselves, but they are more interested in zero-sum games. We hope that is not the case with the stakeholders in the Northwest Territories who can imagine other and better ways to pursue devolution.

To return to the larger concept of devolution, we have to ask ourselves if we are pursuing this in name more than in action. We also have to ask ourselves what we want from the process and what the best outcome might look like. We can look at other jurisdictions as well as at the history of devolution in Canada. Surely the heart of the matter has to do with improving independence and the ability of local populations to control their own lives. To ensure that this is the outcome, it is imperative to listen to the voices of people who will navigate the new arrangement we are debating. This is all the more true for the voices of first nations, who are significant players in this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on Bill C-15, which sets the table for the—

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I must humbly admit that I cannot answer it, since I cannot read my Liberal colleagues' minds. All I can do is look at what has come out of their actions. I hope their unquenchable thirst for power is not making them forget other public considerations.

It is rather disappointing. The situation could have started moving forward a long time ago. Fortunately, this government is moving forward with the bill after being in power for almost eight years. We have to at least give the Conservatives that.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories will see part of his dream come true and will be able to be master of some of his own destiny. That is why the New Democratic Party will work in a positive and constructive way to pass Bill C-15.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-15. It is a major piece of legislation, in terms of both its size and its implications for the residents of the Northwest Territories.

I would like to point out to the House that the residents of the Northwest Territories have been trying for a very long time to acquire powers that are similar to those of the 10 Canadian provinces. Their quest is entirely legitimate considering that the Northwest Territories have been part of Canada for a long time and that they are contributing more and more to our country’s social and economic sphere, not to mention the fact that, from a geographical point of view, they occupy a huge space, a very large area.

For a long time now, the New Democratic Party has been in favour of enhanced status for the Northwest Territories that will allow them to move forward. With an adequate transfer of powers, they will be able to make progress in taking control of their destiny. Above all, we must recognize that it is entirely normal, legitimate and desirable that the residents of the Northwest Territories should have control over their future. After all, they are in the best position to understand the repercussions of decisions. They are living in their reality and experiencing the problems relating to their territory and their lifestyle, as well as any changes that occur. Things are changing very rapidly in that part of Canada. They can therefore make enlightened decisions that can help them meet the challenges of the modern world, and they can do so more quickly as well.

Of course, the NDP really wants to make sure that we meet their expectations and that we meet them completely and respectfully. In talking about respect, it is not enough merely for us to enact legislation or amend a range of different laws, because a great many laws are affected by this bill. We must also listen to the various groups that make up the society of the Northwest Territories. There are many different nations located in this huge territory. In the Northwest Territories, these groups face realities that are really very different.

This brings me to one very specific element of Bill C-15. The bill replaces the Northwest Territories Act. In addition, it affects the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and it amends other legislation such as the Territorial Lands Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act. I would like to take this opportunity to speak primarily about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Our work on the Standing Committee on Finance involved the consideration of another omnibus bill, the enormous Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Of course, the omnibus aspect of the bill meant that we were again faced with a catch-all bill containing amendments to legislation ranging from the Supreme Court Act to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as to the law governing labour relations in the public service of Canada.

This bill was a disgrace, and the part that involved the Mackenzie Valley really dealt with the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act. This is a very specific issue, one that is much narrower than the amendments made to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

In reality, the new Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act is a marketing campaign by the government. The idea of having financial resources set aside in order to mitigate the impact of the development of the Mackenzie gas project is not something new. It has been around for a long time.

Canada already had the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act. It was passed in 2006, was most recently amended in 2011 and is still in effect.

The people of the Northwest Territories and the first nations have many concerns about this gas project. It has been in the background for a number of years but has still not been implemented, and we still do not have any real idea about when it will get going.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Finance has not heard from very many witnesses about the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, despite the many hours that have been spent on Bill C-4 over the past few weeks.

Unfortunately, the committee has been able to devote only a few minutes and direct only a few questions to witnesses who are directly involved in the issue.

This is really shameful because the government, in a particularly underhanded way, hid, kept secret and failed to disclose this amendment, which should have been examined separately by the committee that was the most directly concerned, instead of being buried in the omnibus bill sent before the Standing Committee on Finance. That is really a shame.

Basically, it is a sign of contempt for the people of the Northwest Territories. Once we have completed our debates in the House at second reading and we are able to consider Bill C-15 in greater depth in committee, I hope that the government will show a great deal more respect than it did to the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to Bill C-4.

Several years ago, the Prime Minister asked the opposition parties to make suggestions and put forward ideas concerning our shared future. However, every single one of the ideas and suggestions put forward by the New Democratic Party were voted down by the Conservative members on the committee.

Were it not for the fact that Bill C-4 as a whole will have such serious, and even critical consequences, I admit that we might have laughed about the situation. It was almost comical to see my Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance putting their hands up automatically.

Unfortunately, these are very serious matters. The new bill concerning the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund, that was hidden in the middle of the omnibus bill, Bill C-4, has finally been passed, even though no serious consideration has been given to it and even though there has been no consultation with those who are most directly concerned.

In addition to making proposals, as an opposition party, we tried to block the passage of six clauses in Bill C-4 that pertained directly to the Mackenzie gas project. These were clauses 282 to 287. We put forward a motion on each clause, that each one of them be deleted, considering the fact that it was completely impossible to thoroughly study the bill separately from the omnibus bill.

It is very sad that we have reached this point. The government is acting completely unilaterally and is paying no attention to any other opinions. I am not even talking about dissenting opinions; I am talking about reasonable accommodations for matters that should have been discussed and negotiated.

I must admit that Conservative government members sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance and other committees have, on rare occasions, agreed to certain minor concessions, in fact common sense suggestions. Many other common sense proposals were systematically rejected because they were not the government’s ideas, which is truly lamentable. After all, both Conservative Party members and those of the other parties represent all Canadians. Consequently, we should respect each other and the various realities and great diversity of opinion among the people of this country. It is utterly unacceptable for a party, particularly one that holds a majority, to turn a deaf ear, to refuse to listen to reason, to refuse even to hear the merits of an idea and to refuse to discuss ideas that will have an impact on thousands of people.

Coming back to Bill C-15 as a whole, I have done everything in my power to shed light on the measures that will unfortunately be adopted without any consideration for the needs and fears of the people of the Northwest Territories. There is nevertheless something positive in all this, and that is why we will support this lengthy bill at second reading. The Northwest Territories are currently governed by a constitution, by specific statutes that restrict its powers relative to those of the 10 Canadian provinces. They obviously limit the power of the Government of Northwest Territories over resources, lands and water and revenue collection. A large portion of the revenue of the Government of the Northwest Territories obviously comes from federal government transfer payments.

This agreement is linked to the resources developed and revenues derived from those territories. Although it holds out some semblance of justice, it does not enable the Government of the Northwest Territories to collect its own revenue, at least not completely, and thus to enjoy the freedom and dignity associated with that responsibility and with the consequences of making decisions with respect to its development and the welfare of its population. That will be a major challenge. That is why I have focused on a very specific aspect of this bill.

The enactment of Bill C-15 will result in amendments to 42 different acts. That is a vast legislative field. It is quite extraordinary that we have ultimately wound up with this bill. Once again, I hope that the government will seriously consider discussing this matter in committee with all parties concerned and especially that it will agree to hear, consider and respect the witnesses’ opinions on the subject of this major change to the destiny of the Northwest Territories. I have previously said so, and we made a distressing observation.

I had the honour to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights together with my colleague, our justice critic, and we had some success. However, we also saw the government close its mind completely. We found ourselves facing a very high wall. The government stuck to its position and especially abused its majority. It did not take advantage of its majority; it simply abused it in order to impose its ideas and its version of the facts.

It is entirely valid for someone to have a precise idea about a matter and to defend that idea. I will always respect that in my Conservative colleagues. However, Canada is far too big and diverse a country and has too many aboriginal nations on its land for the government to operate in isolation and to impose its will.

I am not saying that amendments to Bill C-15 are absolutely necessary. However, it would be tragic if our study led us to make amendments that were subsequently disregarded. It is normal for there to be inconsistencies. That is no one's fault; it happens in the normal course of affairs. This is an extraordinary bill, and, as is the case of any extraordinary and far-reaching bill, it is very hard to achieve perfection.

Let us hope the government will be willing to hear the other objections that are made and especially that it will consider the basic needs of the population and representatives of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and of the tribal councils, which work very hard and must bear heavy responsibility for the welfare of their communities.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and provincial neighbour across the way for his comments, but he would also know that in that consultation, particularly around the MVRMA, which I mentioned in my speech and I am sure he was listening to that part, that representatives from the Métis Nation, the Tlicho as well as a third nation, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, said that in terms of a particular aspect of the legislation that impacted the land use and water use within the territories, there are already land agreements and water use agreements in place.

Bill C-15 would affect those agreements. Those first nations are not onside, contrary to what my friend just described, and he knows this. Therefore, let us be careful how we proceed because we cannot misrepresent how people feel about the entirety of the legislation.

The New Democrats are supporting the bill through to committee. We will hear from these same representatives. Hopefully the Conservatives will allow them to speak. We invite those guests to come because this is a bill that affects them more than it affects us. My bet is that we will hear those same concerns.

That is what true consultation and accommodation looks like.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to get up on this important piece of legislation. I just confirmed to the government House leader that we foresee allowing this bill to move on to its next natural stage at the end of today's debate, that of going to committee for some important study.

Bill C-15 and our study of it are important are because the bill finally follows through on a promise that was made long ago to the people of the Northwest Territories, which was for the full devolution of a number of powers. The New Democratic member from Western Arctic has been pushing the current and previous governments on this exact same measure.

Some caveats to this bill have been expressed by the Premier of the Northwest Territories and many first nations groups across the territories, one being that the government has included just a bit of a string back to Ottawa, back to the mother ship. It cannot quite completely let go of all of the decisions that will be made with respect to the land and waters of the territories.

This control has an impact on first nations people in particular, because a number of agreements have been made between first nations, the territorial government, and Ottawa. Questions arise as to how those agreements will be affected, particularly by the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the MVRMA, which creates an environmental screening process for the Northwest Territories, with the exception of—and this is important—the Inuvialuit settlement area, which stands in its own separate body of legislation.

This is important, because someone like myself who represents a northern rural resource-rich part of the country often sees decisions that affect us greatly being made in Parliament with little to no consultation whatsoever, and with very little help back, once those resources are developed, for the services and programs we require not only to support that resource development but also to support our communities.

There is a new way of doing business when it comes to resource development. It is a somewhat precarious one. In times past, this country and its communities, homes, and schools were built on the backs of the resources, the endowment this country has. Those resources and their development allowed communities to come together.

Now we see a new development model in rural Canada. We see fly-in and fly-out camps. We see an explosion of foreign temporary workers under the Conservative government. That does not build communities. It does not build schools, hospitals, and the services people require. It does not build the heart of a community around those resources that we used to see.

This is important for many of us because many of these resources, particularly in the oil, gas, and mining sectors, are by definition non-renewable. They only happen once, and some of them have a certain lifespan. A mine can only be predicted to go on for so many years, perhaps a generation in some cases, and oil and gas developments sometimes have an even shorter lifespan than that.

It seems to me that when we transfer these responsibilities to northern people, in this case the Northwest Territories, we increase the opportunity and the potential for allowing our resources to build those very same communities.

It is of note and of interesting timing that today, as we are debating this bill and the government is listening to New Democrats, first nations, and the territorial governments, we also see the report by Mr. Douglas Eyford, released just hours ago. It is entitled “Forging Partnerships, Building Relationships”. It is an important title. This is the special commission the Prime Minister just mentioned at the end of question period.

For many years, the Conservative government has absolutely ignored the will and intent of first nations people across all of Canada and in particular in British Columbia. It approaches the whole conversation around pipelines and resource development with the people who happen to live along the route and who happen to be most affected by these projects as one of inconvenience.

We are not an inconvenience. We are central to the conversation. First nations, in particular, have a constitutionally protected right and have land that is not ceded. Rights and responsibilities should be afforded them because the courts say so and our constitution says so, yet the Prime Minister had to go out and hire a special envoy.

He did a remarkable job, I might add. Lo and behold, he went to the affected communities to talk to the very first nations who are impacted and asked them for their opinions. What a revelatory idea.

The government had to go out and hire a special consultant to do the government's job, to go and listen to first nations people and find out what they were interested in, to begin to believe in and put truth to the idea of what section 35 of our charter guarantees, which is the obligation of the Crown, the federal government, to consult and accommodate.

Consult means to understand people, to listen to their interests and world view, and to try to come to some sort of accommodation over the impacts it may have on them if a mine, pipeline or any serious resource development were to go ahead. However, to the government and the Prime Minister in particular, this is somehow news. For years many of us, myself included, have said that while the government pretends to be a friend of the resource sector, it has actually been one of its worst enemies.

I can remember the Minister of Natural Resources saying and then committing to paper in an open letter to the Canadian people that the people who were raising questions, the very people he now says he respects and wants a relationship with, were foreign-funded radicals. That is what he called them. He further said they must be enemies of the state; what overheated, overblown and ignorant rhetoric from a federal minister of the Crown. To then suggest that does not have an impact on a relationship is also ignorant. It is short-sighted.

Did he somehow think this would increase certainty on the land base, that first nations would suddenly say, “He called us enemies of the state and foreign-funded radicals, so let us just agree to whatever plans the government has in mind”? Of course not. That is not what a Canadian reaction would be. That is not how first nations have reacted. They have reacted as they properly should. They were insulted. They were told that their rights and views did not matter and if they had any views and ideas that were contrary to what the Conservative government believed, then that must make them enemies of the state.

We hear that kind of language in other countries. It is language and rhetoric that is offensive. My Conservative colleagues across the way are shaking their heads. I agree. How dare a minister of the Crown stand and say anyone opposed to the government's idea must be a foreign-funded radical. That is what he said. He said anyone raising questions must be an enemy of the state. Is this how one builds a relationship? The Conservatives would do well to read the report that we have in hand today. They would do well to listen and actually act upon the recommendations of Mr. Eyford.

The Prime Minister had it here today. One of the specific recommendations was to construct a tripartite relationship with the provinces, the federal government and first nations. The Conservatives have been sitting on the report for four days now. The Prime Minister had an opportunity today to say the government is interested in that recommendation and sees it as so critical to the development of the resources the government claims to care about that it will act and show the leadership that Mr. Eyford and the first nations people of Canada are calling for.

We see in Bill C-15 some attempt by the government to finally, after many years in power, listen to the people of the north, to listen to the idea that giving up some of Ottawa's power in this regard would be a good idea. It did not throw that little string back. It could not quite make it all the way. It is keeping the MVRMA in, so that the federal government has discretion over land and water uses in the territories. We find that a bit unfortunate and somewhat curious. There is a five-year review of this particular article in the bill and that is encouraging to us, but if the Conservatives think that the legislation will not end up in court if they have not properly consulted first nations, then they can expect only that. They will spend millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars defending their bill in court.

It seems to me so much more efficient to have the consultation up front and make the accommodations before following through. However, time and time again they go the opposite route, the bullying route, saying, “Take it or leave it, this is how it is going to be. We are the almighty powerful federal government and this is how we are going to enact our policies on your land and your territory”. It does not work that way. Small groups like the Supreme Court of Canada have told the government time and time again it does not work that way. The way it is going to work is that constitutional rights in this country will be protected. The New Democrats believe in them and believe in defending those rights each and every day.

When it comes to Bill C-15, a devolution bill allowing a greater transfer of power to the territories, New Democrats will support it. We will allow the debate to go on today so we can hear more views. Perhaps the government will even take some notes. Would that not be nice for a change, if it showed a little humility from time to time? Who knows? It might even allow Parliament to do its job, which is to hold government to account and improve legislation. Too often, we have seen the other approach from the government, the arrogant approach, the bullying approach that says the legislation is perfect as it is and it will accept no amendments, no changes, no ideas, not just from the opposition but from any witnesses and experts that are brought to the table.

When we are dealing with first nations, it goes a step further. It means the courts get involved. Constitutions must be addressed and redressed. It seems to me that a new day will dawn. I only pray that there will be a conversion on the road to Damascus for the Conservative government, that it will finally realize its bullying approach will not work, that first nations' constitutional rights are guaranteed, and that to listen, consult and accommodate is the only way that this country will generate full prosperity for all people, not just a select few.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by thanking the House staff, you, and all members of the House for indulging Tuesday night in going through 284 virtually identical amendments from the opposition with regard to that budget implementation bill, all of which simply required deletion. Fortunately, those were reduced by the Speaker to some 16 to make the process more manageable. That did help us to advance the process, notwithstanding the clear efforts by the opposition to obstruct at every stage our very important economic action measures for the benefit of Canada's economy, for job creation, and economic growth for Canadians.

First let me thank all parties in the House for their co-operation on that. This afternoon we will continue and finish the second reading debate on Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act. If we wrap it up before 5:30 p.m., we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-11, Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act.

Today, all parties in the House worked together to pass—at all stages—Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act. Perhaps this is a sign of the Christmas spirit spreading throughout the parliamentary precinct. I hope it will continue into tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.

As I told the House on Tuesday, the budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures that our government has advanced. Unfortunately, once again we find the NDP opposing it, despite such things as the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which has the potential to benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many thousands of employees they might hire into the future. That is something the NDP is voting against. We think it is important that it be put in place right away.

Monday will be the final allotted day of the autumn, which will see us consider a proposal from the New Democratic Party, followed by the supplementary estimates and a supply bill.

During the remaining time available to us next week, I hope to see the House adopt second reading of Bill C-15, if that does not happen today; second reading of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-8, the combatting counterfeit products act, which was reported back from the hard-working industry committee this morning.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was predicted just last week that the government House leader could not make it through three whole weeks without illustrating his tendency and proclivity toward time allocation, against all the legislative traditions of the House. He almost made it. It is so sad that he had to do it again. He had to shut down debate in the House.

The government likes to use the loaded term “obstruction” when it talks about the opposition's desire to debate its bills. Others would describe this as a living, breathing democracy.

Democracy is about holding the government to account. It is about bringing public awareness to the bills that are presented before Parliament. It is about, as Lord knows the government needs, improving legislation as it is presented.

In today's debate, for example, on Bill C-15, which is an important bill to the Northwest Territories because of the devolution of powers and revenue to the people of the north, the opposition MPs have raised several important questions about the transfer of that power and how it would affect northern resources, but even in the absence of time allocation, which we encourage the government not to use, the bill will run its course. Likely it will end its second reading by the end of today.

It is disappointing that the debate on the final stage of the government's latest omnibus budget bill will be limited to a single day on Friday, a day on which the House has limited hours.

What else is in store for the House in the week to come?

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a member who represents a northern riding. He will certainly bring an interesting perspective to this debate.

I think it is important to commend my colleague from Western Arctic, the member for the Northwest Territories, who works very hard and does an extraordinary job. It is a huge territory and a big riding. When I compare the size to my own riding to his, I realize how impressive it is to represent such a vast territory and to do it so well. I wanted to say that, because this is a very important bill for him and for all of us.

Before I get into the details, I want to take a step back and look at the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

A number of my colleagues, both Conservatives and members of my own party, have spoken about the constitutional nature of this situation.

In Canada, natural resources are an interesting issue. Powers are shared, but provinces also have power over their resources. This has created an interesting situation, since over the years—and now in 2013—energy and natural resources have become very important issues, not just for us, but for the entire world.

There is a lot of talk about pipelines and developing different resources. Quebec is having some important, interesting and essential debates on issues such as shale gas and pipelines.

We are very concerned about the division of powers for natural resource management. Although the constitutional powers were divided a certain way at the time, I think it is very important to move in this direction and devolve more powers to the Northwest Territories. That is something we support, obviously.

This is the first time since 1980, if I remember correctly, that the federal government has devolved additional powers to the Northwest Territories. We are very happy to see that.

That being said, I think that there are some major concerns to keep in mind. I talked about energy-related concerns. Bill C-38 made a lot of changes to environmental assessments for various projects.

Under the circumstances, I think it will be important to arrive at a better understanding of the bill during the committee's study and to know which powers will belong to the Northwest Territories and which to the federal government, directly and indirectly.

At first blush, this bill seems to have some tricky parts, but it is not quite clear. That is why the committee work will be so important. I feel optimistic; I think that the government has good intentions with this bill.

When the bill goes to committee, there will be questions about exactly how powers will be divided and how to ensure that there are no loopholes enabling the federal government to retain control over matters related to selection of projects, specifically regarding natural resource development and royalties.

These are very complicated issues. Many of my colleagues are better equipped to discuss them than I. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talked about how it is important for people in Toronto and Montreal not to impose their way of doing things on the Northwest Territories. Even though I am an MP from suburban Montreal, I completely agree with him. As an MP from Quebec, I have a pretty good understanding of the relationship between the federal government and our communities, the division of powers, the importance of a respectful relationship and the desire to be in a position where we are not being told what to do.

That being said, I can understand the concern. I think it is important that each one of us talks about managing natural resources, no matter where we come from, because there are fewer and fewer borders when it comes to this issue.

However, that does not mean that we should set aside the principle that the provinces—or territories in this case—must have some input and are responsible for managing natural resources. We understand that the federal government has a role to play because these issues affect everyone.

Take pipelines, for example. In my riding, the Portland-Montreal pipeline goes under the Richelieu River. This issue is of great concern to the people of my riding, but we all know that it extends beyond the boundaries of my riding.

With that in mind, we need to rigorously debate this issue in order to fully understand the bill. We also need to have a rigorous, in-depth review of the bill in committee, one that takes into account the concerns of the witnesses. They will likely have an interesting perspective to share.

Speaking of interesting perspectives, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work being done by our caucus with regard to northern development and protecting the rights of the people in those communities.

For example, yesterday, I listened to the speech given by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou during the debate on Bill C-15. His views are extremely relevant and interesting, given the role he played in the negotiations between the Cree government, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada on the treaties that have been signed over the past few decades.

At home in Quebec, we set aside political differences and accomplished an historic work in James Bay. When we think about the work that the Government of Quebec accomplished in the early 2000s, we understand the importance of a nation-to-nation dialogue or even a dialogue among three nations, if we count the Quebec nation as a third player.

There is hope for this bill. The government has made a good start by engaging in a dialogue with the first nations and with the people of the Northwest Territories. In my opinion, that is extremely important. This is a complex, worthwhile and important constitutional issue.

Earlier, I mentioned my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, but the NDP also has other members. I am thinking of the members for Sudbury, Nickel Belt and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in northern Ontario and all my other colleagues from that area. They know the importance of these issues, and I know that they will bring an extremely relevant and interesting perspective to this debate.

We have a great deal of respect for the people who live in these areas. My colleague from Western Arctic does an outstanding job when it comes to these issues. Out of respect for these people, it is important that we all participate in this debate, because issues related to energy and natural resources are of the utmost importance to all Canadians and Quebeckers. I am also thinking about the people who live in my riding. It is essential that we participate in this debate.

I hope that the government will take into account what is said in committee. To date, the debate seems very healthy. I hope that this will continue in committee and that we can make amendments, if such is deemed necessary by the witnesses, who will conduct an assessment of the bill that will no doubt be very interesting.

I look forward questions from my colleagues and I thank them for their attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette for raising the level of debate after the member for Timmins—James Bay did his best to put it in the gutter. It would have been better if she had not shared her time with him, because he certainly did not address the bill and he went on several tangents that did not relate to anything that had to do with devolution.

Is the member aware that the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development both confirmed today, independently in different panels before committee, that the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claim agreements each provided for a single land and water board in an area larger than the respective settlement areas and that the restructured board was in compliance with settled land claim agreements and would continue the co-management approach laid out in these agreements?

The red herring of the board that is envisioned in Bill C-15 as somehow being out of compliance with land claims agreements has not been verified by the Department of Justice. It has been proven by the Government of the Northwest Territories to be false.

If that is what the NDP is hanging its hat on, perhaps it would review the blues of this morning's committee meeting, where the Government of the Northwest Territories was clear that we needed to move forward. It fully supports the bill and it does not need MPs from Montreal and Toronto telling it what is in its best interest.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many government members and a member of the third party have talked about Bill C-15. We probably all agree that transferring additional powers to the Northwest Territories is a good thing.

Nevertheless, I wanted to speak today because I think that transferring powers to the territories is an important thing worth paying special attention to. I want to begin by congratulating the people of the Northwest Territories, especially the five aboriginal governments that are part of the process, the Inuvialuit, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, the Sahtu Secretariat, the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government.

I work very closely with the Manawan Atikamekw First Nation. Respect for aboriginal government is essential. Even though these situations are quite different, I think it is interesting to see how this legislation can transfer responsibilities smoothly and for the good of everyone.

I would like to talk about my reasons for supporting this bill and discuss some unclear elements that will need more in-depth study. Changing a constitution is never simple. However, in the case of the territories, which do not have the same authority as provincial governments, it is necessary.

That is especially true as Canada works harder to assert sovereignty in the north. Accepting that residents of the Northwest Territories are equal to all other Canadians is the bare minimum.

The last devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories took place in 1980, when it acquired jurisdiction over education, health care, transportation and renewable resources, including lumber and wildlife.

However, for devolution to be more than just a legacy of British-style indirect rule, much more had to be done. This transfer of powers will enable the Northwest Territories to operate as independently as possible despite being so remote.

The bill before us goes a little farther by transferring the administration and control of public lands and resources, as well as rights in respect of waters, to the Northwest Territories.

The aboriginal governments identified earlier, as well as the Government of the Northwest Territories, signed a transfer of power agreement with the Canadian government on June 25. Now it is our responsibility to move forward.

The situation in the Northwest Territories cannot be compared in any way to that of the people in the provinces. As an example, I almost had a culture shock when I contacted the Manawan Atikamekw people, who live in the far northern area of the riding of Joliette. Although we share the same country, their administration is vastly different.

In the case of the Northwest Territories, this inconsistent policy is still evident today in the fact that the territory does not receive income from resource development and must rely on federal transfers for the delivery of programs and services. This situation can only be described as outright dependency.

Under the agreement signed in June, the Government of the Northwest Territories will be able to retain 50% of the revenues from resource development on public land up to a certain maximum, and Canada will retain the rest. The agreement will also enable the Government of the Northwest Territories to collect revenues from oil development.

However, here again, there will be a cap on revenues and any surpluses will be deducted from federal transfers.

Since these revenues derive from resource development, I do not really see anything wrong with the government withdrawing when marginal revenues based on the needs of the province are met; again, “when the needs are met”. Indirectly, this allows for a transfer of the wealth produced by this development.

However, as I said at the time, such a bill is not that simple. In the case of Bill C-15, 42 laws will be amended, making this a truly mammoth bill. In addition, the AANDC deputy minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in November. The deputy minister confirmed that Bill C-15 would, among other things, amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

I will take the time to talk about this amendment because it has received some criticism, particularly from the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government.

The amendment to this act would transform the current structure of regional councils for land and water, created under final land claim agreements with aboriginal governments. This structure would be replaced by a single board.

In addition, the amendments will give the federal minister the authority to approve how the land and water in the Northwest Territories is used, which means that the transfer of powers we are working towards would be jeopardized. At least, that is how some people feel. As a New Democrat, I believe that the regional boards should make the decisions.

However, since the Government of the Northwest Territories has finally rallied behind the proposed changes and because the legislation will be reviewed in five years—which we will have to keep a close eye on—I will be supporting this bill anyway.

During the review, there will be an opportunity to evaluate the possibility of transferring other powers to the Northwest Territories, including the power to amend this law. To my mind, that alleviates some concern.

However, I would like to make a general comment about the Conservative government's tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few and to give more power to the ministers who, ironically, have less input within their own caucus. I would like to take advantage of the opportunity I have here today to ask that such schemes do not become the norm.

As for the concerns that certain groups still have about amending the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, I would like to point out that those of us on this side of the House will take their concerns into account when studying these amendments in committee.

The goal here—and I think that we all share it, even though some people feel absolutely no need to talk about it—is to ensure that Bill C-15 meets the needs of the people of the Northwest Territories. Until I hear proof to the contrary, I would say that we all agree on that point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his discussion of Bill C-15. I agree with his colleague, the member for Western Arctic, that the bill would be more properly taken in two pieces.

On the devolution piece, I have heard most of the speeches from opposition members and I think they are in favour of the devolution. We have seen the territories wait for far too long to make decisions in their own name.

On the concentration of boards, as my hon. colleague just mentioned, the reduction of what may appear to some to be bureaucracy is to others a self-government apparatus. They are regional boards responsible to various first nations' land claim settlement processes.

I wonder if my friend would agree that we should see all land claims settled in the area and ensure that all first nations are supportive when we go ahead with changing some of the aspects of their own governance structures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay to speak to this important bill, Bill C-15, on the issues of devolution and the further development of the far north.

Through representing a far north region in Ontario, I really appreciate and understand the importance of the devolution of power to the communities and regions that are very different from the rest of Canada, and that they be allowed and given the tools they need to advance.

Unfortunately, the government has failed on so many levels in dealing with issues of the far north. In my own region we see complete failure of infrastructure in community after community in the far north. The Conservatives' only attitude is very colonial. They want the resources, and they want them out as fast as they can get them. They treat the people who live there like they are a subject population.

I see also how they bungle these projects, because their idea of fast is to try to get things as quickly as possible without thinking about the need to develop the economy in any sustainable, long-term or cohesive manner. I point to the bungling of the Ring of Fire.

The Ring of Fire is in my region of Timmins—James Bay. It may be one of the largest mining discoveries in the last half century, $3.3 billion of value at this point. There is an important need to get it right because we have seen how often things have been done wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

In my own region where I live in Cobalt, I see the poisoned lakes. I see all the wealth that was taken out of communities such as Cobalt. Not a single paved road was left in any of Coleman Township, which at one time was the richest municipality in all of Canada. I have seen the cave-ins from the mines that were left. I see that all across northern Ontario and northern Quebec, wherever I travel.

The idea was that we would take the resources out and leave the communities behind with whatever they could get by on. I look at the issue of devolution in terms of the revenue agreement. In the far north of Ontario, all our resources go to Queen's Park. We have one of the richest diamond mines in the world right near the impoverished little community of Attawapiskat. All the royalties from that mine go to Queen's Park, yet the people of Attawapiskat are basically living in shacks on top of each other. They do not even have the room to build a proper townsite. We would have to get that permission from the province. If we asked the Province of Ontario about Attawapiskat, we would be told it is not Ontario's responsibility, because those are federal people. Of course, the feds have shown a complete disinterest in Attawapiskat.

It is amazing, nobody else lives up there except the Mushkego Cree. They do not even have access to their own land. As one women in Kashechewan told me, it is like being raised in a prisoner of war camp in her community. There are little postage stamp communities, while the vast resources around them are controlled by the province, which takes the resources out and they are sent to southern Ontario, paving the roads down there. The issue of devolution and the development of communities is something we really understand.

Going back to the Ring of Fire, the minister from Muskoka was to be our great leader on this. He was to be the man who got it all done, just like he got everything else done around here, and Cliffs has walked away from the project. They said they are tired of the lack of action, the lack of planning. The first nation communities are still sitting at the table saying they need the environmental issues dealt with. What happened to the big leadership of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka? He shrugs and says it was a provincial responsibility.

That was not what the Conservatives were saying a few months ago when it looked like they would try to get some of the glory of the Ring of Fire. We notice that the issue of the Ring of Fire is vital for the development of northern Ontario, sustainable, planned, ensuring that the rivers and the lakes are not polluted, putting a proper road and transportation system in, working with the provincial Ontario Northland Railway to get a railway in there, to build sustainability. The feds walked. They blew it.

We have a motion at committee to look at the Ring of Fire, to find out what happened. However, the Conservatives go in camera and kill the study of the Ring of Fire, the same men and women who stand up and say they are the defenders of resource development and they understand the economy. They only understand their excuses when they blow it.

I am very interested in the issue of devolution, but there are some issues that have been raised that are very concerning. One is the amendment on the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which would create the environmental screening process for the Northwest Territories. The amendment will replace the current structure of regional land and water boards, which were created through land claims final agreements with the Northwest Territory aboriginal governments, with a single board.

Here is the kicker. The amendments also reserve to the federal minister the approval of all land and water usage in the Northwest Territories, which could easily circumvent the powers that were transferred to the first nation communities through devolution. Would any Canadian trust any minister on that side to do the right thing when it comes to water management or land management?

Let us just look at what the Conservatives did in their last omnibus bill. They stripped the environmental protections for 99.997% of all lakes and rivers in this country. Why is that? It was so they could push pipelines through faster, so they do not have to worry about the shut-off valves and can just go through any of the waterways.

It is funny. There are only 97 waterways that are still protected in this country. The rest of it is open season for these guys. If someone wants to dump tailings or run a pipeline through, this is their baby. Out of the 97 lakes and rivers that are protected, 12 of them are in the riding of the Muskoka minister. Lake Rosseau where Goldie Hawn gets her feet wet in the summertime, that property is protected. Twelve lakes in his riding are protected.

Do members know how many waterways in Quebec are protected? Four. In the massive region of Quebec, four are protected. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka squirrels away 12 so that he can be happy with all his rich friends down at the cottage, and maybe they will invite him over to the barbecue and he will get Jeff Bridges' autograph. Twelve, that is the same as what the Conservatives have reserved for the entire province of British Columbia.

This is about a government that has turned environmental protection and planning into an absolute mockery, which is why Canada is seen more and more as an international outlier. While the Liberals and Conservatives go down to Washington to try to promote the Keystone XL pipeline and outdo each other, our reputation is that this is a government and a third party that no one wants to deal with. The government has systematically undermined and trashed environmental standards so that its friends with the big oil agenda can get things as fast as they want, as quick as they want, and it is too bad about the planet.

We want to move towards devolution but we do not want to see anyone on that side able to put their fingers into the development of waterways and the environment in the far north. We know that the Conservatives' only attitude is to get it as quickly as possible, and too bad about the next generation.

I want to go back to the lakes and rivers, and the importance of it. Our friend, the Muskoka minister, who blew the ring of fire, was the man who allowed Vale and Xstrata to take control of the two greatest mining companies that Canada has produced, the international giants, Inco and Falconbridge. They were pretty much run into the ground under his watch.

The man who has grabbed 12 out of the 100 lakes to protect for his rich friends, is he not the same guy who took $50 million of border infrastructure money that should have been used to stop gangs and guns from coming across the border? What did he do? He was building fake lighthouses in Muskoka with it. Of course there was no paper trail.

Normally people who take money like that and spend it in such an egregious fashion get the bounce. In the government, if someone is that bad, they get promoted. He is now the President of the Treasury Board, the man who is supposed to ensure that everyone else accounts for their dollars. We see him kicking the crap out of the poor civil service, blaming them, going after them and going after their pensions.

Here is the man who took $50 million and does not have a piece of paper that he can show for it. Then, of course, we did find there was a lot of paper in his office, he just pretended there was not. We managed to find that through access to information.

These are not the kind of people we want to allow anywhere near environmental planning. We want to keep them away. We have to have some sort of ring fencing to keep them away and to keep their hands off it.

We think devolution is really important, but devolution has to be based on the principle that it is the people on the ground, the people in the far north, who should always have the final decision-making about what happens in their region.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is one of the first government bills aimed at rethinking our entire approach to the far north. It is particularly important because the far north is poised to become one of Canada's economic engines, if it is not one already.

So much remains to be done in terms of infrastructure and support for the local population. It will be important to review all of the issues that affect the people who live in that territory.

It is quite normal for the people there to want the economy of their region to be developed in a way that benefits them first and foremost, whether from an economic, environmental, social or structural standpoint.

Canada needs to make massive investments in aviation safety. These territories are so vast that everything must be done by plane. Air transportation is therefore a fact of life, and it will be essential that we discuss it sooner or later.

I would remind the House that the riding of Western Arctic is the same size as western Europe.

When the member for Western Arctic wants to visit his constituents, he has no choice but to do so by plane. Furthermore, he cannot hope to meet with everyone in all the communities in one day, or even in one week. There are too many small, remote villages. Too often he has to travel.

The marine mapping of the area has not been done. We often talk about the Northwest Passage, but it is important to emphasize that, as a sovereign nation, Canada has not yet mapped its Arctic coastline. This poses a problem in terms of territorial sovereignty, particularly when it is disputed.

I would remind the House that Denmark and the United States are disputing Canada's right of passage in its own waters. Russia, the United States and Denmark have launched border disputes regarding the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The government needs to have a closer look at these issues.

Bill C-15 deals specifically with the transfer of certain powers from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The NDP applauds and approves of this important first step. We hope that it will not be the last. It will allow these communities to take charge of their own futures, which only makes sense. Local officials, elected by the people, are in the best position to understand the specific problems and difficulties these communities face with regard to housing, infrastructure, access to drinking water, educational institutions and the preservation of their culture. These are all rather important things. In this regard, it is true that we support this first step.

Of course, we hope to be able to present amendments. We hope that all of the committee members will listen to what we have to say so that recommendations are considered on their merit and not on the basis of a party line, which all too often results in a failure to listen to the witnesses who appear before the committee.

The Northwest Territories know best how their resources should be used, and they should have the final say in that regard.

These people will have to ask themselves the following questions: should we empty our mines in 10 years or should we extract the materials more gradually over a period of 50 years in a way that is more advantageous to the local community?

How will the waste generated from the development of these natural resources be disposed of? These issues are of particular interest to the Northwest Territories. They do not want a small but immediate gain at the cost of a huge environmental, generational and financial deficit later on.

I sincerely believe that if all hon. members explained this bill to their provinces, it would not pass. We would not allow our respective provinces to be limited in the ways this bill will limit the Northwest Territories.

I would like to remind hon. members that there is a significant limitation on the transfer of powers and revenues from development. The Government of the Northwest Territories will keep up to 50% of the revenues from the development of resources on public land and the Government of Canada will keep the rest. On the one hand, the government is saying that the territory is entitled to only 50% of the spinoffs and, on the other, it is saying that the territory can receive a set maximum amount.

I would like to know whether any of us would agree to let such a limitation be imposed on the government of his or her province. I can guarantee that the answer would be a resounding no, from British Columbia all the way to Newfoundland. This is probably the most questionable feature of the bill. Fortunately, this is just the first piece of legislation. In five years, it will be accompanied by other laws and a review of our overall approach to the far north as it relates to first nations communities.

I will tell this House right now that these people will not agree to have the government give them just part of the whole. If they have a right to democracy, then they have it fully and completely. Infrastructure should be tailored to their needs. As for airlines and distribution centres, they want them at home because they want these jobs to be created at home. This makes sense, because these are well-paying jobs, just like the jobs in the mines.

Currently, the business practice is to establish a mine and a residential centre—not a town or hospitals, but rather a huge hotel where the mine's employees stay for two weeks and then take a plane home to Montreal, Sept-Îles, Toronto or Windsor, where they stay for another two weeks.

Therefore, northerners do not have these jobs and do not benefit from them in any way; everything is shipped by air or by boat from the large ports of Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax, or from major airports like Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton. How do they benefit from this? Aside from seeing the ships carrying ore go by under their noses, there is no advantage for them.

We will therefore support this first step because it is useful and, at least, finally gives this government the authority to assume and define the interests of the local population itself.

I would like to remind the House that global warming also affects the far north. Moreover, and all meteorologists agree, nowhere in the world does global warming have a greater impact than in the Canadian Arctic. Global warming can even damage infrastructure. If we put a road on the permafrost as it thaws, the road will be destroyed.

I thank all the members for listening to my speech and I hope they will listen just as carefully to the witnesses' recommendations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

It is an honour to rise in the House to speak to 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, at second reading. I say it is an honour because the goal of devolution has been one that so many people in the Northwest Territories have fought and worked for over many years.

Last year I had the opportunity to meet with the premier of the Northwest Territories, Premier Robert McLeod. He actually came to my home province of Manitoba for the Manitoahbee Festival, which is an indigenous music festival that profiles the amazing musical talent of the Northwest Territories. I had a chance to hear a bit from Mr. McLeod about the hard work that he and his team have done to get to this day.

I also want to acknowledge my colleague and friend, the member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, who has worked tremendously hard on this initiative as well. He has been a solid representative and an extremely important spokesperson on the issues that matter to the people of the Northwest Territories.

I understand the issue, not only as a member of Parliament but also on a personal level. I understand the importance of the concept of devolution, autonomy and, not just self-respect, but the acknowledgement of the respect that is due to the people of the north. I say that because I myself am from the north. I represent the region known as Churchill, in northern Manitoba, but I am also from there. I was born in Thompson. I grew up in the north and I have a very acute understanding, an understanding that so many of us northerners share, of the way in which the north is often marginalized. It is marginalized overtly and covertly in so many ways.

I will give a few examples. Number one, we in the north are very much aware how important services are to us in northern Canada, like any Canadian; for example, health care. We also know that in the north it is oftentimes, unfortunately, more difficult to access the basic health care that is required, especially compared to that of our urban neighbours. What ends up happening is that we have fewer doctors. Sometimes when we have nurses, it is more difficult to have the same nurses come. We have many people who come in and out, who stay for a while and then leave, so it is impossible for us to build relationships with the people who care for us when we need them most. We also find that in terms of health care infrastructure it is a tremendous challenge. While in provincial jurisdiction communities in the north there is definitely an effort to invest in health care infrastructure in an equitable way, if one drives a few minutes down the road and spends some time on a first nation, which is federal jurisdiction, one understands how northern first nations in particular suffer as a result of their geographic location and the way systemic racism has come into play.

We understand that in health care, for example, we in the north have certain struggles, and we struggle more than people in southern Canada in some respects. However, what we also know in the other sense is that it is difficult to find health care services. It is also difficult to see the kind of infrastructure funding we need. If one lives in northern Canada—and anyone who has visited northern Canada knows—it takes a while to get to places. Communities are far away from each other and populations are spread out.

However, that does not mean that people do not need to leave. People need to leave on a regular basis for health care. People need to leave for education. In fact, young people in many of the communities I represent have to leave after grade 9 or grade 10 to finish their high school in an urban centre. People need to leave to go for post-secondary education or training. People need to leave to visit their families. People also need to leave to buy basic necessities, such as food and goods they cannot access in their communities or are too expensive in their communities. That means infrastructure that links them is extremely important.

I would argue that perhaps the greatest gap in terms of the reality that northerners face is the way in which infrastructure across the Canadian north is often subpar compared to that in the south. We can talk about gravel roads and roads that need to be fixed up, but we can also talk about the fact that many communities across the north do not even have roads to speak of. Unfortunately, the common thread throughout the story is federal inaction and, frankly, neglect when it comes to partnering with the province and partnering on first nations.

The irony is that a tremendous amount of wealth comes out of northern Canada. It comes out of the communities I represent and the territories—Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It comes out of northern Canada as a whole. That wealth comes through mining, hydroelectric development, forestry and development. That creates a tremendous amount of wealth in terms of revenue for government and corporate wealth. It does create jobs in our communities but often not in a sustainable way or in a way where training is part of the deal so that people are able to have long-term, stable employment, can learn from their work and go on to better themselves and work in other workplaces. Unfortunately, that wealth is often not shared with the communities that help to produce that wealth.

I can certainly share countless examples in my neighbourhood in the north where that is very obviously the case. Perhaps the most stark is the way in which so many first nations still live in third world conditions and yet are surrounded by some of the richest deposits of minerals or oil. Companies make great profits off these deposits, and yet there is no understanding that first nations, on whose territory these people are working, ought to be part of the deal, both in terms of revenue and long-term benefits.

This brings me to the point that northerners best understand their experience. They understand that this relationship, which has been supported by the federal government, where the decisions are made in Ottawa, where the wealth often goes back to Ottawa and is not returned to northern communities, must be fixed. We have an opportunity to do that, but unfortunately the work is not done. We are debating this bill at second reading, and New Democrats support this bill at second reading, but we have said very clearly that we need to look at the gaps and particularly at the way in which the federal government, unfortunately, continues to play a big brother role in this relationship, a relationship that some people use the word “colonialism” to describe, a sentiment that has been very much felt throughout recent years.

New Democrats want to make sure that this approach to devolution, something that so many people in the territories want, is free of that top-down approach, the approach that insinuates that the federal government does not trust the people of the Northwest Territories to govern themselves or make the right decisions for themselves. We believe that the federal government, which has done serious work on this file, needs to take this to the final stage, where a devolution agreement can be the best it can be and the best possible deal for the people of the Northwest Territories, an arrangement that agrees that the people, the first nations and the Government of the Northwest Territories must be the ones to make the decisions for the betterment of themselves and all of us.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add comment to my colleague's comments and those of this morning.

This bill responds to calls from the territorial government, aboriginal groups, and industry to provide northerners with greater control over their lands and resources and to improve regulatory processes across the north. Bill C-15 is a necessary step to implement devolution of management of lands and resources for the Northwest Territories and has a target effective date of April 2014 in the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Aspects of the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are required to implement devolution, thus making it necessary for this legislation to be considered together as one. In order for regulatory improvement initiatives to be fully implemented, all parties of the devolution agreement agreed that it was desirable to have this piece of legislation remain federal at this time and to utilize delegation as a model to implement devolution, with a full review of this model after five years.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

It's clear to me that the people of the Northwest Territories, and indeed all of Canada, will look upon the 17th session of your assembly and your leadership and that of Premier McLeod in the future as a historic time for not only the Northwest Territories but all of Canada.

I want to congratulate you on the negotiation and on coming to this achievement that we've realized in Bill C-15. Here in Ottawa we can go through legislation and it maybe doesn't create much of a ripple here, but this is an enormous achievement for your government, for your people, and obviously wouldn't have happened without the driving force of your premier and people like you.

I did want to talk about the regulatory improvement component of the bill. I understand that the GNWT and the NWT Chamber of Mines recently released a paper on mining strategy, which included a recommendation to move ahead with regulatory improvements. I asked this of the Minister, Mr. Valcourt, as well. How do you think that regulatory improvement will in fact improve the investment climate or the economic climate in the Northwest Territories?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his statement and for the little bit of a history lesson about how long ago he was in high school. That was quite enjoyable.

The hon. member brought up a very good point. I ask members to bear with me for one second. 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, other acts, and certain orders and regulations.

What we have in here is a lot. There are a lot of acts that we need to study and look at. The member brought up a very good point by asking if we should not have considered having at least two bills brought forward to the House for debate.

It is really important. We are hearing from many first nations, Metis, and Inuit groups that they are concerned about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and what is going to happen.

The member talked about having two bills. Those are things that we should be able to discuss in this debate and at least at committee.

That said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. If we are not able to make the necessary changes right now and if in five years there is a call for review of these changes to the MVRMA, would he and his party be in favour of transferring more authority to the Northwest Territories to ensure that some of these concerns could be addressed?

[J. Michael Miltenberger, Deputy Premier and Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the premier does extend his regrets and appreciates your comments.

Thank you for the invitation to address the House of Commons committee on aboriginal affairs. I'm pleased to be here to speak to you today about Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Devolution of responsibility for public lands, resources, and water has been a priority for the people and Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories for many years. The Government of the Northwest Territories has worked closely with Canada in the negotiation of devolution and the development of implementation plans to effect the smooth and seamless transfer of these important responsibilities on April l, 2014.

Devolution promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories. Supported by an efficient, effective, and integrated regulatory regime, devolution will give northerners the necessary tools and authorities to responsibly develop the territories' significant natural resource potential, promote investment and economic development, and manage the land and environment sustainably.

Devolution will mark the culmination of a political evolution that began with the original creation of the Government of the Northwest Territories in 1967. For the first time, the people of the NWT will enjoy a level of self-determination and control over territorial affairs on par with that enjoyed by their fellow Canadians in the provinces and Yukon. Devolution will make good on the promise of 46 years ago, which we have secured through the ongoing development of a fully elected and representative legislative assembly that has steadily assumed responsibilities from Canada.

As we approach our 50th year, our government looks forward to strengthening its role as a contributing and vital member of Confederation, representing the unique views and priorities of all our people, including the aboriginal people who make up almost 50% of our population and are key participants in the political, social, and economic life of the territory. We have seven regional aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories and are proud to maintain formal government-to-government relationships with them. We work hand in hand with our aboriginal government partners across the vast range of government decision-making. It is not just part of our consensus style of government, but also part of our consensus culture. When we signed the devolution agreement with Minister Valcourt last June, five of those governments joined us as co-signatories and we continue to work with the remaining two. This is how we do things. It is through ongoing, strong, and always respectful partnerships with aboriginal governments that we create strong communities, mutual trust and respect, and the good will that forges a strong territorial society. We will be strengthening these partnerships even further through devolution.

We are establishing an inter-governmental council that will bring together the public government and aboriginal governments to better work together and coordinate decisions on land use and development throughout the territory. The Government of the Northwest Territories has also offered to share up to 25% of the resource revenues we will collect under devolution with participating aboriginal governments. This is unprecedented in all of Canada, but reflects our commitment to ensuring that all the people of the Northwest Territories can share in the benefits of development in the territory. We believe the NWT can be a model for Canada, where aboriginal people actively support resource development because they have a meaningful role in decision-making and receive a fair share of the benefits.

In 1904, Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier famously said that the 20th century belonged to Canada. Why did he say this? Because Canada had everything going for it that a young country would want: population growth, increasing industrial development, and immigration to further open up the prairies to agriculture. And to solidify Canadian sovereignty, the railroads were being built in one of the early unifying megaprojects of this great land. We appeared sheltered from the conflicts and tensions of Europe and the Far East. Canada as a country was on the rise.

Today, we have no doubt whatsoever that the 21st century belongs to the north. We are increasingly the centre of resource development, the storehouse of what the world wants and needs. Yesterday's so-called “hinterland” is today's economic engine, the fuel for our country's prosperity. Royalties from the mining and oil and gas extraction are paying for daycares, hospitals, and schools in the south. They are maintaining employment and generating prosperity across Canada, as an increasingly mobile labour force finds opportunities and well-paying jobs in northern communities. Never before do l recall such a time of potential and future prosperity facing the people of our territory.

We are the stewards of a great expanse of Canada's land mass. We are on the front lines of climate change. We see it first, before the scientists and satellites and statisticians. We are also the preserve of traditional knowledge, of the wisdom of centuries of people who know and understand how to manage a society and an economy in a sustainable and mutually respectful way. We will undertake balanced resource development to create jobs and protect the environment.

With responsibility for lands and resources, devolution will mean that northerners will take on new abilities to direct the economy of the territory and ensure that its residents benefit from development. We will take on new authority for managing the land and environment according to northern needs and priorities.

Devolution will also mean access to new revenues and a new measure of fiscal independence that the Government of the Northwest Territories can use to invest in the people of this territory, the economy, and the environment.

Make no mistake, for the Northwest Territories this is a game-changer. Devolution is the key to a new era of prosperity. We look forward to a future where northern priorities are reflected in resource development and environmental management decisions. We know our land. We know what matters to us. We have a vested interest in ensuring the long-term sustainability of our land. Our integrated co-management system will protect the economic, social, and cultural well-being of our people.

Bill C-15 is a major milestone for the Northwest Territories, but it is only the beginning of the end. The journey continues, and we look forward to the review that we have agreed will be done at the end of five years and the more complete transfer of powers to the Northwest Territories at that time. We will also have to continue to work on regulatory improvement.

Our government has always supported an efficient and effective regulatory regime that promotes investment, protects the environment, respects the land claims and provides for regional and community views to be heard. We know there are concerns about this aspect of the bill. We are confident, though, that by working with our aboriginal government partners through forums like the intergovernmental council that we are establishing, and continued partnership with Canada, we can address the concerns and implement a system that promotes prosperity and upholds the public interest.

Our time has come. It is time for northerners to make their own decisions about our economy, our environment, and our society. Devolution is critical to the long-term well-being and prosperity of the people of the Northwest Territories and of Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories supports the timely passage of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Western Arctic for all the work he has done in the House and on the bill, in particular. Here is one man who represents a vast territory and does so very well, above and beyond what I would expect a member to do. He brings his work with him and I have great admiration for him. He brings the issue of Arctic sovereignty to the forefront in an authentically northern way. I will explain what I mean by an “authentically northern way” in my coming words.

It is not easy to represent an authentic northern perspective in the House and that is simply because, save for three seats, the rest of the seats are occupied by people from the south. Therefore, the priorities of the north depend on the voices of their three representatives in the House, of which the member for Western Arctic is one. I commend the member for doing so continuously and doing it to the best of his abilities.

I am a southerner, so I have to say right off the bat that my knowledge of the north is limited. The people of the north, from what I understand, embrace a philosophy that integrates people and places in a way that is hard for southerners to sometimes understand. Nevertheless, here we are again in the House making decisions for the north with the majority of MPs being from the south.

In my speech, I will depend more on experts, having said that my knowledge of the north is limited. I have never travelled to the Northwest Territories. I know what I have read in books, but I would like to depend on experts to explore some concepts surrounding devolution. I would first like to discuss Arctic sovereignty. The NDP is in favour of increased sovereign powers for the Northwest Territories. Other of my colleagues have mentioned province-like powers, but I would prefer to use the term “increased sovereign powers”. In doing so, we need to see the north's point of view of Arctic sovereignty.

At this point, I will share a quote with the House by John Ralston Saul. He stated:

Most of the sovereignty debate has been framed in old-fashioned western empire terms: We have a distant frontier that must be defended. This frontier is ours, not theirs, whoever they may be. It is only in this context that the people of the North are mentioned, as if the reason for their existence were to serve Canadian sovereignty. There is little sense in all of this that the well-being and success of the people of the North is a purpose in and of itself. And they do not need to be the guarantors of our sovereignty—even though they are—in order to deserve well-being and success. They deserve these exactly as any other Canadian citizen deserves them.

Some of my colleagues touched on the point of equality. In terms of devolution, what are speaking about here today? I have particularly enjoyed Anthony Speca's article in Policy Options. He stated:

Devolution means first and foremost that the territories’ own elected legislators, not distant southern ministers, make decisions in the local interest over the use and development of lands and resources. Perhaps no less importantly, it also means a share of the substantial revenues those lands and resources may generate.

In exploring those ideas about devolution and Arctic sovereignty, we must talk about what Speca mentioned in his article, which is resources. How will we treat them in this agreement? Again, I point to a quote by John Ralston Saul, which states:

...we are a northern nation. Two thirds of our country lies in what is normally categorized as North lands. One third of our gross domestic product comes out of the three territories and the equally isolated northern parts of our provinces. And that one third is what makes us a rich, not a poor, country.

One-third of our GDP comes from the north. This GDP is largely from the rich natural resources that exist in those territories.

The question we should be asking here surrounding Bill C-15 is this: are we more interested in prosperity for the south or true prosperity for the people of the north? This is an essential question that we should be asking in this House with respect to Bill C-15. I am quite disturbed that government members are not standing up to give speeches, nor are members of the Liberal caucus, because it is a very important question that we should be asking.

In terms of devolution agreements, we have three that are in process. We have had Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.

What Mr. Speca speaks about in his article is the agreement between Greenland and Denmark. I would like to share with the House, as briefly as I possibly can, his ideas about the agreement between Greenland and Denmark because of what he mentions in his article in talking about the agreement.

He said:

As a consequence of assuming self-government within the Danish Kingdom, Greenland obtained jurisdiction over not only its abundant onshore mineral deposits—gold, lead, zinc, iron, rare earths, rubies and so on—but also virgin offshore oil and gas fields that the US Geological Survey estimates contain a tremendous 40 to 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent...

He is talking about all of the resources Greenland has.

Mr. Speca said that through Denmark's agreement with Greenland, Greenland was able to realize growth at an astonishing rate. In 2002, the revenues from resources were about zero; they ballooned up to $600 million in 2010. Through its agreement, Greenland can hope to benefit handsomely from resource revenues in the coming years.

Mr. Speca goes on to say that had Denmark not handed this potential stream of wealth to Greenland, it would have flowed into the treasury of Denmark. Instead, both parties took a long-term view toward the prosperity and progress of the people of Greenland so that they could, in addition to the self-governance powers they got, also realize their own financial revenue and not depend so much on Denmark.

Mr. Speca goes on to say that under the agreement outlined in Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories would not benefit as much as Greenland did from Denmark. We could look to this agreement to see an international perspective on a best practice for providing a better guarantee for the prosperity of the Northwest Territories.

The question I have to ask is this: does this agreement give the Northwest Territories the long-term capacity to guarantee their fiscal capacity to deliver northern-sourced solutions and services to the north, rather than what has happened so often in the past, which unfortunately was the south importing unimaginative southern solutions for northern people? Canada needs to catch up on our northern policy by looking at other circumpolar nations.

I will end with another quote from John Ralston Saul:

When you look at the heavy hand of the South on northern architecture or power systems or education methods or food supply systems, you begin to realize how difficult it has been and remains for the new Arctic leadership in particular to put a northern perspective in place. Not always, but very often, the insistent and unimaginative ideas coming from the South have solved immediate specific difficulties while creating systemic problems.

Mr. Speca also said:

...bargaining over resource revenues is both a political and a fiscal game. Following four years of political preparatory work by a joint commission on Greenlandic self-government, Denmark and Greenland together explicitly took the long view toward Greenland's potential emergence as an independent, postcolonial state, with full sovereign rights over its own lands, resources and the revenues that flow from them.

The NDP will be supporting this bill at this reading, but we will always be there to ensure that Bill C-15 will meet northerners' expectations and to discuss these questions at committee.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Chair.

You did touch on this after what Mr. Clarke was asking, and it's really in response to Ms. Crowder's comment about consultation not being stellar. Of course, our government and I think Canadians generally know that consultation isn't a lifelong process. I'm sure we'd all look forward to endless national strategies on devolution if the NDP were to have their way on this, but....

I find it interesting that the NDP will talk about supporting this. I certainly hope they vote for Bill C-15. It's the responsible thing to do.

But the other aspect of the devolution agreement in terms of supporting it is supporting the budgetary measures put in place to promote devolution, and the NDP have not supported any budgetary measures whatsoever to promote this devolution agreement.

Can you maybe just highlight what it is that the Government of Canada is doing and what the cost of devolution is in terms of the Government of Canada's investment in budget 2013?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

I would like to thank the member for Western Arctic for his work on Bill C-15. I have never had the opportunity to be in the north, but I feel that I have been there after speaking with him. He knows that part of Canada intimately and regales us with plenty of stories that let us feel as if we have actually been there ourselves, if we have not had the pleasure. This is why parliaments are essential. They bring people from different parts of the country together to discuss where there is overlap and interest but where there is also disagreement.

A well-functioning Parliament is essential to a well-functioning country. Sometimes I wish this Parliament would function a little better. There are a number of measures before the House, either motions or private members' bills, that I encourage everyone in the House to look at, because we need to make this place work a little better.

I am happy to say that we are supporting Bill C-15 at second reading. We favour devolution for the Northwest Territories. They have pushed for it for a long time, and I am happy to see that we are at least going part of the way to getting this right at the moment. However, there are a number of problems we have with the bill, as my colleagues have pointed out in their speeches. We are looking forward to discussing them at committee.

My colleagues here today have offered a robust discussion on the details of the bill, although it would have been nice to have had more comments and speeches from the other parts of the House, because what we are here to do is share and deliberate. Perhaps some of the questions from the other side will help us work through this a little more today.

There are two things I would like to do in my short time. One is to continue what my colleague, the member for Welland, was speaking about, which was the idea of devolution and what it means. To talk about it in normative terms, what is it we try to accomplish by devolving? What are the themes, and what would we look at to determine whether devolution is a success or a failure? Second, if I have time, I will also look at the Yukon, which has been devolved for many decades now. There are lessons we can learn from that territory that perhaps we could transfer to the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, if you have free time on Friday night, there is an article you may want to peruse. It is titled “Assessing Devolution in the Canadian North: A Case Study of the Yukon Territory”, by Alcantara, Cameron, and Kennedy. It is from the academic journal Arctic, Volume 65 No. 3, published in September 2002. They actually have a very good case study. They conducted many interviews in the Yukon to ask a number of essential questions and to assess how successful the Yukon had been in devolving its powers. I recommend that to you, Mr. Speaker, and anyone else in the House. Sometimes the ivory tower can be useful, and in this case, it does give a good perspective.

What is devolution? All countries have constitutions, and constitutions lay out who has the ability to distribute resources and make rules. They distribute power within a country. However, if we remove the constitution and just say that we have a whole bunch of people living on a particular land mass, how would we write the rules that would determine who makes decisions?

In some ways, devolution is a reaction to our current constitutional situation. The provinces and the federal government are enshrined in our Constitution. They are actually given, under sections 91 and 92, the statutory authority from the Queen of Canada to execute laws and distribute resources in Canada.

In some ways, territories are not unlike municipalities. Sometimes that offends people, so I want to be clear that, constitutionally, provinces are recognized. They devolve power to the municipalities. Constitutionally, of course, the federal national government is recognized. It devolves power to the territories. However, there are some real differences between territories and municipalities, and there should be. Territories are much more like provinces in nature. For example, as we are seeing in this bill, they have more control over resources, such as a 50% split in the determination of resource revenues, whereas municipalities have much less power.

However, in nature they are similar because both territories and municipalities are not masters of their own fate. Where a province has certain constitutional powers to determine what they want to do without interference from the federal government, territories do not have that luxury.

When the federal government decides what kinds of powers it is going to devolve to territories, and provinces decide what kinds of powers they are going to devolve to municipalities, we have to make sure that the local population is getting the powers and the resources it needs to do the work it needs to do at the local level.

As my colleague from Welland pointed out, devolution has been a major theme around the world, especially in the United Kingdom, for many decades. I had the opportunity when I was living in the U.K. from 1997 to around 2002 to watch as New Labour decided to move ahead with a very aggressive devolution agenda. For example, we had the Good Friday Agreement, which was signed and devolved some powers in Northern Ireland. Considerable powers were also devolved to the Scottish and Welsh legislatures, as well as the City of London, which is treated more in some ways like a province than a city these days.

There was a lot of negotiation about who would get what powers and where. The power to make the change is still with the Queen and with the U.K. Parliament, however these local bodies have become much more autonomous and independent. Universally, across the United Kingdom, this is a good thing. Local people have much more control over their own lives through their own legislatures.

I think devolution continues to be a popular idea, and it should be because, in general, devolution is a good thing. Why would we devolve? What are some of the normative reasons why we might devolve power to a lower level or a government that is closer to the people?

One of the first arguments as to why we would do this is that it increases efficiency. We have heard this from the other side of the House. It does appear in the academic literature. If, for example, there were no territorial government in the Northwest Territories, that would mean all the decisions made in the north would be made from right here in Ottawa. We would debate what is best for northerners with a couple of representatives here in the House, and the vast majority of people who do not live in the north would be making decisions for the north.

That is why a devolved legislature with distinct powers in the north is essential. It allows northerners to make decisions about their own lives. The extent to which these decisions can be made, the decisions that are determined by the federal government and/or the NWT government, is what is at the core of what we are discussing here, both in this act and I am sure, in subsequent acts as we move to devolve more powers.

The argument is that sub-national authorities, here territorial governments, are better positioned to access and make use of local knowledge and context when they are making decisions. If there were no Northwest Territories government and I was asked every few days to make a decision for people in the north, I would feel unprepared to do that, because I have not visited.

This is why it is so great that there is a very well-functioning legislature there. Devolution would lead to more efficiency within government. Therefore, efficiency is one reason to do it.

The second reason is that, most importantly, devolution encourages government responsiveness. Local people can hold local representatives to account. The more power that these local politicians and local governments have, the more people will take interest and participate in their own governance.

I will close by looking at voter turnout, for example in the NWT. In the late 1990s, it was around 70%. It was around 60% in the 2000s. Northerners are already very engaged in their own governance. I think devolving will increase interest in governance in the Northwest Territories, and for that reason alone it is a grand idea to devolve powers.

However, I wish that the government would debate more on this. I hope that it will encourage discussion and witnesses to come forward so that we can make sure that we get it right the first time around. This one has been a long time coming. We do not want to wait another 20 or 30 years before we do it again. We have to get it right, now.

I implore the government to at least listen to our side of the House as we move forward with the bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-15, which is the Northwest Territories devolution implementation bill.

I think the short title does not reflect what the bill is really all about. The bill is really 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.

The bill would do a lot, and I think it is important, in the debate we are having in this House today and then at committee, to truly look at all of the implications that Bill C-15 would bring forward.

As my colleague for Welland mentioned earlier, it is truly important that we get this bill right, especially for the people of the Northwest Territories who have been working toward gaining province-like powers for decades. That is why members have heard from many of my colleagues today that the NDP is in support of the bill and of the Northwest Territories taking over some federal responsibilities in the north. Truly, who knows best about the territory and area? The people of the Northwest Territories do. They are the ones who should be deciding on how their resources ought to be used, and ultimately the authority should rest with them.

This brings up a few questions that we, as New Democrats, would like to see answered today or in committee.

First, considering that many first nations in the Northwest Territories are strongly objecting to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, why are the Conservatives ignoring these concerns and pressing ahead with the creation of a superboard?

This is a type of question that we definitely need to have answered. If we cannot get it answered today, it is something that will need to be asked in committee.

As we heard earlier from our Conservative colleagues, the creation of a superboard is for efficiency. Well, a superboard may not always be efficient if we do not bring forward the will, needs, wants and requests of all of the citizens of the Northwest Territories. We already know that many of the first nation groups within the Northwest Territories have some concerns.

I am hoping, through this debate and the opportunity in committee after second reading, that we can start getting some of these questions answered.

Another question: Considering the massive revamp the bill represents, why did the Conservatives reserve control over appointments to the environmental review board and main control over approval of licences?

Right off the top, I was talking about the importance of devolution and of the citizens and Government of the Northwest Territories having the control and ultimate say over their resources, their land and their territories. However, with Bill C-15, the government is saying, “We can give you some, but all of those requirements are now going to fall right back to the minister”.

I think this is a question we need to get an answer to so that we can ensure we are doing this right.

For myself, coming from a resource-based community in northern Ontario, the great riding of Sudbury, that conversation comes up often. Why do we not have more say over the resources that are coming out of our ground in Sudbury? It is a conversation that many of my municipal councillors have with the province and that the province has with the feds. This is something we need to look at and ensure that conversation happens.

This begs the question then: Is it not premature to bring forward changes to the environmental review board creating a single superboard and eliminating the regional land and water boards before the completion of the land claims that are happening right now in the Northwest Territories?

Again, these are questions that need to be answered and we are hoping that this debate will allow for more of that.

Let us look at a bit of the history. The negotiations concluded with the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada in March 2013, and the Legislative Assembly voted to approve the final agreement on June 5, 2013. There were several first nations, Métis, and Inuit organizations that all took part in signing the devolution final agreement on June 25. The agreement gives the Northwest Territories residents a greater voice in decisions about how public land, water, and resources are managed, how the economy is developed, and how the environment is protected.

If this is coming from the Government of Northwest Territories and the citizens of Northwest Territories, it is incumbent upon us, as federal parliamentarians, to work together to ensure that we have the debate to allow for them to have more of a say in lands, minerals, and development. That is why we have some concerns on this side of the House. We have some concerns when superboards are the ones that will be making the decisions or when the minister has the final say in appointments to these superboards. We cannot put the power in one person when it is representing such a large area with so many people.

Among other things that are important to mention is that the results of public engagement in the proposed Northwest Territories lands and resource devolution agreement were based on more than 40 public and stakeholder meetings in all regions of the Northwest Territories during April and May of this year. Forty public and stakeholder meetings is fantastic when we think about the involvement, by the Northwest Territories government, of its citizens on this issue.

Unfortunately, in this House, with the current government, too many times we have seen the elimination of public consultation and the reduction of stakeholder consultation. We bring certain issues to committee and listen to witnesses and testimony from stakeholders and citizens. They give testimony on how to make things work better and how to make a bill function within the laws of the land. What ends up happening in committee is that those ideas that are brought forward are not heard by the government members. The government will bring forward amendments, and its amendments pass. When we bring forward amendments on this side of the House, after listening to the testimony of our witnesses and stakeholders and putting in hours of work and research, they are sloughed off to officials to slam down. The next thing we know, they are defeated.

It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that we create bills, legislation, and laws that do the right thing so that we only have to do it once. Creating amendments all the time should be the exception, not the norm. However, what we see right now is amendment after amendment having to be presented, because unfortunately, what we have seen is the current government not always putting forward the best legislation but putting forward legislation that is based on a lot of politics.

Right now we have the opportunity in this House, in this debate, and in committee to make sure that the people of the Northwest Territories have that say, that they have the opportunity to have those powers to make sure that they are looking after their communities, families, and citizens. It is a great land. The member for Western Arctic talks often about the great people in his riding and the work he does for them. I am very proud to be able to work with the MP for Western Arctic on several issues when it comes to small businesses, tourism, and consumer affairs.

With that, I look forward to continuing the conversation during the question and answer period about the importance of this bill and the importance of devolution to the Northwest Territories.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

No. This is in the way you formerly put it: this is another step. The agreement clearly provides for us to review the operation of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act within five years and to take stock of the progress we've made then. This is a continuing relationship between the federal government and the Northwest Territories government, which will evolve. With the benefit of this strong, efficient, effective regulatory regime that Bill C-15 will hopefully put in place, the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories will greatly benefit from this devolution of responsibility to themselves so that they finally become the architects of their own economic and social development.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

When you talk about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the role of the federal government, all responsible ministers will make decisions under C-15, and that includes the territorial minister. What you don't seem to grasp is that the devolution agreement has provided an instrument whereby the federal minister, the Government of Canada, will delegate to a minister of the territorial government certain powers under the devolution agreement. It was agreed to in chapter 3 of the devolution agreement.

If you look specifically at 3.17, you will find that Canada will delegate to the Government of the Northwest Territories the ability to approve the issuance of certain water licences; hold money as security to make sure that land and water users follow the rules; choose land and water inspectors; keep track of the effects of land and water use over time; and coordinate environmental assessment decisions under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

In addition to what was already agreed—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Minister, you know that the federal lands remain under federal control. But for the lands in the Yukon that are under territorial control, those decisions are made by territorial governments. Under Bill C-15 the development approvals for the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board will go through the minister of the crown. Is that not the case?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

With all due respect to the statement of information you just made, the Yukon board is a federal board, just like it will be in this proposal. For your information, in case you don't know, the appointments to the Yukon boards are made by this minister, just as proposed to happen with the Northwest Territories.

I've heard you make statements about the impact of these amendments. In all fairness to the proposal and to the people who have listened to you, what you have omitted to tell them is that Bill C-15 implements a devolution agreement that was negotiated with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the aboriginal parties over a long period of time.

Just as in every other province and territory, the federal government will keep the power to participate and do environmental assessments, because we will still hold lands and we must have the power to protect the best interests of Canada. If we did not do it for the Northwest Territories, it would be the only jurisdiction in the country where the federal government would be deprived of that power.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing before us today. I'll start by saying that in September of this year I wrote you a letter asking the department to consider separating these two bills and presenting them to Parliament. The only answer I received was that of the bill arriving in Parliament two days ago.

This issue of these two bills proceeding at the same time has caused a lot of division and confusion in the Northwest Territories, and certainly many of those first nations groups that you mentioned were supporting devolution now are not supporting the recommendations made about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That's a statement.

I want to talk a little about some of the things that you talked about. I want to stick with the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, because it is the contentious part of this legislation. You said in your speech yesterday, “For those who may be skeptical about what this bill can achieve, look no further than the Yukon to see the benefits that devolution and a modern regulatory system can have on an economy”.

Fair enough, but in the Yukon, the process of assessment approval of course depends on whose land the proposed project is on. If it's under the jurisdiction of the territorial government, then that body makes the decision on the approval process. In Bill C-15 we have a problem that already existed in the environmental audit for the Northwest Territories in 2010, when they said that most of the problems with environmental assessments were showing up when getting approval from the minister. In Bill C-15, the minister of the crown is the one who continues to make the approvals on environmental assessments under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

So now we have a situation whereby one government is in charge of land and administration, environmental issues, and the federal government retains full control over the decision-making for development projects.

Can you explain how this is going to modernize the system when all you've done is change it very slightly?

It's certainly not in the model put forward 10 years ago for the Yukon territory.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising today to speak to Bill C-15. I would like to first indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

I would like to begin my speech in the chamber today by first congratulating the member for Western Arctic, who has done an immense amount of work on this file and represents his constituents very well. I would like to mention, most notably, his private member's bill in the House that he presented to increase the borrowing power of the Northwest Territories. He has worked tirelessly in the House to represent his constituents and ensure that the Northwest Territories develop in ways that are sustainable and to increase the ability of his constituents to participate in their own democracy.

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, other acts and certain orders and regulations. The short title of this bill is the “devolution implementation bill”. The length of the title of the bill is an indicator of the length of the bill itself, a 240 page omnibus bill. Preparing for this speech, I went through many cups of coffee. As I will mention later, it is customary for the government to present omnibus bills in the House.

I would also like to congratulate Robert McLeod, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, for his work on this file as well.

Before delving into the content of this bill, I would like to briefly talk about the process and the form of it. As I mentioned, this is a 240 page omnibus bill. The Conservative government in this case has lumped issues that are less contentious in the bill, issues that the opposition parties could actually get on board with, such as devolution, with issues that are a bit more contentious, including the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects in part 4 of the bill.

Unfortunately, rather than separating these parts of the bill in order to get the support of opposition parties, the government put them into the same bill. This has occurred in other bills and it is the common practice of the Conservative government, which has not behaved in a very democratic way in Parliament. We saw this occur in the case of Bill C-13, the cyberbullying bill protecting Canadians from the online crime act, which was introduced by the justice minister last week.

The bill would stipulate up to five years in prison for individuals who published intimate images of people without their express permission and would also give police greater ability to investigate cyberbullying. This is something the opposition parties could get on board with, especially as we have seen these tragic cases of teenagers being cyberbullied across the country, with tragic results.

However, Bill C-13 includes measures that are completely unrelated to cyberbullying. It includes measures on terrorism, organized crime and hate propaganda. It gives police greater leeway to access online communications and contains provisions for jail sentences of up to two years for poaching cable and satellite TV transmissions. It is hard to see how these measures directly relate to the issue of cyberbullying. It is another cynical move by the Conservatives to try to push through their agenda in these bills that the opposition, unfortunately, cannot agree with wholeheartedly.

I will now discuss the content of Bill C-15. As we know, this bill has four parts. Part 1 would enact the Northwest Territories Act, implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resource Devolution Agreement and amend and repeal other acts and certain orders and regulations. Essentially, the Northwest Territories Act is the territories' foundational act. Part 1 would transfer powers to regulate oil and gas pipelines from the federal government to the territorial government as long as these remained onshore.

Part 2 would amend the Territorial Lands Act, part 3 would amend the Northwest Territories Waters Act and part 4 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As we have heard from my colleagues on the NDP side, this is the part that is the most contentious, perhaps, and this is the section that replaces regional management boards with a single 11-member board.

Those listening at home and those in my home province of Quebec might be interested to know that the Northwest Territories actually has responsibilities similar to provinces. In the late 1980s, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories government also has responsibility over education, social services, highways and airport administration, which are roles that would normally be considered to be under provincial jurisdiction.

This process has been ongoing throughout the history of the Northwest Territories, beginning with the Carruthers Commission in 1966, which actually moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats to Yellowknife. There is a history that leads up to the nineties, in which there were many constitutional development caucuses in the north, so this is a debate that has been going on for decades.

The NDP is in favour of devolution. This is actually the part of the bill we would support. As I explained, the people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like power for decades. I would support the Northwest Territories in taking over federal responsibilities in the north. This is because we believe that the Northwest Territories knows best how its resources ought to be used, and ultimate authority should rest with the Northwest Territories. I commend the Premier, Bob McLeod, for his work.

However, there are many contentious issues with Bill C-15, so we would expect the government side to listen to our suggestions in committee and to amend the bill in order to take into account the expectations of northerners and to address some of the concerns that were raised around the Conservatives' move to lump in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The role of committee is crucial to the bill, and the Conservatives should benefit from committee and bring in experts and stakeholders and actually amend the bill so that it has wide consensus from those whom it concerns.

At this point we are concerned with the government's previous inability to make amendments to bills in committee. Notably there is the case of the Conservatives actually rejecting an amendment from the opposition side. That was an amendment concerning a grammatical mistake that was found in a bill, but they categorically objected to this amendment simply because it came from the opposition. Following that, the Conservatives had to bring forward the amendment again to change the small grammatical error in the bill.

We would actually expect the government members to listen to opposition members and to testimony, instead of governing with their ears and eyes closed to those who would propose constructive changes to the legislation.

Part 4 of the bill, the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects, we find contentious. On this point I would like to refer to the speech in this House of my colleague from the Western Arctic, in which he raised important concerns with this part of the bill: “There has been no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision”. We do see that the Conservative government is trying to ram through its agenda without actually giving an adequate say to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I will finish by citing the importance of taking into account the specific realities of the Northwest Territories in considering the bill, namely the presence of many aboriginal peoples in the north. Also, as my colleagues have raised, one of the main problems concerning land and water use certainty is the lack of progress in aboriginal land claim settlements.

We would raise that as a point, one which we could possibly discuss at committee. I would like to support the bill in principle. I would like to support the idea of devolution and giving the Northwest Territories more power, although I have serious concerns with the content of the bill and would suggest that the government accept our amendments during committee stage.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

When things are going well, I'm the reason, and when things are going badly, they are to blame, of course.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. I appreciate the invitation to appear on the proposed legislation, which I had the pleasure of introducing in the House and speaking to at second reading earlier this week.

Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act is the final step for the federal government in devolving powers to the Northwest Territories. This legislation would bring into effect the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, which would provide the people of the Northwest Territories with the ability to make their own decisions about lands and resources in their own backyard.

I had the privilege of signing the final Devolution Agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada in Inuvik this past June, along with the Premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as five of our aboriginal partners in the Northwest Territories—Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, Gwich'in Tribal Council and Tlicho Government.

As you know, we continue to work toward a target effective date of April 1, 2014, as requested by the Premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories and agreed to by the Prime Minister and all parties to the Devolution Agreement.

Bill C-15 would also modernize and improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories by amending the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Territorial Lands Act.

As I just said, Bill C-15 would also modernize and improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories by amending three specific acts: the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, and the Territorial Lands Act.

I wish to assure the members of this committee that we are confident this bill, as a whole, would ensure that a modern, efficient, and effective land and water regulatory system is in place when the Government of the Northwest Territories assumes increased responsibilities in respect of lands, waters, and resources by the target devolution date, effective April 1, 2014.

Our government and the Government of the Northwest Territories agree that changes brought about by Bill C-15 would ensure that northerners benefit fully from the transfer of management over lands and resources post-April 2014.

Members of this committee are already well versed, I believe, in the benefits of regulatory improvements such as the ones proposed in Bill C-15. I say this because not long ago we reviewed together—and you reviewed in detail—Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, which implemented reforms to Nunavut's regulatory regime, among other pieces of legislation.

It is vitally important, we submit, that the Northwest Territories not fall behind the other two territories, or the rest of the country for that matter, in its regulatory system. The need for regulatory reform becomes even more apparent as territories acquire increased authorities and responsibilities. An effective, responsive, and modern regulatory regime ensures that the territories—specifically, in the case of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories—will be poised to benefit fully from increased resource development and local management of lands and resources resulting from devolution.

The introduction of a modern regime in the Northwest Territories will also meet the needs of investors, developers, and employers who must rely on a clear and predictable review and assessment process to remain competitive in a global marketplace given the high cost of business in the north.

Just last week the Government of the Northwest Territories released their first ever mineral development strategy, which I recommend all members to read and look at. It speaks to the tremendous potential of the Northwest Territories to become an economic powerhouse and to the wealth of mineral resources in the territory.

The Government of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman, further states that in order to address investment challenges and unlock the potential, they need a solid regulatory framework in place. If I may, I'd like to quote Minister Ramsay from the Government of the Northwest Territories, who said “Restoring a positive investment climate in the NWT is critical if we are to discover new deposits and establish new mines...”.

The legislative amendments proposed in the Northwest Territories Devolution Act respond to these criticisms that have been raised for many years now, and will position the Northwest Territories to take advantage of the many economic opportunities in the region in a sustainable and responsible manner.

As many of you know, five years ago our government appointed Mr. Neil McCrank to look into these very issues and identify potential reforms for northern regulatory regimes. Based on his recommendations, our government announced the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

The action plan was launched to make improvements to the existing regulatory regimes across the north to ensure that they are strong, effective, efficient, and predictable by making reviews of projects more predictable and timely; reducing duplication for project reviews; strengthening environmental protection; and finally, respecting consultation obligations with aboriginal groups.

Consultations on the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, including legislative amendments to the regulatory regime in the territories, have been ongoing since 2010.

In addition, our government appointed John Pollard to consult with aboriginal organizations on the possibility of restructuring the land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley. Since that time, Mr. Pollard has held over 50 consultation meetings with aboriginal groups and organizations, co-management boards, and industry.

As you can see, we didn't arrive at the bill before you overnight. Rather, the bill you see before you today is the product of extensive consultations. These consultations involved all of the boards affected by the proposed amendments, because as you all know, some boards are indeed affected. The consultations involved industry stakeholders and representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Aboriginal organizations with and without settled land claims in the territory, as well as those with relevant trans-boundary claims in the territory also participated. In all, 24 aboriginal organizations were invited to participate in the technical consultation sessions and funds were made available to assist them in doing so.

As the consultation progressed, additional policy issues and other pieces of legislation were also considered. Eventually, final legislative proposals took shape and these became the focus of technical consultation sessions ending in October of this year. Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act, is the result of this process.

At these sessions, some participants expressed specific concerns about the proposed amendments, and the Government of Canada carefully considered these comments in the bill before you and incorporated a number of these recommended measures as a direct result of those technical sessions. For example, Bill C-15 requires that the chair of the restructured Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board consider including at least one regional nominee on smaller committees when reviewing development wholly within those regions. This amendment, first proposed by one of the aboriginal organizations that participated in the consultations, is an example of the collaboration, feedback, and accommodation that produced Bill C-15.

Another recommendation led to the redrafting of development certificate provisions to further align the proposal with similar provisions in the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, NPPAA. I think it will be evident to the committee that adoption of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act is imperative to empower the people of the Northwest Territories to shape their own future, and will ensure the long-term economic prosperity of the territory and indeed of all of Canada.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you, and I will do my best to answer members' questions.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15.

I want to say at the outset that my voice is a bit rough today. The NDP had a great party last night, with live music and great sociability. It went into the wee hours. I think everybody is feeling a bit rough this morning, but it was a good time to get together. Here we are back in the House this morning, ready to debate whatever is before us, so I am very pleased to speak to the bill.

I want to commend my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, who spoke just before me. She and I are both from metro Vancouver, so we represent ridings in Canada that are very urban. We face urban issues around affordability of housing, citizenship and immigration, poverty, transportation, infrastructure, and so on. We have a lot in common in terms of our ridings and the fact that we are both part of the metro Vancouver region.

However, I want to say that even though we are members of Parliament from the urban area, we have a sense of connection with our colleagues who represent ridings in the North, and certainly our colleague from the Western Arctic, who is the main critic on the bill we are debating today. When we visit other ridings and other communities with our colleagues, it is quite fascinating to learn about the experiences, the history, the culture, and the life conditions in those communities.

On the one hand, there are really vast differences, but on the other hand, there are incredible similarities. Every time I have visited the Northwest Territories, whether it has been Yellowknife or smaller communities, I have always been struck by how different the scene is from my community in Vancouver East, which is very densely populated. There there are 120,000 people living there. We have communities like the Downtown Eastside and historic neighbourhoods like Chinatown and Gastown. In the Northwest Territories, we are looking at communities that are hundreds and thousands of miles apart, communities that are very self-sufficient because they have to be. They have to deal with the very harsh elements in the North, yet when I get to know people and talk with our member from Western Arctic, we find that we are dealing with similar issues.

I know, for example, that one of the issues my colleague from Western Arctic has tackled in a very passionate way is the living costs in the Northwest Territories, an issue that I think is very relevant to the bill we are debating today.

In fact, he produced a 53-page report in November, just last month. In that report, he lays out, with great analysis and factual information, the concern of increasing income inequality in the Northwest Territories. That is an issue I face in my riding as well. Income inequality is growing between the haves and the have-nots.

He identifies that one of the key factors in the high cost of living in the Northwest Territories is the high price of food, particularly in smaller communities.

When I visited Yellowknife, I was very curious about this issue, so I went to the supermarket in Yellowknife, checking out the prices for milk, eggs, cheese, and vegetables and trying to compare them with my own community in East Vancouver. I was really surprised that there really was not that much difference. I remember saying to my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, “The prices are not too bad. Everything is available”. Then he said to me, “Wait until you get to the smaller communities. You'll see an incredible difference”.

In fact, in his report, he documents that a family of four in Yellowknife would be paying about $11,000 for food, but the cost of the same basket of food in a smaller community further north could increase by 13% to 210%. That really gives us an idea of what people are facing in the north. For example, the member for Western Arctic points out in his report that the same basket of food that costs $11,000 in Yellowknife would cost a family in Colville Lake more than $21,000.

It gives us an appreciation of how difficult it is, particularly for people who live on a low income. There are some people making good money in the resource industry, but there are people who are struggling to make ends meet. I know the member has frequently, in the House on behalf of his constituents, raised issues of, for example, the nutrition north food program and his concern that it is actually making food prices higher not lower. He has raised these issues frequently in the House. He has also raised issues around the cleanup of Giant Mine in Yellowknife, as recently as just a couple of weeks ago here in the House of Commons.

I would echo the words of my colleague from Newton—North Delta who spoke about the member for Western Arctic and his passion for representing northern interests and the interests of his constituents. When he presented his comments about Bill C-15, the bill that we are debating today, we were very interested to know what his thoughts were. Therefore, my comments today are very much based on the expertise, experience and knowledge of the member for Western Arctic who was elected in 2006. He was the mayor in Fort Smith, a small community in the Northwest Territories, from 1988 to 1997, so this is an individual who is very grounded in the local community. I have seen the member in action and how people know him and interact with him. His take on the bill and the expression of how we feel about the bill come from a place of immense knowledge and experience, and that is something that we very much rely on and trust.

As my earlier colleagues have said, we do support the bill in principle. That's what we are here debating today, second reading, which is the bill in principle. We have to examine the bill and determine whether the principles of the bill are enough that we think it should go forward to committee. Certainly for us in the NDP, the official opposition, we believe that the bill has made progress in terms of devolution from the federal government to the Northwest Territories. Therefore, it should be supported in principle. However, when it gets to committee there are numerous issues that would need to be looked at.

To look at the bill historically, we know that over the decades there has been a transfer of powers from Ottawa to individual territories, and that is a good and very important thing. In fact, the last major devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories was in the late 1980s, so it is not that long ago when jurisdiction over education, health care, transport and renewable resources such as forestry and wildlife were transferred.

The current process would transfer administration and control of public lands, resources and rights in respect to the waters of the Northwest Territories. That is obviously a major advance because the Northwest Territories is a very special place in our country. It is a place that is fragile. It is a place that has a history of people being close to the land, of people respecting the land and the environment, and understanding that the extraction of natural resources must be done in a way that is sustainable and protects future generations. Therefore, the bill before us, Bill C-15, which would move into the area of the devolution process dealing with natural resources, is obviously a key milestone for the people of the Northwest Territories, and the Government of the Northwest Territories has been supportive of this.

It is quite interesting to note that until this devolvement goes through, the Northwest Territories does not receive any revenues from resource development, and in fact it has to still rely on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. That is something that really is outdated. We need to ensure that the Northwest Territories and its government, which is duly elected by the people of the Northwest Territories, has control over not only things such as health, education, transport and renewable resources, but also over natural resources.

Bill C-15 does address that. Under the bill the Government of the Northwest Territories would keep 50% of the revenues collected from resource development on public land up to a certain maximum, and then the Government of Canada would retain the remainder. This tells us that it really does not go far enough at this point. It is not a total devolution. Nevertheless, it is a milestone and based on the consultation that has been done, we think it is something that is worthy of support.

It is a complex agreement. It will require the amendment of 42 different pieces of legislation. That is a lot to take on. In fact, my colleague who spoke earlier pointed out that the member for Western Arctic has advocated and is suggesting that the bill should be split because there are concerns about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There are some major components in the bill that require very critical examination at committee. It would be a proper course of action to have the bill split.

Having said that, we have a very familiar pattern with the Conservative government where it likes to load everything up into omnibus bills and come up with these huge reports that one has to wade through. That is done deliberately. The Conservatives do not want transparency and proper scrutiny. How many times have we seen time allocation on bills?

Here today, we are debating this bill, a very important bill to the people of the Northwest Territories, yet other parties are absent from the debate. I find that quite incredible. The NDP is carrying forward the debate because New Democrats think it is important. We think it needs to be debated and aired in public and some of the issues addressed in public, before it is sent to committee. That is what we are here for. That is our primary job, to debate legislation in the House of Commons, to examine it and to hold the government to account. Bill C-15 would amend 42 other pieces of legislation. There may have been consultation and the government may feel there has been adequate scrutiny, but the House of Commons is elected to do due diligence. That is what we are doing here today.

One of our key concerns is that as a result of the devolution agreement, the amendments would replace the current structure of the regional land and water boards that have been created through the land claim final agreements. It was a very major process that was undertaken a number of years ago. This new devolution agreement would supercede that and replace the regional land and water boards with one single board. Immediately, that should raise some concerns because when there are regional land and water boards that means there is local representation on those boards. It means there are people who understand local issues in a vast territory. The idea that we could now rely on a single board that would be able to scrutinize what is going on is a tall order. This is something the member for Western Arctic has expressed concern about and something we would like to see addressed in the committee.

The amendments also reserve to the federal minister the approval of all land and water usage in the Northwest Territories, which would circumvent the powers transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories through the devolution process. There is a bit of a contradiction there. We have devolution, yet the federal minister is still maintaining approval of all land and water usage. There is obviously a lot more to be done.

We hope that when the bill is sent to committee and the NDP brings forward amendments that those amendments would actually be considered on their merit.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to speak about that. I am on the health committee and I know that when we have had bills come forward, even private members' bills that were fairly straightforward, every single time that we sought amendments to improve the bill, not for some political exercise but to simply improve the bill, they have been voted down. Again, in talking to my colleagues, I know that this is basically what happens at every single committee. The Conservative members can act in a very arrogant way. It does not matter what amendment is put forward; it is shut down.

A bill such as this has far-reaching powers for future generations in terms of the way the Northwest Territories government can operate on behalf of its people. With the bill, particularly because it amends 42 different pieces of legislation, the process at committee of hearing witnesses and considering amendments will be especially important.

To my colleagues across the way, I really hope that when the bill gets to committee, they will actually consider amendments in the light that the bill could be improved. There are concerns that have been expressed, particularly from first nations. Through the parliamentary process, the democratic process and the committee process, and through hearing witnesses and expert testimony, I hope that some of the concerns in the bill can be addressed.

I hope that there is a commitment that the Conservatives will do this in good faith, and that we do not just see a repeat of what we have become so used to. It is really so disrespectful of the parliamentary process to dismiss whatever amendments are put forward.

In terms of the support for the bill, because it has gone through a process in the Northwest Territories, there are people who certainly support devolution. In fact, I would quote Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, who said:

We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning....

I would also quote Robert McLeod, who is the Premier of the Northwest Territories. He said:

This Assembly has a vision of a strong, prosperous and sustainable territory. Devolution is the path to that future. Responsibility for our lands and resources is the key to unlocking the economic potential that will provide opportunities to all our residents.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories made that statement in June of this year as the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories approved the agreement.

We also have the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who pointed out that it is a very “historic agreement and one which will provide the Northwest Territories with the long-awaited and rightful ability to manage and control public lands”.

However, there are still voices that need to be heard of the people who have concerns about the agreement. For example, Jake Heron, from the Métis Nation, in speaking about the consultation process, said:

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.

As this agreement was being negotiated, obviously there were concerns being expressed. We have the same from an MLA in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Bromley, who said:

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.

There are clearly concerns out there.

In the time that I have remaining, I would like to underscore the NDP's support for the bill in principle at second reading. We are committed to working in good faith at the committee level to hear from people in the Northwest Territories and from experts who were part of this process. We are committed to making sure that this agreement is what it should be, that it is something that the people of the Northwest Territories can live with into the future and will address their concerns and allow them the measure of self-determination that we in the NDP all believe in.

Whether it is Quebec, the Northwest Territories or the first nations, we believe that people have the right to their own determination. Fundamentally, that is what this bill is about. Therefore, we will support it. However, we will work hard to ensure the bill lives up to those expectations.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech.

I would also like to remind members that the last devolution to the Northwest Territories took place in the late 1980s. Thus, it has taken the government more than 30 years to introduce Bill C-15.

As my colleague mentioned, the NDP is obviously in favour of the transfer of powers and is working to put more power in the hands of the Northwest Territories. However, my colleague mentioned the Mackenzie Valley, which raises some concerns.

Could she speak further about her concerns regarding the Mackenzie Valley?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of 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.

Before I actually start on the content of the bill, I want to take a minute to say what a stellar representative the Western Arctic has in its member of Parliament. This member is also the critic for the western Arctic. It is hard to imagine a person who devotes more time to representing a constituency. He exudes the love he has for the north. For many people in the House, he is a role model as a parliamentarian. We commend him for the amazing work he does. Yes, we come here to debate, but he realizes that one of the primary roles we have as parliamentarians is to bring our constituents' concerns and advocate for our ridings right here in the House. He is a stellar representative for the true north strong and free. I notice that this has made it into the news again, so I thought I would use it here.

I am speaking in support of second reading. I am very proud of the fact that both our critic and the leader of the official opposition, my leader, have committed to NDP support for the bill. We believe in devolution.

I also want to commend the leadership in the Northwest Territories for the amazing work they have done, specifically the premier, but also those who have gone before him, to advocate for the north breaking away from colonial shackles, so to speak, and moving toward self-governance.

The people of the Northwest Territories have worked hard for many years toward gaining more province-like powers. We have 10 provinces and our territories. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Northwest Territories, but I have to say that it was in the summer. I can honestly say I had an amazing tour of the Northwest Territories. I met such amazing people. They were very friendly and outgoing. However, the people do not have the same kinds of rights as Canadians who live in the provinces. They wonder why it is that in 2000, 2012, 2011, or 2013 they do not have the right of self-governance, the way the provinces do. They are not asking for more than the provinces. Their presentations have been very reasonable. Bill C-15 is a testimony to their hard work and advocacy.

We are way beyond the days when we thought we always knew what was good for the other person. I certainly hope so. One of the things we have learned as we have moved through history is that involving the people being governed, the people who live in an area, in decision-making is absolutely critical.

This is a step. I am not saying it goes all the way. I would like to have seen it go even further. It does not go all the way, but is a step in the right direction. That is why we are supporting it.

When it does get to committee stage, I know our critic is amazingly knowledgeable about this file. When I discussed this file with him yesterday, I found he already has ideas for amendments that would make this bill stronger and make it work for the Northwest Territories.

What does the bill do? There are a lot of people out there who would ask, “Did the Northwest Territories not already have the same rights as the provinces?” We in the House and in the north know they do not.

The bill rewrites the constitution of the Northwest Territories. It is the bill in this House that rewrites that constitution. That tells us a lot as well.

Unlike the provinces, the powers and authorities of the territories are set through federal legislation. We need to stop there and think about that for a moment, because here we are in 2013 and we have territories that still have their powers and rights totally under the federal government. That gives us some pause for concern.

However, there is always a silver lining in the clouds. Baby steps have been taken over the years, and some powers have already been devolved to the territories in such areas as education, health care, transport and renewable resources, specifically forestry and wildlife. These were all transferred in the 1980s.

When I look at the education system, at health care and transport in the Northwest Territories and at the limited resources that were allocated, I am truly impressed by the job it has done in this area. As of today, the Northwest Territories does not receive any revenues from resource development.

As we all know, the Northwest Territories is a rich territory. There is untold wealth that lies therein. However, for that existence and operating cost, the Northwest Territories has to rely on federal transfer payments. That in itself is a cause for some concern. There are some major issues with being totally dependent on another government to transfer money to run a state, province or territory.

In 2013, the Northwest Territories and five of the seven northwest aboriginal governments signed an agreement on the transfer of power around the devolution process. In order to implement the agreement we are here today. However, there are some flaws with this bill.

The government has a penchant for combining many things into one bill and then tries to push it through. It also tries to corner the opposition by putting in some good things and some not so good, and then say, “Gotcha”. In this bill, we do have major concerns. Our critic has pushed, and will continue to push, for the bill to be separated into two parts.

The first part of the bill is fairly straightforward. It makes changes to the Northwest Territories Act, an act that is virtually the constitution of the Northwest Territories, and all actions therefore under the Northwest Territories Act.

However, we have major concerns around the second part. That is because the second part brings in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It does away with the regional land and water boards created through land claim agreements with the first nations. They would now be replaced with a single superboard. That does cause some concern, because I have learned through my life experience that “when something ain't broke, don't fix it”.

This is one agreement, the MVRMA, that has worked incredibly well, and has been touted as a success story. With the new bill, it is not exactly clear that these negotiations would still happen in a year's time when they were scheduled, or whether this agreement is now subsumed and will fall under the superboard that has been created.

Members may not think that is really a big issue. It is there, and more power has been granted to the Northwest Territories, but I want them to know that the minister actually has the right to reject any member to the board, and that should give us cause for concern as well. We are saying the Northwest Territories will now have this board, but there is no consultation, power of veto or anything given to the Northwest Territories. The minister vests into himself the power to veto any nominee for this board, and that is a major concern.

I should not be surprised by this, because over and over again under the government we have seen more and more power being vested into the ministers' hands. We have seen it in environmental issues and in labour. I am very knowledgeable about the immigration file, where we have seen more and more power vested into the minister, so many changes can be made in the future without ever coming through this House or going through any parliamentary oversight. In this case, a board that was functioning well basically under this agreement does not really have any rights. A superboard is to be appointed where the minister actually has the final power to veto.

Not only that, but the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories also receives some pretty specific directions. This will really change things a little bit. Whereas the commissioner was moving more and more toward being similar to a lieutenant, governor general or ceremonial position, this legislation actually draws the commissioner right back into the fold of the federal government. Bill C-15, clause 4 states:

The Commissioner must act in accordance with any written instructions given to him or her by the Governor in Council or the minister.

A position that was moving toward a ceremonial position would now suddenly be there to dance to the tune of the Governor in Council or the minister, and once again, more and more power being put into the hands of the minister is causing us some major concerns.

None of these issues we are raising should be a surprise to the government, because it has heard some of these concerns before from different groups from the Northwest Territories. There were a number of other regional boards that existed. With this legislation, those other regional boards would also disappear. So there would be a number of regional boards that would now be replaced by a superboard of only 11 members. Those 11 members would be looking at the whole gamut of issues with the full spectrum. Included under that would be the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which works, as I said, but when something works, the government does not really like it, so it tries to topple that as well.

When it comes to appointments to the board, there is absolutely no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories built into the legislation. If that were built in—and I am sure our critic will try to correct that oversight—we could say that the territories had been heard and they would at least have a say. What would be wrong with providing that consultation to the Government of the Northwest Territories? These are very simple amendments that could set things right.

The Northwest Territories has had environmental audits done. We know that the government across the aisle does not really like audits that much, and I do not really blame it because audits often see it wanting. They do not validate the volume of words the Conservatives use in this House.

Now we have a situation whereby all this falls under the umbrella of that superboard, and the ultimate controller of that superboard, of course, is Ottawa.

We need one government in charge of making decisions, and that should be the Government of the Northwest Territories in consultation with and working together with the first nations, who have a right to land and resources in the Northwest Territories and who we want to have as complete partners in the development of the Northwest Territories.

That last sentence is a direct quote from my esteemed colleague from the Western Arctic. I could not think of saying it any better than he did. It is a very laudable goal and it should be achieved in this agreement, but as we know, it is not.

There have been letters—and I have a copy of one of them—that have been written by the first nations community, raising specific concerns around both the Mackenzie area and other parts of the bill. We have read these and are paying close attention to them because letter after letter points out to us that the first nations communities are seeing real problems. They are really worried that the authority of the minister and cabinet are being increased through the MVRMA amendments.

We do have serious concerns about the power being held by ministers and the control of the appointment of the board not being there.

What is it we are looking for on this side of the House? We are strong supporters of the devolution of more powers and authorities to the territorial governments, and at the same time we see the bill as a step in the right direction, but it has some major flaws that we will try to address.

Under the agreement, the Northwest Territories will keep 50% of the revenues, which is a good thing, but it is still not the same as the provinces. As I said, it is a step in the right direction, a huge victory for the hard-working people and leaders in the Northwest Territories, and a great credit to my colleague from Western Arctic. New Democrats would say that this bill is definitely taking us in the right direction.

The House resumed from December 4 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

Bill C-15 basically has two parts. There is the part on devolution, giving more powers to the Northwest Territories. The second part is the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I want to speak to both parts, as well as to some of the concerns and the jubilant responses we have heard so far.

The NDP has been advocating for devolution for many years. It is very unfortunate that the Liberals, for many years when they were in government, failed to give more real power to local authorities so they could manage their own resources and their own affairs at the local level. The Liberals and the Conservatives have failed for many years to do that.

We can talk about treaties. The Conservatives, except for a few, have basically failed to negotiate any sort of treaty with the first nations. Businesses like to have certainty. We know that where there is disputed land, where aboriginal rights are not being looked after, the development of the land and making useful use of that land is hindered, as is economic development. The Conservative government has not taken any steps to resolve those treaty issues with the first nations.

Devolution is a good thing that we will support. This will allow local government to make good decisions at the provincial and territorial levels. I will talk about the second component in a second.

If we want to see a prosperous northern Canada, it is important for us to work with not only the Northwest Territories government and other governments, including the Yukon government, but we need to involve other stakeholders, to ensure that all of their concerns are taken into account.

Looking at the Conservative government's record, it is pretty clear that it usually fails to consult all of the relevant parties and stakeholders that would bring valuable information into the making of legislation and would have a positive impact for those stakeholders.

I spoke about this earlier, but the Conservative government, on the consultation part, should actually listen to people and act on some of those things that make sense. At the committee stage, which is where, after there are initial speeches in House, we go to hear some expert testimony. We hear from academics and stakeholders who will be directly impacted by the legislation being considered.

What happens at the committees? We hear from the experts, who offer very valuable information, so we can make some amendments. However, time after time, the opposition offers amendments, consults with stakeholders and the Conservatives, and I will use the words of the independent member for Edmonton—St. Albert, act like trained seals. The Conservative members are told by the PMO what to do, who is going to vote and how they are going to be voting. Even grammatical changes that are pointed out by opposition members are not considered. That is the record of the Conservative government in regard to consultation.

I have a letter here that I would like to get entered into the record. This letter was written by the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, based in the Hay River Dene reserve in the Northwest Territories. It was written to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

The KFN continues to have three main concerns about the proposed changes to the MVRMA. Basically, the three concerns that they have are about the dismantling of the regional land and water boards, and about the establishment of fixed time limits for environmental assessment and regulatory approvals, and they also have some concerns about increased ministerial authority.

We have seen a trend here, whether it is with immigration, public safety or the Minister of Justice. It is no different in this bill. What the government has tried to do over the years, including the two and a half years that I have been here, is constantly to provide ministerial powers, taking them away from boards and people who are out on the ground, who actually consult and who live at the local level. The Conservatives have a habit of bringing in legislation that brings more and power to Ottawa.

I have talked about this. I have talked about more and more power for Conservative ministers, individuals, to make choices. We need to make sure that power is with the people. People at the local level make the right decisions.

We also saw this with the bill on InSite. The government wants to bring that power to Ottawa so that ministers can make the decisions, when we should be making them in the community. Let the communities decide, where the experts and health care professionals reside. The police and the RCMP live there and deal with these things on a daily basis. However that is for another time.

I know that some of the members are not happy about this, but it is the truth. The Conservative government has been trying to centralize powers to individual ministers. We have seen the mistakes that could be made with those kinds of powers.

There are many other concerns and there are some good comments with regard to devolution. There are a number of stakeholders, people from the Northwest Territories, who have welcomed changes for more powers to the Northwest Territories. They have been waiting for 50 years.

I know that my friends in the corner over there talk about one thing when they are not in government: they will talk about the things we talk about. However, when it comes to being in government, they totally ignore those things. That is the Liberal record.

We know how the Conservatives have dragged their feet on a number of aboriginal issues, whether it is education, housing for first nations or getting treaties with first nations so we can bring certainty to, live in harmony with and provide education for young people living on reserves. Unfortunately, the Conservative record is very poor. Actually it is not poor; I do not even have a word for it. I think if I did, it would not be parliamentary, so I would not say it. The Conservatives have a very poor record and they have failed to deliver for our first nations.

Canadians expect us to work together with first nations so that they can have education and clean water. Unfortunately, the record of the Conservative government is not there.

I know I do not have much time here. The devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories is a good thing. I hope that the Conservatives will listen to some of the concerns coming in from the Northwest Territories and that we can make some amendments at the committee stage.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The situation in parliament is quite sad. This government has had a majority for over two years, and it still very rarely accepts the amendments proposed by the opposition parties. That is sad.

In the past, other majority governments quite often accepted the amendments that came out of studies in committee and consultations with interest groups. That is not how it works now, and that is the problem.

Even though I think Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction, I am afraid that, unfortunately, this government will not accept the good amendments we suggest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. I do not agree with the premise of it, however, because at every major step during negotiations the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories undertook section 35 consultations with all aboriginal groups that were affected in the Northwest Territories. Bill C-15 was developed in consultation with those groups, northerners, the territorial government and industry. Certainly, that is reflected here today.

The member talked about complexity. What is not complex is that Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claim agreements each provide for a single land and water board in an area larger than the respective settlement areas. The restructured board division in Bill C-15 is in compliance with the settled land claim agreements and will continue with the co-management approach laid out in these agreements. Amendments to the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claims are not necessary. Since 2010, the chief federal negotiator has held over 50 consultation meetings with aboriginal groups and organizations, co-management boards and industry on this very issue.

Perhaps the member, given this new information, would agree with me that in fact the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories has certainly met the constitutional requirement to consult with first nations, our section 35 obligations, and that these land claim agreements specifically allow for the restructured board that is proposed in Bill C-15.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am clearly pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15 today. This bill gives the Government of the Northwest Territories more powers and makes other changes, which I will speak to later.

I am also pleased to bring a different viewpoint to the debate, one that we rarely have in the House, and that is the viewpoint of an aboriginal person who has negotiated agreements with the federal and provincial governments on behalf of his people.

When I read the bill, I could not help but look at it in the context of the work I did for the Cree of Eeyou Istchee and the people of northern Quebec.

The people of the Northwest Territories have been working for years toward gaining more province-like powers to have greater control over their own communities, their own resources, and their own destinies. This is very similar to what we did in northern Quebec, going back to the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975 and the Paix de Braves, and to the new regional governance agreement we signed not too long ago, which has created a new regional government that will be fully operational next month.

In these agreements, we worked with our neighbours and various levels of government to find common ground to protect our rights and interests and to create a common path forward. This is very difficult work that is full of complexities, but when done right, it creates a stable, prosperous environment that benefits everyone.

In the NDP, we talk a lot about restoring the relationship of equality between the Government of Canada and our country's aboriginal people from coast to coast to coast. The approach we took in northern Quebec has proven to be a success story for all involved. Everyone feels respected in that kind of environment.

That is what I had in mind when I read the government's bill. However, I have to say that although it proposes some worthwhile measures and is a step in the right direction, we do not feel that it goes far enough, unfortunately. An NDP government would have done more and would have given more power to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The bill, as proposed, would make some changes that are of concern to the people of the region. In drafting this bill, the Conservatives seem to have completely ignored the strong concerns first nations have about the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is also very disturbing. This will be the focus of my comments today.

This bill includes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that would replace the current structure of regional land and water boards, created through the land claims final agreement with Northwest Territory aboriginal governments, with a single board. The Government of the Northwest Territories has also expressed concern about these changes.

In May 2011, Michael Miltenberger, NWT environment minister, said, “this process is driven by the federal government. They've, for the most part, treated the [Government of the Northwest Territories] as just another stakeholder”.

I would have thought that a territorial government, just like a provincial government or an aboriginal government, would be a partner, not just a stakeholder. We have seen before how the current Conservative government treats its partners in Confederation. When it starts from the point of not seeing or treating its partners as true partners, bad things flow, and a lasting agreement cannot be reached. Believe me, I speak from experience.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government, both signatories to the devolution agreement, have voiced opposition to these changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Other individual first nations have also expressed their opposition.

As someone who has spent most of his professional career negotiating on behalf of my people, it is very concerning for me to see the government unilaterally merge these regional land and water boards.

These boards were created through land claims final agreements with the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments after years of negotiations done in good faith. These boards have served the regions and peoples well. It is deeply troubling for me to see the government unilaterally undo what years of partnership and goodwill has built to the detriment of the region. If the Government of Canada tried to unilaterally undo part of the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, I would be strongly oppose and fight against it. Therefore, I will not expect other aboriginal nations to accept such an intrusion on their agreements and rights by the federal government.

Recently, Robert Alexie Jr., president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, commented on its opposition to these changes. He was quoted saying, “We have a land use plan. We have the land and water board. We have a claim. People know the process, and it works very well up here”.

In October 2011, Gabrielle Mackenzie-Scott of the Tlicho government was quoted saying, “Our key message to AANDC is that there is nothing wrong with the system, and it needs time to grow and improve”.

I am sure the minister has many reasons why he believes these two leaders are wrong. However, from where I sit, it feels like the government has again not properly consulted those directly affected by these changes and are thumbing its nose at agreements the Crown has signed in good faith.

If the government insists on continuing with its failed approach in this case, I feel safe in saying that it will just invite another lawsuit against itself and add to the hundreds of millions it has spent in courts defending its indefensible approach. This is a waste of money that could be avoided by simply working with all partners, territorial and aboriginal governments alike, and negotiating.

To make matters worse, these amendments would also give the federal minister power over the approval of all land and water usage in the Northwest Territories, essentially circumventing the powers transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories through the devolution process. Not only is the government ignoring land claims agreements and their provisions, the Conservatives are grabbing more power for themselves. The whole point of devolution is to give power to other levels of government, not take more back in return. Given its track record on protecting water rights and the interests of aboriginal peoples, I am very concerned to see those powers placed in the hands of a minister of the government.

My NDP colleagues and I are concerned about the lack of consultation during the drafting of this bill. That lack of consultation caused justifiable outrage with regard to some of the main parts of this bill. First nation and Métis governments were outraged, as were those who support the transfer of powers. Given that those of us on this side of the House are open to any and all suggestions that could deliver tangible results for the people, we will be supporting this bill so that it is referred to committee, where it can be improved. That is our intention on this side of the House.

When the bill is studied in committee, the NDP will do what the government has yet to do: we will listen to the first nation governments from the north and we will propose amendments based on their testimony and observations.

We are very grateful to the first nations governments of the Northwest Territories for taking a stand, and we will work as equals with our first nations partners to improve the bill. We hope that the Conservatives will do the same.

There is an important aspect of this whole discussion that relates to our notion of consultation in this country. When Canada's aboriginal peoples speak of consultation and accommodation with respect to their rights, they are not indulging in political whims. The Government of Canada and the Crown have a constitutional duty to consult with aboriginal peoples and seriously consider the concerns expressed during that consultation. That is our constitutional obligation towards Canada's aboriginal peoples.

I want to stress this because we too often come up against the failure of this country's governments to meet this obligation. We must take seriously the constitutional obligations of the various levels of government in Canada. I am including the provincial governments in this comment.

We certainly know that in some cases the Supreme Court has ruled on these notions of aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples. I would mention, for example, Haida Nation v. British Columbia, in which the Supreme Court addressed this idea of consultation with aboriginal peoples. It stipulated that in some cases, and concerning very serious issues, this consultation may mean “consent”. This is important.

When we talk about the rule of law or the code of law in this country, it is important to remember what the Supreme Court had to say on that matter. The government must always act in accordance with the Constitution. That is the rule of law in Canada. This is what the Supreme Court said in Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr. The Supreme Court said that the government must act in compliance with the Constitution.

I am telling my colleagues nothing new by saying that section 35 of the Constitution addresses aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. It is important to be always mindful of our obligations towards aboriginal peoples.

I know people often say that aboriginal issues in this country are too complex or too complicated. However, these issues do not need to be complicated or complex. What we need—and what this government is all too often lacking—is the political will of governments to deal with these issues. With political will comes political imagination.

I will just give you an example. I do not know whether my colleagues have ever had the opportunity to read the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Canada's first modern treaty. It was signed in 1975 by the Canadian and Quebec governments and mainly the Cree and the Inuit.

Canada's first modern treaty, which is almost 500 pages long, is a very complex legal document. However, it was negotiated in just one year. This goes to show that when there is political will, when there is no choice but to resolve these issues, we are able to use political imagination.

Another important part of this debate is our relationship with aboriginal people.

I want to emphasize that too. As an aboriginal person and a lawyer, I have always insisted that the relationship between peoples and nations has to be top priority. Our relationship with aboriginal peoples here in Canada is broken. We must immediately address this matter, which is becoming increasingly urgent.

It shocks me that a government whose economic plan relies so heavily on the development of Canada's natural resources has not grasped the importance of treating aboriginal peoples as equal partners in this endeavour.

The issues of natural resources, the environment and climate change affect aboriginal people, no matter how we address them. Even in our international relations, the free trade agreements that we sign also affect aboriginal people, since such agreements often address natural resource development.

Our relations with aboriginal peoples are vital. They are the cornerstone of this country. However, the Conservatives are turning those relations into a stumbling block with their attitude, because they do not listen during consultations. It is important to point out that we need to improve our relations with aboriginal peoples because, right now, we are in a position where there is a very high risk of legal and political conflict.

It is troubling for a parliamentarian to consider that almost $300 million is spent every year to block the rights of this country's aboriginal peoples. That is troubling. It is urgent that we take into consideration the aboriginal peoples of this country. This issue is absolutely fundamental in all discussions on almost every subject concerning the development of this country, one of the richest countries on the planet. It is important that we remember this.

Mr. Speaker, you probably know the law as well as I do, and it will be no surprise to you that, according to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, every law passed by Parliament must be consistent with the charter.

However, we have reached a point where the Government of Canada must also adopt provisions to ensure that every law passed by this Parliament respects the aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. It is important that we start thinking about that.

In closing, we expect the government to be open to the amendments that my very skilled colleagues will propose. As I mentioned, this bill is a step in the right direction and that is a good thing.

However, there are some things missing in this bill, and we hope to fill in the blanks for the government. I hope that the people on the other side of this chamber will be open to the NDP's proposals.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, responding again to the member for Western Arctic, he does not seem to want to talk about the fact that Bill C-15 will provide the NWT with legislative authority to exercise new responsibilities over public lands, inland waters, and non-renewable resources. It will repeal or render inapplicable various federal laws that relate to the administration of lands, waters, and natural resources in the Northwest Territories.

I assume from the member's speech that the Liberal Party of Canada will be supporting this. It was unclear from the member for Western Arctic what position his party would be taking.

Does the member not agree that this is a significant nation-building exercise and one that we should celebrate along with the Government of the Northwest Territories? Does he realize that what we are proposing is exactly the same as what has been proposed in the Yukon, for instance, which is celebrating 10 years of successful devolution?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak to this important bill, 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 am proud to rise as a northerner of Inuit descent and as my party's critic for northern development, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and the Arctic Council to address the bill on this occasion of importance to the people of the Northwest Territories.

The devolution of responsibilities in the Northwest Territories is a cause for celebration, not just for the people of NWT but for all of us as Canadians. Any time that we can give greater control and a greater say in the future of the people who live in certain lands and manage certain resources, we can ensure that we will have good and solid management.

The work that is happening with regard to the devolution agreement is obviously work that was 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 Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and his government, which established the Advisory Commission on the Development of Government in the Northwest Territories, otherwise known as the Carrothers commission.

The commission at that time consulted with people across the north and concluded in its report that they of course deserved to have the seat of their government established not in Ottawa, as it had been until then, but in the north, where people could play a much 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 there.

Decades later, Yellowknife has continued to blossom as the seat of government in the Northwest Territories. It is thanks in part to this important step that we can be proud today that business in the Northwest Territories is booming as well.

On the important subject of devolution, I want to point out and acknowledge before Parliament that it was the governments of Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin that worked tirelessly for the devolution of the Yukon and Nunavut, and started the process of devolution for the Northwest Territories. It is a legacy that we are proud of. I am eager to continue working hard to ensure that people across northern Canada have the type of government that they want and deserve, in order to make important decisions that will affect their future.

There is a new generation of young Canadians who live in the north and who are ready to be the leaders of today. We must do everything that we can to ensure that our territories have the tools and governance that they need to empower our young Canadians and our citizens to continue to be a part of the economic driver of this country, which the north has become.

In my role as the critic for northern development, and of course as the MP for Labrador, sometimes I have to say that when I speak to the bill, I am almost a little bit envious. In my previous role as a provincial member and minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I had the opportunity to travel to the northern regions of our country and visit people across the territories. I know that they are great people, who work hard in a very challenging climate. I can tell the House that despite all these odds and challenges, they are thriving.

The culture and entrepreneurship are such an inspiration to see first-hand. I want to encourage my hon. colleagues in the House to visit the north and see for themselves how this is such an awe-inspiring part of our country. The devolution agreement and the continued transfer of responsibility will allow the people of the Northwest Territories to take the driver's seat on the huge amounts of economic development that we are seeing.

In my own district of Labrador, we have seen the rich cultural heritage and contributions of our aboriginal people, like the Innu, NunatuKavut and Nunatsiavut. It is vital that all aboriginal peoples in Canada have a strong voice to represent them. I hope that those in the north will play a larger role in determining the future of their people as part of the bill and of the work of both the federal and territorial governments.

We all want to see aboriginal communities in the north succeed economically, socially and culturally. This agreement would hopefully empower these communities to come closer to achieving greater success in all of these areas.

As someone who was born and raised in the north, and who represents a northern district, I can certainly understand the need for autonomy in the north and the right to establish strong local government that can engage in government to government to government dialogue that would produce meaningful results. I know the frustration and reality of trying to govern without having real power and the ability to make full decisions and have full accountability. We need decision-makers to understand these realities of living in the north and that they are best served by granting the responsibilities necessary to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

We want to make it easier to conduct business in our northern regions to encourage business investment, create jobs and generate greater revenues. I want devolution to give more of these things to the Government of the Northwest Territories as well as the participating aboriginal governments. With this, they could work together to improve their social programs and social safety net. They could make decisions to invest in their local culture to attract tourism or trade and to draw new people into the area.

I am very optimistic about the future of the Northwest Territories and its devolution agreement. I am optimistic about all northern regions of Canada.

I believe that northern regions thrive when they have the guidance of good leadership. Today we have with us the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Bob McLeod, along with officials and other leaders within his government. I understand that we also have support and have been joined by some aboriginal governments from NWT.

We have to recognize that these individuals have spent years working to gain a very concrete devolution agreement to ensure that it meets the needs of the people they represent, the people they advocate and care for. I want to congratulate them on the work they have done.

I hope that despite the interference that one often sees from government that they will accomplish what they set out to do; that is, to give greater autonomy, greater powers of decision-making to the people of the Northwest Territories. I think that is what we all want to see accomplished through this particular agreement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as a lifelong northerner, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-15, the devolution implementation bill.

I would first like to congratulate the premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, his cabinet ministers and the staff for the hard work they have put in on this file. That extends back through the time of the Northwest Territories to many other people who have dedicated their service in building a territory with political rights that are equivalent to those in other parts of Canada.

Bill C-15 has two very significant and different parts. One makes changes to the Northwest Territories Act, an act that is virtually the constitution of the Northwest Territories. All actions there fall under the Northwest Territories Act. Other laws are being changed to implement the devolution agreement between Canada and the Northwest Territories.

The second part brings in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, primarily doing away with the regional land and water boards created through land claims agreements with the first nations, replacing them with a single super board.

There are other changes in the act, and I will speak to those as I go along. They are very significant changes that, apart from what the minister has said, will leave even stronger powers for the minister over resource development in the Northwest Territories. It is quite clearly the case.

We in the New Democratic Party support devolution. We see this as a step forward for the Northwest Territories in some respects, and we will look to the bill going to committee. We will look to the opportunity to put forward amendments that may better serve the people of the Northwest Territories.

The devolution part of the bill partially realizes the dream northerners have had for over 50 years: taking more authority over their lives from bureaucrats in Ottawa. I have lived that life and I know what that life is.

The Carruthers Commission in 1966 moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats there, but that was what we could call “second-stage colonialism”. We brought the federal government into the Northwest Territories and to the greatest extent it ruled the north from the north, rather than from Ottawa.

The federally appointed Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was the speaker, premier and lieutenant governor, all rolled into one, up until 1975. In 1975, we had our first elected territorial council of 15 members. This includes the territory known as Nunavut now, under one roof.

Before that a mixture of people elected and appointed by the federal government provided governance. Executive powers still lay with the commissioner, assisted by a deputy and an assistant commissioner.

With the appointment of John Parker in 1979, the move began away from an executive commissioner toward a more ceremonial role as lieutenant governor. I will get back to that point, because it is a point I want to bring up in this speech.

In the late eighties, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories, which has handled all of those as well as can be and deserves great praise for providing services to people across a vast territory with limited resources.

We have taken on education, social services, highways, airport administration and a number of the roles that would be classified as provincial. That was never satisfactory to the north, as after the nineties when we had constitutional development conferences in the north, where we talked about our future and what direction we would take, I think we all felt that we wanted to be a unique place in Canada.

We wanted full respect for aboriginal governments. We wanted partnerships between aboriginal governments and public governments so that we would have a territory that would truly represent the people, the history and the real claim that first nations have to the land and resources of the north. That is a dream that is still held by most northerners.

There were devolution efforts in the early part of 2000, with the Liberals. The deal was virtually the same as this. Perhaps they were offering a little better money, at the time, and I think a little more control over development. That deal was actually rejected by the parties, in the end, because there was not a common agreement.

I think one of the great accomplishments of Premier McLeod, with the devolution file, has been to bring many of the first nations on board. Premier McLeod himself is of aboriginal descent and has a great deal of respect among first nation peoples—among all of us in the north—for his strength and his fairness. I think that is something that has helped the devolution file tremendously.

The MVRMA part of the bill, however, would implement the Conservative desire to move forward with more rapid resource development in the Northwest Territories. That is what we see here. That is the purpose of this. This is the great trade-off that has been made with this bill—the trade-off that we all have been put under.

When I got a comprehensive audit of people's attitudes toward changes in the MVRMA done by outside consultants a year and a half ago, it was pretty clear that most people in the Northwest Territories were not thinking that the regulatory system needed more than some very straightforward tweaking.

One thing we all did agree with was that the land use plans, which are part of the MVRMA, needed to be completed, including McCrank. Everybody agreed with that. The current government has not moved very fast to make that happen, which was one of the biggest problems we had in the regulatory system.

For more than 20 years, the aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories have hung their hat on having some say and control over the resource development process on lands and waters. They have tied this to the MVRMA with their duly developed land claims agreements with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho governments.

These people have agreed to regional boards. They have supported regional boards. Yes, there are provisions that perhaps one single board could be made, but what we have found in the Northwest Territories is that regional boards actually provide a useful and necessary function within the Northwest Territories to, clearly, provide that vision that we talked about earlier, the vision of a territory that had balance between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments.

So, what we would see with this bill is that particular structure would changed to a single board. It might be possible to change it back later. That is very much a question that is up in the air now.

However, certainly, an NDP government would go back to take a look at this. We would go back to see whether this was appropriate for the development of the Northwest Territories according to how the people see their development taking place.

The MVRMA remains a federal legislation, but it is an essential part of how the balance of the Northwest Territories is developing.

Let us talk about the changes to the NWT Act for devolution. The question here is whether we are moving to more province-like powers. Yes, in the administration of environment and the administration of land, we are. In the enforcement of those provisions, yes, we are. Those are things that are valuable. I thank all of those involved in pushing those forward for the people of the Northwest Territories.

However, there are other things that trouble us in the bill, where we look for amendments, perhaps.

When it comes to directions to the commissioner, I mentioned the commissioner was moving more to the state of a lieutenant-governor ceremonial position. This bill would draw him back into the fold of the federal government. Bill C-15, clause 4, states:

The Commissioner must act in accordance with any written instructions given to him or her by the Governor in Council or the Minister.

This is stronger language than in the current NWT Act. The Yukon Act contains no comparable sections, and in Nunavut these instructions are made public through tabling in the Legislative Assembly.

What do we see here, in this particular section of the devolution act? We actually see more control being applied through the commissioner's office. Strengthening the federal control of the NWT, when combined with the provision of section 29 that adds the power of the minister to order the commissioner to withhold assent to bills that are passed in the Legislative Assembly, the commissioner, under the instruction of the minister, can withhold assent to those bills, and has up to a year to do it.

What we see there is fairly strong control over any changes that could be made in the Northwest Territories in the years to come with different governments there that may have agendas different those of the present government or any other government.

Regarding borrowing, this bill would continue the process whereby Ottawa sets the amount of debt the NWT can acquire. NWT debt is not a burden on Canada. This is an outdated and colonial practice that inhibits our development by not allowing us to invest in things like hydroelectric generation capacity. We have to go to the federal government, cap in hand, and ask it to please give us a little more borrowing power and to possibly let us do something that we know is good for our people.

I put a bill forward in the last Parliament. This issue has been very well discussed and is very well understood. The opposition at the time voted unanimously, and we passed that bill through second reading. Only the Conservatives wanted to limit the borrowing capacity of our government.

What is it in like in the provinces? The federal government may not give direction to a provincial lieutenant governor. All natural resources are completely under the control of the provinces, with no Ottawa interference. There is no control over borrowing. The lieutenant governors cannot be directed to not assent to bills.

These are things that are in the devolution agreement. We see that the devolution agreement would give us more in certain areas but would put reins on us in other areas. That would limit our capacity, unlike other Canadians. These things can be changed by amendments, and I encourage the government to support some amendments that would give us more flexibility under this act.

Let us move on to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This measure would eliminate regional boards created through the land use process. It would replace them with one superboard with only 11 members. This bill also would also give the minister the right, in any part of this bill and for any of the boards that will exist in the Northwest Territories, to provide binding policy decisions to those boards. In other words, the minister could tell the board the way it will judge actions.

There is no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision. That would make sense. It would make sense that the people who are taking care of the environment and the land would have some influence over the policy decisions that are going forward to the boards that make decisions about development. What would be wrong with providing that consultation to the Government of the Northwest Territories? Again, with a simple amendment we could put that in place. If the Conservatives want to listen, that is fine.

There have been environmental audits done in the Northwest Territories. The main problem with our regulatory system, according to these independent environmental audits that were done in 2010, was that foot-dragging by Ottawa on appointments and on approvals of developments was the biggest impediment to resource development in the Northwest Territories. Now we would have a system whereby one government would control some things and the other government can have a say over everything when it comes to resource development. This is a difficult situation. This is going to lead to conflicts.

We need one government in charge of making decisions, and that should be the Government of the Northwest Territories in consultation with and working together with the first nations, who have a right to land and resources in the Northwest Territories and who we want to have as complete partners in the development of the Northwest Territories.

This is a goal that we all have. It is a goal that northerners have in the Northwest Territories. We are not interested in matching up to Alberta. We do not want Alberta in the Northwest Territories. That is not what we are here for. We want our own government, under our own rules, with our own relationships, with the groups that make up the north and have lived there for hundreds and thousands of years and have done very well with that.

There is strong opposition among the first nations to the changes to the MVRMA. The Gwich'in Tribal Council made a unanimous decision to reject the changes at a meeting held in Inuvik by community leadership representing all the Gwich'in communities.

These are the words of Gwich'in Tribal Council president Robert Alexie. He said: “My people have spoken, and what Canada is proposing is clearly unacceptable”.

The T'licho government is opposed. Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus has said:

There's no need to change the Wek'èezhli Land and Water Board. There's nothing wrong with it. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's working very well. Why fix something that is not broken?

With regard to appointments, why is the minister holding on tightly to all the appointments to all these boards? Why is he saying that a nomination from the Government of the Northwest Territories to any of these boards must meet his approval? Why do aboriginal governments that make nominations to these boards need the minister's approval? How is that devolution? How is that taking charge of our own affairs, when nominations can be rejected outright? When it comes to the chairs of the new superboard, the minister only has to consult on appointing a chair. The minister's man will be in Yellowknife as head of the superboard. He will be getting instructions, binding policy direction, from the minister about how things develop in the Northwest Territories. How does that represent true devolution?

I do not know if anyone across the way understands, but if they go talk to their provincial counterparts, they may understand what provincial-like powers actually are. The minister said the Yukon is doing extremely well with environmental assessments. Yukon actually makes decisions for itself. The Yukon first nations make appointments to their boards. The Yukon is doing it by itself. Bill C-15 does not permit us to do the same things that the Yukon is doing.

I have been through two phases of colonialism in my life. The first was when the federal government in Ottawa simply sent representatives up to govern us. I was a student in school, and different kids would come from Ottawa because their parents would be sent up there for a couple years to do northern duty. I was great friends with people from Ottawa and with their children, but they were not northerners. That was phase one.

Phase two was when the government came to the north. We have made remarkable progress in that time. We have done a lot with our territory. It is a great territory, one that I am absolutely proud to represent here in the House of Commons every day. I love the place. I want it to grow. I want to be a Canadian just like everyone else, but what we have here is only the third stage in colonialism. It is the stage when we take care of most things on the ground, but the decisions are in Ottawa. That is where we are at.

We will work with the government as much as we can, but in the end, we know that our job as New Democrats will be to give the people of the north a real say, a say that is equivalent to that of other Canadians in how they manage their affairs.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question that she knows is particularly sensitive to the aboriginal parties in the region in question.

Currently, there are four land and water boards for the Mackenzie Valley. Three of the existing land and water boards, Gwich’in, Sahtu and Wek’èezhìi, function in each of their respective areas as regional panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, which is responsible for projects that cover more than one region and for the unsettled areas.

The restructured board was envisaged and agreed to when the land claims agreements were concluded. Every aboriginal group with whom these comprehensive land claims agreements were concluded knew that at one point a board could cover the whole of the Northwest Territories. That is exactly what we are achieving in Bill C-15, which is quite respectful of our treaty obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to squeeze in two questions to the minister in response to Bill C-15.

The first question is that I am confused by the fact that in Bill C-4, which was an omnibus budget bill, we incorporated a change that would have more properly been done here—the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act, which allows the minister to have complete discretion as to how the funds are used, as opposed to the previous way they were used.

This relates to my next question, which is this. Admittedly the Northwest Territories has a complex jurisdictional framework. Anyone who participated in the Mackenzie gas pipeline hearings is aware of the multiple levels of jurisdiction. However, the regional boards that were established, and which are being conflated through this act, were set up in relation to land claims agreements and were to stay in place until all land claims agreements were resolved. With land claims agreements still outstanding in the area, was it appropriate to devolve and reduce the number of boards? It is fine to say it makes the Northwest Territories more competitive, but what does it say about the consistency with agreements with the federal Crown and various complex regional organizations?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation on Bill C-15. I listened to what he had to say with a great deal of interest.

The bill is really two bills that have been brought together. I have asked the minister in the past if he could put them forward as separate bills so the people of the north could truly debate them in a fashion that would work for them, but that is not the case.

One of the aspects of the agreement that was made between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government was for a review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act after five years. This agreement is not carried forward in any of the legislation. It is not in a devolution implementation bill. It is not within the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

How can the people of the north be sure that with future governments we will get a proper review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which, in the form it is presented in the bill, would give the minister complete control over the terms and conditions of resource development in the Northwest Territories going forward? How can we be sure that this review will take place?

Could the minister give us some assurances that, although it is not in the legislation but it was in the agreement, this review will be wholeheartedly taken on by the government?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to open debate today on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act.

It is my privilege to open debate today on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act.

The introduction of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act marks the culmination of decades of hard work towards the devolution of decision-making powers over lands and resources to the people of the Northwest Territories.

This is a critical juncture not only in the political and economic evolution of the Northwest Territories, but also in the constitutional development of our great country.

We know that the north has always held a distinctive place in the life of our great country. A frontier, a homeland, rich with vibrant people, potential and culture, the north defines Canada and what it means to be Canadian.

The Conservative government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to the north. Indeed, I am proud to say that no previous federal government in Canadian history has done more for the north than this Conservative government.

One of the first things we did after coming to power in 2006 was to put in place a comprehensive northern strategy, which was built on four pillars. The first is exercising Canada's sovereignty. The second is promoting social and economic development. The third is protecting our environmental heritage. The fourth and final pillar is improving and devolving northern governance.

While the introduction of the Northwest Territories devolution act is another important step in the implementation of this northern strategy, I would say it is a milestone. We recognize that a key feature of Canadian history has been the evolution of our nation's vast northern region into self-governing territories with resource development as the mainstay of their economies.

Our records stand in marked contrast to those of my friends, the Liberals, who for decades treated the north as an afterthought and northern resources as a federal treasure chest.

Soon after my appointment as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I was privileged to be in Yellowknife with the Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northwest Territories, along with five of our aboriginal partners in the Northwest Territories: the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the Tlicho Government. We marked the conclusion of negotiations on the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement in March of this year.

The Prime Minister said it best at the AIP signing in March, when he said:

Our Government recognizes that Northerners are best placed to make the important decisions about how to run their economies and how to maximize use of their resources.... Once finalized, this historic agreement will provide the Northwest Territories...with greater decision-making powers over a range of new responsibilities which will lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity across the Territory.

Our government believes that the opportunities and challenges in the Northwest Territories are better handled by the people who understand them best, and that is the people of the Northwest Territories.

This act will do exactly that. It will allow the people of the Northwest Territories to seize control of the lands and resources and benefit from those tremendous resources in their own backyard.

For those who may be skeptical about what this bill can achieve, look no further than the Yukon to see the benefits that devolution and a modern regulatory system can have on an economy. It is not merely coincidence that this year is the 10th anniversary of devolution in the Yukon and the territory is in its 10th straight year of positive GDP growth.

Investment is up, unemployment is down and the Yukon has not looked back. To complete the decades-long devolution of decision-making responsibilities, this bill is required to bring the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement into effect.

Bill C-15 would amend the Northwest Territories Act and bring this agreement into effect. It would modernize this legislation by updating its language, by clarifying key provisions and removing archaic ones, and by updating territorial authorities that draw their power from the act. Finally, amendments to the Northwest Territories Act would enshrine current practices in the territory that support responsible government.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has seen significant political evolution since 1967—the year Yellowknife was established as the capital of the Northwest Territories and the seat of government was moved from Ottawa. Since that time, the federal government has transferred to the territorial government power over health care, housing, forestry, education and social services.

Devolution of province-like functions has been a long-standing and shared priority of the federal and territorial governments. Over the last four decades, most of the province-like functions have been devolved to the territorial governments. The devolution of province-like powers over their lands, waters and resources is the last of the major province-like functions in the Northwest Territories which remain with the federal government.

To put it simply, this bill achieves devolution for the Northwest Territories. It gives the territory the tools to chart its own destiny, a destiny we know will end in success.

To reach this goal, we have worked tirelessly with all our partners in the north. In the Northwest Territories, we worked with the territorial government under the impressive leadership of Premier McLeod. If it were not for the rules, I would signal the presence of the premier, but I know I cannot. We also worked closely with various aboriginal stakeholders and governments including the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Sahtu Secretariat, the Tlicho Government and the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, all in order to reach a comprehensive devolution agreement for the territory.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my predecessors. I had the privilege today of introducing this bill and opening the debate on it, but I want to acknowledge the work of the current chief government whip, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, as well as the Hon. Jim Prentice and the Hon. Chuck Strahl, who have all worked hard to make this day happen. Of course, none of this would have been possible without the steady hand of the Prime Minister.

This past June, I was in the Northwest Territories again, this time in Inuvik, to sign the final devolution agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada, along with the Government of the Northwest Territories and five aboriginal groups. We continue to work toward a target effective date of April 1, 2014, as requested by the premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories and agreed to by the Prime Minister and all parties to the devolution agreement. It is also our shared objective with the Government of the Northwest Territories to devolve a modern, efficient and effective land and water regulatory system with the Government of the Northwest Territories in accordance with our 2010 action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Unlike my friend, the member for Western Arctic across the aisle who believes that resource development has not reduced poverty, our government knows that resource development creates jobs and economic opportunity for northerners and all Canadians. We also know the Northwest Territories is full of opportunity, in particular, with its mineral-rich land and vast oil and gas reserves. However, much of this opportunity has gone untapped and the territories have undergone a contraction in its economy over recent years. These are the facts. Bringing forward a modern regulatory regime is an important tool to attract investment and promote growth in the territories.

That is why this bill would also put in place an improved regulatory framework in the Northwest Territories that would ensure that resource development would continue in a manner that would respect the environment, while ensuring the long-term prosperity of the Northwest Territories for generations to come.

To this end, the Northwest Territories devolution act includes amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which would increase predictability and timeliness in the environmental assessment process, reduce regulatory burden, improve environmental protection and ensure meaningful aboriginal consultation. More important, however, this would give the people of the Northwest Territories greater control over decisions setting the nature and pace of development and the regulatory processes and environmental assessments of resource development projects on their lands and waters.

Specifically, Bill C-15 would amend the Territorial Lands Act so it would no longer apply to lands under the administration and control of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories. The act would only apply to federal lands and federally-managed sites in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. For its part, the legislative assembly of Northwest Territories would pass its own legislation to manage land under the administration and control of the commissioner of the territories.

The bill would also repeal the Territorial Waters Act, as the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories would also enact a new territorial law to manage waters in the territory.

The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board would continue to issue licences on territorial and private lands in the Mackenzie Valley, but the new territorial water legislation and its regulations would set out the requirements for issuing licences of these lands.

For water in the Inuvialuit settlement region, licences for water use and waste disposal would be the responsibility of the Inuvialuit Water Board, which would be established under the new territorial act.

Finally, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act would remain a federal statute similar to federal environmental assessment legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada, should the bill be passed.

As a result, Bill C-15 would cause substantial portions of the Northwest Territories Waters Act to be incorporated into the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in order for Canada to continue to regulate on federal lands, of which most public land will have been transferred to the territory as of April 1, 2014.

These changes to the regulatory processes for land and water would continue to generate many benefits for the people of the Northwest Territories. The bill would also promote greater environmental stewardship of all lands and waters in the territories.

The action plan was launched to make improvements to the existing regulatory regimes across the north and to ensure that they are strong, effective, efficient and predictable by making reviews of projects more predictable and timely; reducing duplication for project reviews; strengthening environmental protection; and respecting consultation obligations with aboriginal groups.

Clearly the development of this legislation that hon. members see before them today is the result of years of important, collaborative work. Adoption of the Northwest Territories devolution act by Parliament would mark the legislative conclusion of the vital work in the Northwest Territories we set out in the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. Passage of Bill C-15 will allow us to work with northerners under a regulatory regime that works for all and that will contribute to improved economic outcomes.

I am convinced that all of us in the House would agree that the source of our country's power and legitimacy in the north is derived from the people who live, work and raise families there and from vibrant, self-sufficient northern communities. These are the people and communities that this act seeks to support.

Canadians of the north must be empowered with the legal authority to create northern ways to meet northern needs. The Northwest Territories devolution act would give the Northwest Territories the tools and political freedom to do this.

I urge my colleagues to do their part in building the true north. I urge my colleagues to pass Bill C-15 swiftly into law.

Northwest Territories

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government introduced Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, to show our government's commitment to ensuring that northerners have greater control over their resources and decision-making. That is why we are moving ahead with devolution and the transfer of lands and resource management to the Government of the Northwest Territories. This is an accomplishment that many governments have tried to achieve in the past, but have failed.

Promoting jobs, growth and prosperity in our north continues to be a priority of our government, which is why we want to give northerners greater control over their economic and political destinies. I urge all members of the House to support a prosperous and successful future for our north and to work together with the people of the great Northwest Territories in ensuring the bill gets across the finish line by April 14, 2014.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)