Bill S-6 (Historical)

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

Part 1 amends the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act to provide that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 does not apply in Yukon, to allow for the coordination of reviews of transboundary projects, to establish time limits for environmental assessments and to establish a cost recovery regime. It also amends that Act to provide for binding ministerial policy directions to the Board and the delegation of any of the Minister’s powers, duties and functions to the territorial minister, and allows for a member of the board who is participating in a screening or review to continue to act for that purpose after the expiry of their term or their removal due to a loss of residency in Yukon, until decision documents are issued. In addition, it amends that Act to clarify that a new assessment of a project is not required when an authorization is renewed or amended unless there has been any significant change to the original project.
Part 2 amends the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act to modify the maximum term of certain licences, to establish time limits with respect to the making of certain decisions, to allow for the making of arrangements relating to security, to establish a cost recovery regime, to modify the offence and penalty regime and to create an administrative monetary penalty scheme.

[Darrell Pasloski]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the drummers as well for their welcome.

Mr. Chair, we're here today to convey our support for the passage of Bill S-6 as it pertains to the proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA. We believe that after this bill is passed, there is work to be done here in the territory among first nations and the Yukon government.

As you will no doubt hear today, Yukoners are proud capable people. We like to resolve our own issues as much as possible. We like to work things out Yukoner to Yukoner, government to government. Today I hope we can broaden your appreciation of the Government of Yukon's perspective regarding the benefits of amending this act. I hope to share with you a path forward that I believe advances all interests.

Last year marked 10 years since the devolution of responsibility for lands and resources from the Government of Canada to the Government of Yukon. Devolution, or evolution as I like to call it, marked a turning point in Yukon's modern history. In that pivotal moment, we set out on a road to self-determination and managing our own resources.

The benefits of devolution are tremendous. In our view, what is good for Yukon is good for Canada. When the Yukon Act came into effect on April 1, 2003, Yukon gained law-making authority with respect to the vast majority of our natural resources. This has enabled us to develop sustainable management regimes, working cooperatively with first nations and industry. Since 2003 we've experienced steady prosperity, and private sector contributions to our economy have soared. Our population has increased for the 10th consecutive year.

Over the same period, Yukon's leadership and governance capacity has grown alongside our population. The 20th anniversary of the Umbrella Final Agreement was marked in 2013. The Umbrella Final Agreement, UFA, is a framework for individual Yukon first nations to negotiate their land claim agreements. To date, 11 of Yukon's 14 first nations have modern-day treaties and self-government agreements. This represents almost half of the modern first nation treaties and self-government agreements that exist in the entire country today.

That growth in governance capacity has also informed the modernization of our regulatory regime. For the past 10 years, Yukon has enjoyed a reputation as having one of the most advanced regulatory systems in Canada. Yukon's resource economy has grown since devolution, with the mining and mineral exploration sector continuing to expand and develop.

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

As you likely know, YESAA is the implementation of chapter 12 of the UFA and the final agreements. Yukoners worked hand in hand for years to create the legislation that came into force on May 13, 2003. Federal, territorial, and first nation partners all play important roles in ensuring that projects undertaken in Yukon are in accordance with the principles that foster economic benefits. Each and every order of government helps appoint the board, acts as a decision body, and informs every assessment. As partners, we ensure protection of the ecological and social systems on which communities, their residents, and societies in general depend.

The proposed amendments to YESAA will, in our view, improve environmental and socio-economic outcomes. Since it came into force, some Yukoners, including some first nations, have expressed concern about the narrow scope of activities that YESAA looked at when considering the possible cumulative effects of projects. These amendments help address those concerns.

Under the proposed legislation, assessors will now consider the socio-economic and environmental effects that are likely to occur from projects, both those that have occurred and those that are going to occur. Taking into account the effects of potential activities is a positive step forward in our environmental stewardship and demonstrates our commitment to Yukon communities.

This act applies throughout Yukon as a single-assessment, neutral process conducted at arm's length from governments. Over the last decade, this process has demonstrated a high level of transparency, with decisions and actions made available to the public through the Yukon online registry system.

However, like most new legislation YESAA requires some, mostly minor, amendments. These mostly minor amendments will enable YESAA to continue to serve our territory well into the future. When Canada pursued amendments to the act, it engaged with the Yukon government, the Council of Yukon First Nations, individual Yukon first nations, and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, YESAB. The changes that have been tabled are a result of the close work of these parties, as was mandated by the YESAA five-year review process.

These changes were also informed by the federal action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. During the review phase, Canada asked the Government of Yukon to provide input into several amendments that focus on improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment regime.

I cannot and I will not speak to first nation views on consultation. To do so would be disrespectful of first nation leaders, who will share or have shared their own views with you. However, I can and I will speak for the Yukon government. In our view the Yukon government was adequately consulted during this phase, and our feedback and our comments were taken into consideration.

Together, these changes stand to benefit Yukon because they focus on the following areas: clarification of roles and responsibilities, cost-effective and efficient processes, and the value and timeliness of the assessment process. It is also essential that Yukon remain competitive with other jurisdictions while aiming to protect and promote the environmental and socio-economic well-being of the territory and its people.

Although in the past YESAA has worked well for Yukoners, we believe these proposed amendments are necessary to remain competitive. The amendments outlined in Bill S-6 update the requirement that only the federal government can fulfill. YESAA is, after all, federal legislation.

It is also important, however, that Yukoners resolve concerns among themselves as far as possible. The last time I met with the chiefs, I was clear that I wanted to focus on those issues that we can control. I stand by that statement, and I think Bill S-6 offers us just such an opportunity.

Yukon government and first nations have a long history of working together to resolve issues that arise from federal actions and legislation. We did it with the devolution transfer agreement and the oil and gas accord. In both of these cases the federal government did its part, and leaders here in Yukon did our part to iron out differences that held up success. We let the federal legislation or action stand and we negotiated bilateral arrangements that made them work for us as Yukoners.

Today I'm proposing that Yukon leaders once again take up that challenge. I have heard and understood the first nations' concerns with these amendments. Let's be leaders in our own house and negotiate a bilateral accord on implementation that resolves these issues. We've done it before and we can do it again. If there are concerns about policy direction, or capacity, or delegation, let's agree on how those functions will be implemented on the ground. Working government to government is not new to us in Yukon; it is our preferred way of doing business.

We appreciate the federal leadership shown on this matter. We would like to thank our member of Parliament Mr. Ryan Leef, our Yukon senator Hon. Daniel Lang, aboriginal affairs and northern development minister, the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, and the former minister, the Honourable John Duncan.

Now is the time to come together as leaders, as chiefs and premier, and as neighbours to find a way to make these amendments work in a way that fits with our values.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I believe that the changes Canada has proposed to this legislation will ensure that Yukon continues to be a progressive and responsible place in which to invest and do business and an even better place in which to live, work and play, and to raise a family. I encourage Canada to pass these amendments and would ask the chiefs to sit down as partners in this territory to make our own way.

I thank the committee members for their time. I'm going to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to say a few words.

[Darrell Pasloski, Premier of Yukon, Government of Yukon]

Good morning.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for your invitation to appear before you today. I'd also like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dun and the Ta'an Kwach'an Council.

I'd also like to introduce the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Honourable Scott Kent, and our official, Julie Stinson.

We're here today to convey our support for the passage of Bill S-6 as it pertains to the proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA. We believe after this bill is passed, there is work to be done here in the territory among—

[Teresa Meadows]

If it's all right, it's Teresa Meadows. I'll address that issue because I was involved in the working group.

The submissions were fairly extensive at the working group level with respect to the draft text of Bill S-6 before it was introduced into the Senate. I would say that our submissions were lengthy and included the same issues that we've identified in our brief as well, but also included several other issues that weren't addressed. What we've included in our brief are only those issues that remain from our perspective unaddressed in the draft of the bill.

Those are the definition of duration of the undertaking and our wanting a little more clarity around that, issues with respect to the timelines in terms of issues that are outside the control of the board that could adversely affect the ability of the board to comply with those timelines, and the issue of security that I raised earlier.

[Teresa Meadows, Legal Counsel, Shores Jardine LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chairman Kabloona, and thank you to the chair of the standing committee and honourable members.

My apologies that we are unable to attend in person. I know that it creates some difficulty. I hope that people will stop me if they are unable to hear me, but I will proceed on the assumption that you can hear the disembodied voice at the other end of the phone.

I intend to cover in more depth three key areas of the Board's comments that remain unaddressed in the current draft of Bill S-6. As Chairman Kabloona mentioned, we have been involved in the process. I know that committee members are concerned about consultation. I can say that we were consulted commencing in January 2014 and that we did have some significant changes made to the text of the bill prior to its presentation in the Senate and the current iteration that's before the committee.

I would like to refer to the specific comments that remain unaddressed, including discussions on the term of the licence or the amendments to section 45; time limits or sections 55.1 and 55.6; and security, which would be section 76.1 in the amended bill.

With respect to term of licence, right now, as described in item 2.2.2 of the legislative summary of Bill S-6, in the proposed section to replace the existing section 45, the Board is expressly authorized to issue licences in certain circumstance that would exceed the current 25-year limit and extend—

[Thomas Kabloona]

Okay, thank you.

Knowing that your time is limited, the focus for our testimony today will be to provide you with additional context and insight regarding our work and to highlight three key areas of discussion that the proposed amendments to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act raise for the board. The focus for our comments today will be on the aspects of Bill S-6 that apply to Nunavut.

To begin with I will give you a brief background to the board. As slide 3 indicates, the Nunavut Water Board was established under the authority of article 13 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, also called the NLCA. The board has responsibility and power over the regulation, use, and management of fresh water in the Nunavut settlement area. We are part of the integrated regulatory system established under the NLCA that commences with the review of proposed developments, such as mines, hydro projects, major infrastructure such as ports and roads, for their conformity with the land use planning requirements of the Nunavut Planning Commission. Then the Nunavut Impact Review Board considers the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed development.

Once those institutions of public government have indicated that a development can go ahead, the Nunavut Water Board gets to work to consider whether to issue a licence for a project for any required use of fresh water or any associated deposit of waste that may enter into fresh water.

Over the years the board has worked on a number of coordinated initiatives with our partners in the regulatory process to minimize duplication, to streamline our process, and to engage with stakeholders, including Inuit organizations, government agencies, potentially affected communities, and members of the public. It is the board’s overall impression from the regulated community, members of the public and our other stakeholders, that although there are challenges to the capacity of all parties within the existing system, which Teresa will talk to you about from the perspective of the Nunavut Water Board in a few moments, in general, the structure of the regulatory system in Nunavut works well.

Slide 4 gives you a quick overview of the legislative base that further defines the board’s structure and processes in addition to the NLCA. In April 2002 the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act came into force, and this is the act that Bill S-6 now proposes to amend. In April 2013, following consultations by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and public hearings conducted by the board, the Nunavut waters regulations came into force, completing the remaining piece of the regulatory puzzle for the water board by replacing the statutes from the Northwest Territories regulations that had been brought forward in the absence of Nunavut-specific regulations.

Turning to slide 5, and with that context in mind, I would like to share the board's general views on Bill S-6 before passing the floor to Teresa Meadows to outline our specific comments on three key areas. As you would expect, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act is our governing legislation. The board is very interested in whatever changes are proposed. So in January 2014 when the board was first contacted about participating in a working group that was considering changes to the act, our executive director and legal counsel actively participated in all meetings and provided several written comments and submissions throughout the process.

In September 2014 the board provided written submissions and the board's former executive, Damien Côté, and I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to speak about Bill S-6.

As we indicated before the Senate committee, the board has always been supportive of efforts to ensure that our regulatory structure enables its processes to remain transparent, efficient, integrated, timely, and responsive, and our comments reflected these goals in a number of areas, including, among others, the public notifications associated with administrative monetary penalties and the public registry system. A number of the specific issues raised by the Board during this participation were considered, and have been to some extent reflected in Bill S-6, so we are supportive of the amendments in general.

Teresa, I'll pass it on to you.

[Elizabeth Copland, Chair, Nunavut Impact Review Board]

Thank you very much. Good morning. Ublaahatkut. Ma'na.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Nunavut Impact Review Board. My name is Elizabeth Copland. I am the chairperson of the Nunavut Impact Review Board and with me today is Ryan Barry, our executive director.

We have provided the committee with a written brief setting out our comments with respect to 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. Knowing that your time is limited, the focus of my opening statement will be to highlight the key aspects of our submission and to make ourselves available for any questions.

As a member of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement transition team, I have been involved with impact assessment in Nunavut since 1994. I have served several terms with the Nunavut Impact Review Board for a total of about 17 years. I have chaired a number of public hearings for the NIRB, including the Jericho diamond mine project, the Doris North, Meadowbank, and Meliadine gold mines, and recently, the Kiggavik uranium ore mine project and the Baffinland Marry River iron ore project.

Throughout my time with the NIRB we have worked closely with the other institutions of the public government established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, including the Nunavut Water Board, which is why we have an interest in the amendments proposed under Bill S-6.

Accompanying me today is Mr. Ryan Barry. Ryan has worked with the board for about eight years in various technical capacities, including as director of technical services since 2011. Throughout his career with the NIRB he has worked closely with the Nunavut Water Board and spearheaded a number of specific coordination initiatives, including the jointly-developed detailed coordinated process framework that coordinates the Nunavut Impact Review Board's impact assessment process during the review of major development projects and the Nunavut Water Board's water licensing process.

At the outset I would like to remind the committee that the regulatory regime established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is unique and consists of a single integrated resource management system for land use planning, impact assessment, and land and water licensing in the Nunavut settlement area. Within this unique structure, the NIRB and the Nunavut Water Board work cooperatively to ensure NIRB's project assessment process informs, but does not duplicate or limit the Nunavut Water Board's licensing process.

Reflecting the importance of our ongoing collaborative and cooperative work with the Nunavut Water Board, the NIRB has commented on two aspects of Bill S-6 only. The first area of comment relates to those amendments that the NIRB sees as having the potential to affect the NIRB's processes because the NIRB and the Nunavut Water Board processes intersect and are coordinated or integrated, and this area will be the focus of my remarks today.

The second area included in our written comments simply affirms the NIRB's support of the Nunavut Water Board's written submission that identifies the issues external to the Nunavut Water Board, such as board member appointments and third-party capacity issues that have the potential to adversely affect the Nunavut Water Board's ability to meet the prescribed timelines proposed under Bill S-6. The NIRB can confirm that our board has experienced many of the same challenges as we have also experienced delays in our impact assessments arising from these same factors.

I'll now move on to the NIRB's comments on Bill S-6. The board is pleased to see that one of our comments on a preliminary draft of Bill S-6 was incorporated in the text of Bill S-6, but because of this issue it's important to coordinate initiatives. I will mention it briefly.

In our review of the preliminary text of the bill, we identified that the prescribed timelines established in the bill needed to be revised to reflect the timing of our coordination initiatives between the NIRB and the water board.

In addition, with regard to the preliminary draft of Bill S-6, we also commented on our concerns with the implementation of potential cost recovery only at the stage of water licensing. This issue remains outstanding in the current bill.

The NIRB recognizes the rationale and desirability of implementing a cost recovery regime, but notes that there is currently no mechanism for cost recovery during the NIRB's impact assessments of projects. Consequently, with cost recovery only being implemented at the water licensing stage, a proponent may have a direct financial incentive to ensure that the bulk of technical review, community consultation, and intervenor involvement take place during the impact assessment stage of project review rather than at the water licensing stage where the applicant could be responsible to pay for these activities under the cost recovery provisions.

To limit the financial incentive for a proponent to front-load the responsibilities onto the NIRB part of the integrated regulatory process, the Nunavut Impact Review Board has suggested that a consistent approach to cost recovery should be developed and implemented across all phases of Nunavut's integrated regulatory regime, including land use planning, impact assessment, and licensing.

In closing, the board thanks the honourable members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for this opportunity to appear in your presence to comment on Bill S-6.

If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

Thank you very much.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our guests this morning for being here and for their presentation.

Obviously, we've had lots of discussion on different bills regarding Nunavut in the last year, and one of them that I know you guys are happy about is the devolution piece. I hope that with the devolution, you'll start seeing improvements in your infrastructure and more investment in your territory, because I know that has been a significant issue for you.

This morning, with regard to this particular bill, it is my understanding that as you look at large-scale development projects within the territory, you are seeing some regulatory changes taking place. My question, first of all, is about the amendments that we are looking at here in Bill S-6 right now. Are they being proposed at the request of the Nunavut government, or is this something that is being presented directly by the federal government or the Government of Canada?

[Gabriel Nirlungayuk, Deputy Minister, Environment, Government of Nunavut]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. My name is Gabriel Nirlungayuk and I am the deputy minister of environment for the Government of Nunavut. On behalf of Premier Taptuna I would like to thank the committee for this invitation this morning that was extended to the premier. Premier Taptuna sends his regrets. I am appearing on his behalf.

Also appearing for the Government of Nunavut is Mr. William MacKay, acting assistant deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs.

This morning I am here to speak in support of part 2 of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

This bill is an important step in creating an effective and modern regulatory regime in Nunavut. The Nunavut Water Board plays an essential role in land and resource management in Nunavut. lt is composed of members appointed or nominated by Inuit, as well as the territorial and federal governments. lt has operated effectively in Nunavut since 1996.

This bill will give the board and regulators important new powers that will ensure that water use in Nunavut is sustainable and environmentally friendly.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Nunavut believes that this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut. lt will give the water board increased flexibility and give regulators better enforcement powers. lt will ensure a regulatory process with predictable timelines and clear integration with the work of the other regulators and boards in Nunavut.

The Government of Nunavut supports the proposed amendments and was consulted when they were developed. In particular, Mr. Chair, the increase in existing fines associated with water licenses will bring the fine levels in line with those under the Territorial Lands Act, and other pieces of federal environmental legislation, and will serve as an effective deterrent to unlicenced water use.

Likewise, the addition of an administrative monetary penalties regime will give enforcement officers more tools to ensure that this legislation is complied with and will allow for more effective and efficient enforcement of water licence conditions.

Allowing for life-of-project water licences will give the water board the flexibility to issue licences to developers that are better tailored to the particular water use and will give developers clearer certainty of their water rights.

The requirement in the bill that the water board takes into consideration agreements between Canada, regional Inuit associations, and proponents regarding posting of security will address the issue of overbonding, which is a barrier to investment in Nunavut.

The specific timelines that are established in the bill for regulator and minister decisions are particularly welcomed by the Government of Nunavut. This will bring certainty and predictability to Nunavummiut, industry, and other stakeholders.

As the committee can see, this is an important piece of legislation for the north, particularly Nunavut, and will contribute to the environmental protection and economic development for Nunavut.

Mr. Chair, that is all I have in terms of opening comments.

I thank the committee members for your time.

Subject to any further opening remarks by my colleague, Mr. MacKay, we are prepared to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We're on our study of Bill S-6.

We have with us, for the first 45 minutes, two individuals from the Government of Nunavut: Gabriel Nirlungayuk, the deputy minister of the environment, and William MacKay, acting assistant deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs.

We're fortunate to have both of you with us this morning. We do have 10 minutes allotted for an opening presentation. I'm not sure who is making that.

Mr. Nirlungayuk, we'll have you begin. You have 10 minutes and then we'll take some questions from the members.

Northern Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I missed the question.

Unlike previous Liberal governments, this Conservative government has made the long-term prosperity of Canada's north and northerners a priority. This includes fostering economic development, among others, by improving Yukon and Nunavut regulatory systems, while protecting our environmental heritage. That is what Bill S-6 would do, and I encourage him to support it.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

The government will never learn from its mistakes, Mr. Speaker. After ramming through its plan to do away with regional environmental boards in the Northwest Territories, the Conservatives are now stalled by an injunction handed to them by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and they will likely face the same kind of legal action from Yukon first nations over Bill S-6.

When will the Conservatives get it? Gutting environmental protection and altering land claims agreements just simply lead to more uncertainty and legal actions.

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

Again, it's a good point and that's a good question. You're exactly correct that many people have suggested that Bill S-6 will make significant changes that will undermine the assessment process, but this is simply not the case. I mean, read the bill. For example, I would encourage committee members to look at subsection 47(2) of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. This is the portion of the act that lays out which sorts of projects are assessable under the act.

Mr. Chair, we have made absolutely no changes to this portion of YESAA. All we have done is clarify the existing assessable projects, and in doing so, we have actually ensured that YESAA conforms more closely to the umbrella agreement. Again, paragraph 12.4.1.1 of the umbrella agreement explains that projects and significant changes to existing projects will be subject to the development assessment process. So when you hear the accusations that the issue of significant changes.... It is in the umbrella agreement. A lot of people like to say things and to proclaim things, but there is nothing like the facts to focus the mind.

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

Well, I'd like to repeat this. There is absolutely nothing in Bill S-6 that deviates from the Yukon umbrella agreement or that infringes upon aboriginal or treaty rights. Any suggestion that first nations are some how diminished by this legislation is simply—if I can use the word—false.

In fact, protection for these rights can be found in five legally recognized documents, as I alluded to for the member from the Yukon. These are the Canadian Constitution, in section 35; the Yukon umbrella agreement; the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, an act guaranteeing those rights; the Yukon devolution transfer agreement, also another legislative instrument protecting those rights; and finally, this act itself, Bill S-6 and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

I would also like to add that several critics have used the argument that although Bill S-6 may not be directly in conflict with the umbrella agreement, it may violate the spirit of the agreement. Well, this too is plainly misleading. I would ask the opposition to turn to the text of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act itself, and to read section 4, which is clear. It states that if—-“if”, okay?—there is “an inconsistency or conflict between a final agreement and this Act, the agreement prevails”. I think we have taken all the steps to ensure and guarantee the protection of those rights. I'm satisfied that this does that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

Minister, I certainly appreciate your being here today to set the record straight. As we have just heard in the monologue, there are some criticisms that we do hear. One is of course the criticism coming from both the first nations groups and the opposition members that Bill S-6 could infringe upon the rights of Yukon first nations.

However, I've heard you mention, both in the second reading speech we heard, as well as in the discussion on time allocation, and of course here this morning, that Bill S-6 poses absolutely no threat to first nations' rights. I wonder if you could take a few moments to set the record straight on that.

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

Yes, absolutely. You see, this is not affected at all. The triggers remain the same. As you know, or may know, after Bill S-6 is passed we have to review the regulations, which again is going to be an undertaking where there will be full consultation with first nations and all stakeholders to ensure that the regulations are in line with the proper implementation of the legislative provisions.