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.

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

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, there are some Yukon first nations that have expressed opposition to the proposed clauses in Bill S-6 that actually deal with allowing the minister to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. They oppose the ability of any other party to give policy direction to the independent board. After speaking with other colleagues, I have come to understand that when used in certain other jurisdictions, this power has only ever been used to protect the rights of first nations.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could clarify for all members of the committee of the whole whether this provision protects the rights of first nations or if it in fact infringes upon them.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I know that one of the bills the minister has worked the hardest on is Bill S-6, which is known as the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. I also realize that this legislation has been somewhat controversial among Yukon first nations who believe that one of the clauses of the bill, which allows for the delegation of federal powers to the territorial government, they would argue is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could elaborate a bit on our government's position with respect to this delegation of authority under Bill S-6 and perhaps explain why he would believe that this is an important piece of the bill.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular]

Mr. Chair, it is great to be here this evening. I am going to speak for about 10 minutes and then have a few minutes of questions.

I am very thankful to have the opportunity this evening to participate in this debate. I would like to take a little bit of time to talk a bit about our government's commitment to Canada's north. My remarks this evening will focus specifically on the work that we have done to improve northern governance and regulatory regimes.

The north is a very special and iconic place for Canadians. It is majestic in its vast geography. It is magnificent in its wildlife. It is the home of many aboriginal people. It is very rich in its natural resource potential.

Our government has a vision for the north, outlined in our northern strategy, and we are taking action to ensure that this vision comes to life for the benefit of all Canadians. We recognize the tremendous opportunities, as well as the many challenges, that exist in the north today. That is why, unlike past Liberal governments, ensuring that the true north remains strong and free continues to be a top priority of our Conservative government.

We are well aware that the overly complex regulatory environment in the north has been identified as a major source of frustration for people interested in investing in the northern territories. Northern regulatory processes have often resulted in delayed regulatory decisions, which have discouraged potential new investors and undermined the economic viability of major projects. Simply put, this hinders economic development in the north.

To be globally competitive, northern regulatory regimes need to provide a few things. They need to provide timely, efficient, and effective project reviews. At the same time, the processes also need to ensure strengthened environmental protection and respect aboriginal consultation obligations.

That is why our government launched the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. The plan builds on our government's efforts to create a strong and prosperous north that realizes its resource potential. It is a key step forward in implementing the northern strategy.

The action plan seeks to promote the creation of jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity by making northern regulatory frameworks strong, effective, efficient, and predictable. It will do this by making reviews of projects more predictable and timely, by reducing duplication for project reviews, by safeguarding environmental heritage, by strengthening environmental protection, and by achieving meaningful aboriginal consultation.

We have been working to meet these goals by introducing or amending legislation specific to each territory. For example, in the Northwest Territories, we passed the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which resulted in amendments to several pieces of federal legislation in order to strengthen the regulatory process.

As part of the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, our government passed the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, which received royal assent in June 2103. This act removed barriers to investment in the north and contributed to our government's jobs and growth agenda.

Another pillar of our regulatory improvement strategy is the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, otherwise known as Bill S-6. Its passage would complete the legislative component of the action plan and would ensure regulatory efficiency and consistency right across the north. Bill S-6 was introduced as part of our government's comprehensive plan to promote jobs, growth, and prosperity in the north. This proposed legislation aims to further unlock the economic potential of the north by ensuring certainty, predictability, and timeliness for investors. This is essential to ensure that the territories remain an attractive place in which to live, work, and invest.

At this point, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a historic milestone that was reached last year on April 1, 2014. This is, of course, the day that saw the Northwest Territories devolution come into force. Devolution saw Ottawa transfer its decision-making powers and administrative duties related to land and resource management back to where they belong, to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories is the second territory to assume land and resource responsibilities after Yukon.

Devolution has driven economic development by transferring responsibility for the management of onshore lands out of Ottawa and back to the north, where it belongs. It also gives the Northwest Territories the power to collect and share in resource revenues generated in the territory. In short, decision-making about land use has finally been put in the hands of northerners.

Devolution provides northerners with greater control over their lands and resources and with the power to improve processes in the north. Our government strongly believes that devolution will provide an opportunity for northerners, including aboriginal people, to help shape the future of the territories and share in the economic benefits that will flow.

Our government is working to extend the benefits of devolution beyond the Northwest Territories and Yukon to Nunavut as well. We know that reaching devolution in Nunavut is an essential step to reaching these goals and an important step in the political and economic development of the territory.

That is why, last October, the Government of Canada appointed Mr. Brian Dominique as chief federal negotiator for Nunavut devolution. This marks the start of tripartite negotiations with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and demonstrates our government's commitment to its northern strategy.

This is a big improvement on the previous processes. Before we embarked on the action plan, regulatory processes across the north were complex, costly, unpredictable, and time consuming, and these changes have changed that.

Amendments to legislation such as the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, and the Territorial Lands Act have created a more consistent regulatory process. These amendments included measures that streamlined the regulatory process by placing time limits on environmental assessments and reviews, consolidated federal decision-making, and introduced measures to enhance environmental stewardship. Similar amendments to legislation in Yukon and Nunavut will likewise improve regulatory regimes and promote consistency and efficiency across the north.

Measures such as these are essential for the people of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut to realize the full benefits of devolution. Regulatory improvement will increase investor confidence by providing a clear and predictable review and assessment process that will allow the Northwest Territories to remain competitive in a rapidly changing global marketplace.

In conjunction with advancing devolution, the development of an approved land use plan for Nunavut is a key priority for regulatory improvement related to resource development in Nunavut. Our government remains committed to devolution and regulatory improvement that will allow Nunavut to fully realize its potential.

Unlike past governments, we have made the north a top priority, placing it higher on the agenda than it has been in many decades. This government has a clear vision for the north as a healthy, prosperous region within a strong, sovereign Canada.

I would like to end by thanking all of our partners who have contributed to our significant achievements under the northern strategy. I look forward to continuing to advance this government's plan for jobs, growth, and prosperity throughout the north.

Our government strongly believes that the territories should have the ability to make the key decisions about projects occurring on their land. To that end, as I mentioned, in April 2014 our government finalized the transfer of authority over lands and resource decisions in the Northwest Territories to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I know that our government is working on a similar devolution agreement in Nunavut. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could update the House on the status of the Nunavut devolution.

Pipeline Safety Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, a much-needed and long-overdue first step toward a true polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada. The NDP takes this very seriously. We view the phrase “polluter pays” as being one of the fundamental aspects of our approach to environmental legislation when we are government later on this year. I believe November would be when we would take over.

I am pleased to see there has been co-operation and some degree of collegiality on the natural resources committee on this subject. That is an encouraging sign in a Parliament that has not had much collegiality over the five years of the Conservative majority mandate. It is good to see.

Bill C-46 would open up a liability regime, which is sorely needed. There is none for existing pipelines and that is amazing when we think of the volume, number and lengths of pipelines throughout Canada, many of them crossing provincial boundaries, which would be regulated by the federal government. That is certainly the case for the pipelines that exit my riding, the Northwest Territories.

The bill includes absolute liability for all National Energy Board regulated pipelines, which are those that cross provincial boundaries. I assume that includes all connections to those pipelines. There are web-like networks of pipeline throughout any pipeline system. Oil is collected from different locations in order to fill up a pipeline that might have a capacity of many hundreds of thousands of barrels a day.

Companies would be liable for costs and damages irrespective of fault. This liability could go up to $1 billion for major oil pipelines, pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day, and up to an amount prescribed by regulation for smaller companies. That is an important proviso because many of the pipelines are not the size of 250,000 barrels a day. They come from smaller fields in isolated locations. I will speak to that in a bit.

Companies would continue to have unlimited liability when they were at fault or negligent. Accidental leakages, I guess, would mean that pipeline companies are not at fault or negligent, but what does “negligence” mean toward the maintenance and repair of existing pipelines? What does it mean with regard to engineering? If the engineering is inappropriate for the laying of a pipeline, is that considered fault or negligence upon the pipeline company? Some real decision will have to be made by government about what negligence or fault is part of the system, especially for smaller pipelines where perhaps there is less intensity in the environmental process when it comes to putting the pipelines in place.

Bill C-46 leaves considerable leeway for politically motivated decisions and backroom arrangements between operators and the National Energy Board. That is what we are talking about: how do we determine the responsibilities under this act? This also applies to many of the amendments to numerous environmental acts in recent budget implementation bills. We have changed the system considerably over the time of the Conservatives, mostly to weaken legislation that deals with environmental issues.

We have had several pipeline spills in recent history in my riding in the Northwest Territories. Those have come from an industry, mostly located in the Norman Wells area, that has been in place for a considerable length of time. That industry has been in the Northwest Territories since the early 1930s. We have seen that develop over time. We have a pipeline that has a capacity for 45,000 barrels a day that exits the Zama Lake in northern Alberta.

In early May of 2011, a hunter discovered oil leaking from the Enbridge Normal Wells pipeline near the Willowlake River about 50 kilometres south of the community of Wrigley. Enbridge estimated as much as 1,500 barrels of oil leaked from the pipeline. Of course the people in Wrigley were concerned about the impacts of that on the environment and on human health, as well as on the health of the animals and wildlife, which they sincerely use to a great extent for food. This was not a simple matter. It ended up resulting in many thousands of truckloads of material being hauled to the Swan Hills disposal site at a great cost. When we we talk about pipelines and 1,500 barrels people wonder what that is. However, when we have to deal with the dirt, the conditions and perform a complete cleanup, it gets very expensive. A lot of money was put into the cleanup that 1,500 barrels.

That is not the only incidence of spills we have had. The community of Norman Wells, where Imperial Oil has a refinery, ranks as the community with the most reported incidents of federally regulated pipelines in the country. Between 2006 and 2012, the National Energy Board recorded more than 70 incidents, including anything from spills and leaks to worker injuries and fires.

We are talking about pipelines that are not new and perhaps not built to the changing conditions of the northern climate. In that area near Norman Wells, scientists have reported losses of up to 40% of the permafrost over the period of a decade. Therefore, we have serious issues with changing conditions. With respect to the pipelines that were built before, the engineering was based on different circumstances. Those types of things lead to problems.

In 2012, the National Energy Board ordered Imperial Oil to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with 77 buried pipelines at risk of failing.

Therefore, we do have some issues with pipelines in northern conditions. I cannot speak to all of the pipeline issues across the country. There is no question that many aging pipelines are used for the product around Canada. How many of them are provincially controlled and how many are federally controlled I am sure is of concern to everyone.

These 77 buried pipelines, some of which stretch for several kilometres, were installed during a boom in the oilfield expansion in the 1980s. A particular defect in engineering and construction allowed water to get between the pipe insulation and the bare steel leading to corrosion. Therefore, we have pipelines that are suspect and will likely cause problems in the future. As the corrosion gets worse the pipelines, under stress from changing soil conditions, may actually rupture. Corrosion can also cause pinhole leaks that without proper monitoring equipment on these pipelines can release a lot of oil before anybody even realizes what is going on.

Imperial Oil first identified the problem in 2011, after discovering oil seeping to the surface on Bear Island from one of its well sites in the middle of the Mackenzie River. We had leakage in one of our major pristine rivers in the north. Of course there is concern about that. Over the next year and a half, the company found a total of six leaks. Cleanup involved the excavation of thousands of cubic metres of contaminated soil. That soil had to be moved a very long distance in order to deal with it.

In 2004, a curious black bear caused an oil spill near Fort Simpson. About 12,000 litres of oil leaked out after the animal accidentally opened a valve at an Enbridge pipeline site. Is there culpability in that type of leak? Is somebody responsible for ensuring that pipeline valves are protected from the ability of black bears to manipulate them? Of course. The pipeline company's responsibility is to build pipelines that are safe and can live up to any kind of expectation. If a black bear could release a valve, so could people. We had a problem with the type of thing.

These NWT leaks are small in comparison to the roughly 28,000 barrels of crude oil spilled from a plains midstream Canada pipeline near Little Buffalo, Alberta in May 2011, or the massive 9.5 million litre leak near Zama, Alberta in June 2013 from Apache Canada's pipeline. That leak contaminated 42 hectares of boreal forest in northern Alberta.

We need stronger legislation and a stronger approach to pipeline issues in Canada. We cannot simply say that we have the very best, because the very best might have been that way 30 or 40 years ago when the pipeline was first put in place, but these things do not last forever. We can see that in the oil industry throughout the world. Pipeline degradation leads to leaks.

Whether the amount of oil is big or small, the damage to the environment is considerable, and we have to recognize that. Costs will be encountered. This legislation has loopholes within it that do not define precisely what polluters must pay. That it where our concerns are. We are still happy that we are getting something in place, but it is not the full thing I think we would look for from important legislation like this because of the nature and age of the industry in Canada, the need to fully monitor pipelines in an effective fashion so when leaks occur, they are caught as soon as they possibly can be. We are all concerned about those things.

In February 2013, an Enbridge excavation crew encountered contaminated soil in the immediate vicinity of Enbridge Line 21, which is the main Norman Wells pipeline, in two locations. The location in the first dig was kilometre post 457 on a line approximately 60 kilometres west of Fort Simpson. The second was at kilometre post 391. These two small leaks contaminated 100 cubic metres of soil.

As pipelines age, these sorts of issues start to become more and more, so it is very important that industry, dealing with aging equipment, provides the best possible care and attention to that equipment to ensure these leaks are found early and dealt with.

How does fault and negligence apply to existing operating systems for the pipelines that were approved many years ago by the National Energy Board? How do we ensure that the operating systems for these pipelines are brought up to a level that matches to the extent that the pipelines could have these problems?

While Bill C-46 makes some important improvements to Canada's pipeline liability regime, it does not unequivocally require polluters to pay. This undermines improvements and leaves uncertainty whether taxpayers will still be on the hook, in many cases for cleanup costs greater than the $1 billion where negligence or fault cannot be proved.

Basically, what we are saying here is that the very small problems are going to be covered. Larger problems, with this whole question of fault and negligence, are going to be at the discretion, I would assume, of the National Energy Board to come up with decisions. Just imagine the pressure and the lobbying efforts that could be made by various senators and other people for pipeline companies in this regime. As well as the National Energy Board being involved in these decisions, I understand the cabinet is or can be involved as well.

Ensuring that those who are responsible for making a mess clean it up is an important principle. We just went through an exercise with the nuclear industry, where we have limited their liability even after we have seen the complete disaster that took place at Fukushima, which cost exponentially more than what our limits are for the nuclear industry in Canada.

Why do we do this? It is because these industries simply cannot make the types of insurance arrangements for the kind of liability that they might incur. That is one of the problems we have in this industrial age, understanding how we can ensure that companies can carry the proper liability insurance or have the proper bond in place so that when things do go bad, the government is not left on the hook.

One of the greater examples of this is the Yellowknife Giant Mine where 237,000 tons of arsenic is going to be stored underground by the government in perpetuity at costs well in excess of $1 billion.

Things happen in many industries that we need to be very careful about, on prevention, ensuring that regulation and oversight is robust, and that the environmental assessment process leading to projects is also robust, so that we can be assured that when we are planning for the development of new pipelines, care and attention is put to every detail. I think of the Mackenzie gas pipeline and its environmental assessment process that everyone complained took so long, so many years. There were still no answers about what was going on with the pipeline, for the changing and the nature of the permafrost in northern Canada. It still did not get to that, and all the questions were not answered.

Environmental assessment is very important. Unfortunately, the record of the government is weakening environment protections. What this means is that by failing to do a rigorous environmental assessment before a project starts, there is a greater likelihood of problems later on. That is the result.

In the Northwest Territories, first nations are in court fighting against the Conservatives' gutting of the environmental regulatory system contrary to their constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements. The first nations are not happy that in the Sahtu region, where the pipelines are in the Northwest Territories, they are losing their regional boards, which could give them significant input into decisions that are made about pipelines to ensure that they understand the process is working best for them. Yukon first nations are preparing for a similar court fight if Bill S-6 ever becomes law.

Progressive companies, on the other hand, have found that high environmental standards actually work to their benefit, if they are selling product in the world. We heard the premier-elect of Alberta talking about that last night, talking about the need to raise the standards of Alberta so that its products can be better accepted around the world. That job is important, to ensure that what we are doing in Canada meets every rigorous requirement. Through that process, we can achieve better results.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, today, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, in relation 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We propose amending Bill S-6 in clause 44 by replacing line 19 on page 20 with the following:

section 55.2 by a maximum of six months to.

This amendment deals with the concern raised by the Nunavut Water Board in its written submission to the committee. They were concerned about the current ability of the minister to only extend an application by two months. They felt that was insufficient to deal with situations beyond the board's control, and stated:

For example, the Board has no control over ensuring that Board Member appointments are conducted in a timely manner that do not compromise the Board's ability to make quorum, to ensure Panels are properly balanced as required under the NWNSRTA and the NLCA and to reasonably allocate the Board's workload amongst the Board's Members (all of whom are part-time).

A case in point is that until October 2014, when the Board finally achieved a full complement of 9...Members, two positions on the Board had been vacant for almost two (2) years.... As a result of late appointments and staggered 3 year terms, there is also the potential every 2 and ½ years for the Board to lose quorum when, in a single year, the terms of up to five (5) Board Members end.

Amendment NDP-11 would increase the maximum time the minister would grant an extension, from two months to six months. It is simple administration but very important to people who have worked on these boards, where appointments are not always made in a timely fashion. This has happened under Liberal and Conservative governments, and I'm sure it will happen under the next government. These appointments will be difficult to make.

This is something that actually works for everyone, and it's what the board asked for. They recognize that as part of their operating regime, they need this type of amendment. For the government not to support the amendment just seems a little ridiculous.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this amendment is to specify that policy directions only apply if explicit consent of the first nations and of the territorial minister has been given. Then it continues to say that they do not apply “in respect” as it is currently drafted.

Again, I note that my friend Mark Strahl is making a point about similar language that we find in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This again is an example of where a federal act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, contains a similar policy direction, which has a narrower scope than what we're seeing under Bill S-6. I think amendment Green Party-17 should be given serious consideration by the committee for providing a narrower scope and greater respect for first nations and the people of Yukon.

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

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This, again, tries to ensure that we are respectful of existing agreements, existing powers and responsibilities, both of Yukoners....

I take the point that my friend Dennis Bevington made that although the Green Party has been speaking to the affront to first nations in Bill S-6, it is also an affront to Yukoners who are not aboriginal, because of the different powers and responsibilities within territories and the fact that agreements have been made that are being overturned and imposed under Bill S-6.

In this case, it's a very simple change that you'll find, Mr. Chair, under the section that begins “Policy Directions”, the proposed new section 121.1 in Bill S-6. Where the bill currently reads, “The federal minister may, after consultation with the Board, give written policy directions that are binding on the Board with respect to”, my amendment would simply change it to "respect to the exercise of any of its functions under this Act".

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is an attempt to remedy these egregious sections that deal with the time limits imposed by Bill S-6 on first nations and on a process that has been working well. Of course, I did support the previous ones; my amendment was identical, as you mentioned, to the Liberal and the New Democrat effort to make deletions.

What we're attempting to do here on page 12 is to bring the timeline under the purview of the board rather than having it handed down through this very last minute process and a mandatory five-year review, by replacing lines 5 to 23 very clearly with language that would ensure that the timeline is specified by the board.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is a fundamental demand make by Yukon first nations and Yukoners in opposition to Bill S-6. This clause is seen to repeal the hard work that Yukoners have done to be able to direct their own future in terms of development. We know this to be an issue not just for the folks on the ground but also for companies that are keen to invest with some stability in Yukon. Therefore, we stand with them in proposing the deletion of this clause.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again we're in the area of various new sections in Bill S-6 that propose different timelines, this one being: “The executive committee shall, within 16 months after the day on which a proposal is submitted...or referred to it”. It then goes on with various recommendations to decision-making bodies.

What my amendment proposes to do at this stage is that rather than enforce a predetermined project completion timeline, at that point the board would report to the minister on the timeline required for the completion of the evaluation project. This would seek to retain the independence of the board in handling its own matters, and it will of course create a timeline moment. It creates a moment where the executive committee will have a requirement to report to the minister on how things are going and give the minister a timeline.

Again, this is in the context of a situation where there are already timelines and the process has been working well. Bill S-6 proposes to essentially fix something that isn't broken and in the process would violate fundamental commitments to first nations for full consultation, meaningful participation, and treatment with respect, a government-to-government relationship as equal partners.

To try to repair some of the damage of Bill S-6, I propose this amendment.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Chair, we're proposing the deletion of clause 16. This represents a core concern or demand made by Yukon first nations and Yukoners opposed to Bill S-6 and it's seen as being detrimental to their ability to continue to guide the process of development in their territories and their territory. We stand with them in asking for this clause to be removed from Bill S-6.

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

Yes, of course, Mr. Chair. As you can see, we were trying to juggle. With so many committees meeting at the same time this week, all having passed those identical motions that require the Green Party to show up for clause-by-clause in all of them, we weren't sure whether it would be Mr. Hyer or me. I apologize for the fact that there are duplicates in the package.

On amendment PV-5, what we're attempting to do is similar to what amendment NDP-2 did, but rather than delete it, we recognize the same difficulty with this section. The brief from the Council of Yukon First Nations has been very clear in finding these sections to be deficient, as these were made at the last-minute and without meaningful consultation with Yukon first nations. The clause as written would automatically exempt projects from being subject to any new assessment if the authorization was renewed or amended. This is viewed with real concern, in that the approach could mean that there would be a wide-scale exemption of many projects.

What I'm attempting to do with this amendment—what the Green Party is attempting to do—is to create a reverse onus, so that in cases where there is an authorization that's renewed or amended there would be an automatic requirement for a review, except when, in the opinion of the board, there is no significant change to the original project. The effect of the bill as drafted could remain the same, but it creates a far greater likelihood that projects that should be reviewed if they are being renewed or amended will receive proper review, unless the board is of the view that they should not.

I recommend to the committee that this is a prudent amendment and would meet at least some of the concerns. Obviously I don't speak for Yukon first nations—I imagine that at this point they are considering constitutional challenges to Bill S-6—but this would be a practical and I think prudent amendment, meeting the spirit of the law.

Thank you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

It's pretty straightforward. This is one of the core demands made to us by Yukon first nations and Yukoners who oppose Bill S-6. We stand with them in opposing the bill, but in particular in asking for the deletion of clause 14.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Our third amendment is to amend, on page 1 at line 18, so that “delegation made under subsection (1) must be made in compliance with the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement”. Again, this is to ensure that failures in the bill's drafting can be amended.

The failures in the drafting to which I refer, of course, are the lack of adequate and meaningful consultation with Yukon first nations in bringing forward Bill S-6. At least through this amendment we would ensure that compliance with the previous Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement authority would ensure that there would be respect for the devolution transfer agreement in the way the bill goes forward.