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.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

[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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, this government launched a comprehensive northern strategy focused on sovereignty, the environment, the economy, and governance. Under the leadership of this Prime Minister, for the past nine years we have been providing northerners with the tools they need to take advantage of the vast natural resources at their disposal in an environmentally sustainable manner. By doing so, we are creating jobs and economic opportunities for northerners, ensuring the long-term prosperity of the north for generations to come.

Members can take great satisfaction from our progress in advancing the northern strategy in recent years thanks to extensive federal infrastructure investments, whether it be the creation of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency under the able leadership of the Minister of the Environment, the devolution of the Northwest Territories, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in the eastern Arctic, the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk highway, Canada's leadership on the Arctic Council, or the extension of protected land and marine areas, and the list goes on.

The bill before us today, Bill S-6, is the next example of how we are delivering on our northern strategy. This bill will complete the modernization of regulatory regimes in the north by bringing Yukon and Nunavut's regulatory regimes up to speed and on par with other Canadian jurisdictions.

This legislative work was started in 2013 with the Northern Jobs and Growth Act and completed in the Northwest Territories last year with the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Now it is time to finish what we have started.

The proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act are designed to make the regulatory systems in Yukon and Nunavut more efficient and effective, while ensuring sound environmental stewardship.

This is what Yukon Premier Darrell Pasloski told senators during hearings on the bill:

We [the Yukon] are now in a position where we are not as competitive with other jurisdictions. Quite frankly, we would like to get back on an equal footing with the other jurisdictions in this country.

Bill S-6 would do just that. It would make the two territories' regulatory regimes consistent with others across the north and in the rest of Canada. This would ensure Yukon and Nunavut remain attractive places to live, work and invest for generations to come.

Let me briefly highlight the many advantages of Bill S-6 for each territory. I will begin by summarizing some facts about updating YESAA.

It is important to underline that the amendments were informed by extensive discussions and consultations in Yukon over a period of seven years. These included the five-year review of YESAA as well as more recent engagement on this legislation.

Bill S-6 is consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement and the individual first nations final agreements signed by the federal and territorial governments and Yukon first nations.

Decision-making powers over natural resources that currently rest with the territorial government or the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board would not change. Neither the federal government nor the territorial government would have the authority to influence, direct, or interfere with an assessment process. It is especially important that aboriginal input and participation would remain central to the YESAA process.

It is important to point out that the Senate Standing Committee Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources completed its review of the legislation last fall. At the end of its review, it endorsed the bill unanimously. I submit that it correctly recognized that the passage of this bill would help foster economic development in the region and would create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity in an increasingly global marketplace.

These are the facts.

Allow me to take a moment to clarify, for the record, a few of the concerns that have been raised with regard to this bill, because as with every bill that comes through this place, there is very rarely unanimity. Bill S-6 would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to give binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The minister could also delegate his authority to the Government of Yukon in certain situations, if the need arose.

Including the power to delegate authorities to the territorial government is, I submit, consistent with the northern strategy and its aim of devolving and improving northern governance. It does not conflict with land claim agreements nor does it disrupt the tripartite spirit of the environmental assessment process. Further, and I have made this very clear, the government has no intention of exercising its authority to delegate any powers to the territorial government in the near term. Of course, if any such delegation were contemplated in the future, it would be consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement and would also be in the best interests of Yukoners, including Yukon first nations.

When it comes to the issue of policy direction, there has been a lot of fearmongering about what types of policy direction the minister could issue. Allow to me alleviate these concerns. Not only does this power already exist in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, but in each and every case when this power was exercised, which was four times, it was to protect the interests of first nations and to ensure that all the parties involved, namely the board, had a common understanding, with the government, of agreements the government had subsequently undertaken. That is important to point out.

Policy direction could only be given within the framework of existing legislation and land claims agreements and after consultation with the board. This amendment would apply to matters such as board conduct, the use of new technology, and satisfying roles and responsibilities regarding aboriginal consultation.

Contrary to the myths that have been spread around, it absolutely does not affect the independence of the board or the board's decision-making abilities with respect to a project under consideration or a completed assessment. The board maintains the jurisdiction, as set out in the agreement, of an independent arm's-length body responsible for making recommendations to decision-making bodies based on their socioeconomic and environmental assessment.

Finally, and I am not sure if my colleagues are aware of it, this authority also exists and is consistent with territorial legislation that allows a Yukon minister to issue policy direction to boards, which has been done on one occasion.

While the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board has a clear record of completing reviews in a timely manner, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act does not set out the “beginning-to-end” time limits for project reviews that exist in every other jurisdiction in Canada.

Bill S-6 fixes that problem. The time limits in Bill S-6 are intended to put Yukon on a level playing field with the rest of Canada and the world, minimize investor uncertainty and make project planning more predictable, while allowing for necessary extensions that could arise with more complex projects.

Of course, the time required by the proponent to gather information and undertake any studies necessary for the review would be excluded. We heard repeatedly from government and industry about the time and money spent on assessments for minor changes that had no substantive impact on a project or the environment.

This proposed legislation clarifies that authorization to renew or amend a project would only require a new assessment where there has been a significant change to the project. This would reduce the administrative burden on the proponent and the board and ensure predictability for established projects.

First nations would have a direct role in determining whether there has been a significant change when the project is located on settlement land and the first nation is a decision body for the project.

There has been much debate about the Yukon component of this bill, particularly with regard to the concerns I just mentioned. I think hon. members will have no choice but to agree, after hearing these remarks, that indeed the bill was developed with the best interests of Yukoners in mind, including those of Yukon first nations, and will help us to finally bring this bill into law.

I want to take a moment to recognize the tireless efforts of the member of Parliament for Yukon on this bill. If it were not for him, it would not have been possible, due to the NDP's interminable ban on committee travel, for the committee to have concluded its hearings in Yukon to hear directly from Yukoners, which was significant. I think Yukoners should be grateful for such a hard-working Conservative member of Parliament.

Another aspect of this bill that has not been debated, it seems to me, is the one that concerns Nunavut. For the record, the Government of Nunavut has called on us to take action to modernize the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

The hon. Johnny Mike, Minister of Environment in Nunavut stated:

...the Government of Nunavut believes that this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut....this is an important piece of legislation for the North and will contribute to the environmental protection and economic development of Nunavut.

In developing this proposed legislation, the Government of Canada sought the input of the territorial government and Nunavut Tunnagavik Inc., NTI, which represents the Inuit of Nunavut. We also engaged with the Nunavut Water Board, with industry and other federal government departments prior to preparing the Nunavut related provisions of Bill S-6. We listened closely to the input received during consultation, which is reflected in the proposed legislation.

Residents of Nunavut can look forward to an improved regulatory environment as a result of these efforts. The changes proposed would introduce beginning to end time limits on the issuance of water licences and reduce the duplication and uncertainty of unnecessary reviews. They would also give the Nunavut Water Board the ability, at its discretion, to issue water licences for the anticipated duration of a project. Life of project water licences would extend the maximum duration of a licence from 25 years to the anticipated life of the project. This would enable companies to undertake long-term planning and implement the principle of one project, one assessment.

Bill S-6 also addresses the long-standing disincentive to investment in Nunavut, security over bonding. Over bonding occurs when a company is required to provide more security than would be required to remediate a project at its completion because both regional Inuit associations and the Nunavut Water Board have set security amounts. With Bill S-6, the federal minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development would be given legislative authority to enter into agreements relating to security with Inuit landowners and the project applicant. The Nunavut Water Board would still be responsible for setting the amount of security, but the board would be required to consider any arrangement reached.

Bill S-6 would also implement stronger enforcement provisions to increase environmental stewardship, as well as align the act with other federal environmental statutes. The proposed legislation would increase fines for violations and allow for the creation of administrative monetary penalties to encourage compliance with regulatory requirements and remove the financial benefit of rule breaking.

There is broad support for the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act throughout Nunavut. Northerners recognize that consultation has been robust and that the proposed amendments would foster investor confidence, economic opportunities and growth while promoting sound environmental stewardship in the eastern Arctic.

For example, while giving testimony at the Senate committee, the witness from the Nunavut Water Board said:

...we were very much part of the working group and very much contributed to that working group all throughout and indeed are quite satisfied how well some of the issues we raised were heard.

As well, the President of NTI, Cathy Towtongie, wrote to me, saying, NTI has no objections to the modest changes proposed to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, who represents Nunavut, has further reinforced the desire of her constituents to see Bill S-6 passed. As she has observed, the proposed legislation plays a crucial role in preparing for devolution to be successful in Nunavut. It would ensure the water management regime that is eventually transferred from the federal government to the Government of Nunavut would encourage investment and allow the territory to fully benefit from increased resource development.

Of course, our government remains committed to moving forward with the implementation of the legislative changes in a collaborative manner, respecting the spirit and intent of the land claims agreement in both territories.

For all of these reasons, I urge all-party support for this most worthy proposed legislation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the minister today about the debate on Bill S-6 that would affect the people of Yukon so dramatically.

I think it first should be noted, this is the first and only day of debate on third reading for Bill S-6, as the government has decided to, once again in an unprecedented way, use time allocation to shut down debate on legislation in this place.

The minister talked about “broad support” for the bill, and it respecting the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement in land claims in Yukon. One of the great accomplishments of Canada was the creation of the Yukon Environmental and Social Assessment Board, YESA. That was a three-legged stool with the equal participation by statute after the Umbrella Final Agreement, of first nations, Yukon government and federal government.

I had occasion to work. I was the legal adviser to the Yukon government during the self-government agreement preceding YESA. With this bill, people of Yukon are saying that this is tilting that three-legged stool in an unbalanced way to the federal government, and Council of Yukon First Nations are talking about lawsuits in order to stop this misguided legislation.

My question to the minister is, how does he say that there is this “broad support” for the legislation when people are talking about lawsuits to stop it and to change the balance that had been created so effectively when YESA was first created?

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I would like to point out the fact, which he omits to mention, that the vast majority of the amendments in Bill S-6 to the YESA process stem from the five-year review that took place.

I referred in my remarks to a seven-year process that took place in order to bring Bill S-6 before this House.

When I talked of broad support, the fact of the matter is that there is indeed broad support, total support for all of those measures except four particular amendments. These four particular amendments have also been the subject of consultation with the first nations. As the record will show, all Yukoners, stakeholders, industry, government and first nations participated in the consultation process on these amendments, and the four particular amendments in question are probably most important to level the playing field I referred to.

The Yukon Territory deserves to benefit from the same rules as other territories and those provinces south of 60, and they ensure the certainty required to promote investment into the responsible natural resource development of the territory.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is so confident about the legislation he has brought forward, and yet, as has been pointed out, again through time allocation, is limiting participation, which is somewhat typical of the entire process of the bill.

I was not able to be there at the committee stage to hear the witnesses, but I have heard from a significant number of individuals in regard to Bill S-6. If the minister believes his legislation is so great, why then has there been so much resistance by the different stakeholders in coming on board with the member's legislation?

On the one hand we have the government saying, “Here is this wonderful piece of legislation”, but the communities that it is affecting are obviously offside with the minister.

How does the minister justify bringing forward legislation when he was not able to even come close to achieving any sort of consensus6 To illustrate just how bad it is, the only way the government has been able to pass this thing through to date is through time allocation. If it was not using its majority, it would not be passing the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the observation of the hon. member, again, is very isolated. The fact of the matter is that this bill is fully supported and asked for by the entire legislature of the Yukon. The Government of Yukon supports this bill, asked for its implementation, and what is more important is that all of the provisions in the bill are fully consistent with the letter of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

This is not news to anybody in the Yukon who has read the Umbrella Final Agreement. All of these measures were contemplated, and I cannot understand why Liberals would want to keep the Yukon on a playing field that is inferior to that of other jurisdictions in Canada so as to prevent investment in the Yukon. That is what this bill would achieve.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned in his speech, last year the NDP acted unilaterally to impose a travel ban on committee travel. This is clearly a case of the NDP not acting in collaboration with first nations and northerners, as our government has been doing.

Thankfully, due to the strong leadership of the member of Parliament for Yukon, who strongly advocated for committee hearings to take place in Yukon, we were able to hear from Yukoners. I lived in Yukon for 28 years, consider myself a former Yukoner, and I know that Yukoners appreciate Ottawa hearing their voice.

This is significant. Could the minister please take a moment to highlight for the members opposite how this government continues to work in collaboration with northerners and first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I briefly want to thank the hon. member for his question. Notwithstanding that he no longer lives there, he has a strong commitment to Yukon.

The hon. member referred to the member of Parliament for Yukon, and I want to pay tribute to that Conservative member, because he rose above politics. Unfortunately, every time he brings a measure that is aimed at trying to do something positive for the benefit of people, other people, especially opposition members, try to score cheap political points.

Let us forget the fundamental of what is aimed for here. The member for Yukon, throughout all of this debate, and it has been tough at points, always rose above politics and addressed the best interests of Yukoners. If there was any doubt in anybody's mind on this side of the House that this is not in the best interests of Yukoners and also of Canada, then the bill would not be here.

This is about promoting growth, creating jobs, ensuring long-term prosperity and creating opportunities for Canadians in the north, Yukoners who love to live there, but would prefer to continue improving their standard of living, which this bill would achieve.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister's comments, I want him to know that he is completely incorrect when he says that the entire legislature of Yukon supported this bill. I was up there a few weeks ago and spoke on this bill. I met with many people, and I can say that there are members of the legislative assembly in Whitehorse who are very opposed to this bill. They reflected first nations and community concerns, because people believe that this bill would undermine agreements that are already in place.

I would like to ask the minister to withdraw his comment that this bill is supported by, I think he said, the whole legislative assembly. That is simply not true. He can check the record. It is not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that when the House of Commons passes something and they vote against it, that does not prevent the statement that the House approved it. The legislature approved it, and that is a fact.

As to the other point the member made about some people being against it, of course they are. However, we have to look at the overall players. There are a few objectors to a few of the provisions of the bill, but the overwhelming majority of the provisions are endorsed by first nations, by the legislature of the Yukon, and hopefully also by this House, because the Senate has already unanimously approved the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this House to speak to this critical bill. I want to begin by correcting the record. The minister who just spoke characterized support from Yukon first nations in a way that is simply not the case.

I am proud to be part of the NDP, the official opposition that stands with Yukon first nations. We categorically oppose Bill S-6, not as the minister said. We oppose it along with many Yukoners, members of the legislature, members of organizations, environmental organizations, esteemed Yukoners who were part of putting together YESAA, and members of industry. They are all expressing their opposition to this bill. I am proud that we are standing with them today to do so as well.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development travelled to the Yukon to hear testimony from those who will be affected most by Bill S-6. We now know that Yukoners do not want this bill. We know that first nations do not want this bill. To pass it would be imposition on their right of self-determination, and in the case of Yukon first nations, it will be a breach of the final agreement.

The callous disrespect that the Conservative government repeatedly shows towards treaty rights is both outrageous and, frankly, illegal. It knows that. It knows that Bill S-6 will send them into the courts, battling against Yukon first nations.

The fact is that Conservatives do not care. We know that the government is currently engaged in litigation with 95 first nations. It has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars fighting indigenous rights in court. Enough is enough.

As I attended the truth and reconciliation closing events this week, I saw thousands of Canadians who are ready to repair the ongoing violence of colonialism. However, we need our government to be a partner in this great task. Knowingly brushing off the Yukon first nations final agreement is illegal, immoral, and it will be expensive. More importantly, this week, it is also opposite to the spirit of reconciliation.

It is perhaps most disappointing in this case that Yukoners of all kinds are in fervent disagreement with Bill S-6. They want to uphold the final agreement. They see it as their agreement as well. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, known as YESAA, is a made in Yukon program, and they worked hard to achieve it. They want to be good neighbours and good business partners with first nations and the federal government.

What is clear, since hearing testimony from Yukoners, is that the territorial Yukon government does not speak on behalf of the people. This is clear, as it supports this legislation.

I remember communicating with the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, Ruth Massie, who stated:

This whole process attacks the integrity of our constitutionally protected agreements and Yukon First Nations will stand by their agreements even if it means going to court, they give us no choice. We did not sign our agreements to implement them in the courts but we will protect them.

The people of the Yukon and first nations alike are baffled by the contents of Bill S-6. The YESAA recently underwent a five-year review, through which recommendations were made. However, the four amendments that are the cause of concern appeared nowhere as recommendations in the five-year review.

These four changes are contrary to the intent of the land claims agreement and undermine the neutrality of the YESAA process. The changes are that the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will be endowed with the authority to provide policy directives to the YESAA board; that the federal minister will be given the power to delegate his federal powers to the Yukon government; that the exemptions for renewal and amendments could work to eliminate requirements for projects that could have major effects on the environment and communities; and, finally, that the condensed timelines on the YESAA assessments will limit the thoroughness of environmental assessments and limit the opportunity for first nations input.

Grand Chief Ruth Massie said this of the amendments in Bill S-6:

Yukon First nations have met with the Government of Canada, specifically [the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada] and have asked them to remove four problematic amendments proposed to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act [that was] established in Chapter 11 of the Umbrella final agreement and each final land claim agreement of the eleven Yukon First Nations.

1. Yukon First Nations are opposed to the proposed amendments to YESAA because they undermine our Aboriginal rights, titles and interests.

2. The four proposed amendments were not discussed with the agreement signatories prior to being considered, a complete surprise to Yukon first Nations. This is a direct breach of the constitutionally protected agreements for all eleven Yukon First Nations in regards to consultation and accommodation.

3. Canada's decision to impose the four proposed amendments will likely result in litigation with Yukon First Nations. This will affect the Yukon economy and cause [an impact on] any future resource development. Very unnecessary actions!

The question, why is the current government taking actions that it knows are unlawful and will lead to litigation? Why do Conservatives consistently force first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities into costly, protracted court battles that they will ultimately lose? The answer, I am afraid, lies in the Conservatives' willingness to put the perceived interests of extraction companies above environmental and first nations rights.

As with so much other legislation we have seen in this Parliament, the Conservatives intend to obliterate the environmental assessments and protections that Canada has established. I am speaking of Bill C-45, the omnibus bill that destroyed the navigable waters act; or Bill C-38, which made sweeping changes to Fisheries and Oceans.

What is most interesting about Bill S-6 is that a good portion of the businesses and extractive corporations with interests in the Yukon are also opposed to it. Industry is learning faster than government that in order to have sound, productive business dealings on or affecting indigenous lands, industries must secure meaningful consent and partnerships first.

I would like to read from a letter sent by a CEO of the Casino Mining Corporation, Paul West-Sells, who wrote to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs:

On behalf of Casino Mining Corporation...I am putting forward our company's concerns regarding the fragility of intergovernmental relations in the Yukon surrounding Bill S-6 and the negative impact this is having on the territory's mineral industry.

It is imperative for Casino that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act...has the broad support of all governments in order to ensure the confidence of both project proponents and Yukon residents in the YESAA process and to facilitate investments in the territory.

In other words, if there is no confidence that first nations will support the government's environmental assessments, there can be no confidence in the investments that businesses want to make there. Bill S-6 could have disastrous implications on the Yukon economy.

I have been told that Yukon is proud that YESAA is homegrown and serves Yukoners and first nations. It is their tripartite agreement that created it. The current government is focused on destroying the protections over so many local and beloved waters and ecosystems. Yukoners know that YESAA is unique, and that it stands to protect the biosphere and their relationships with the indigenous communities they live with.

One of the repeated concerns that has been raised by Yukoners is that their voices have not been heard throughout this process. I quoted Grand Chief Ruth Massie, and I also want to read into the record the voices of other Yukoners who have been fighting Bill S-6.

Mary Jane Jim, councillor of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, provided testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. She said:

The CYFN and Yukon First Nations assert that the federal government would breach its constitutional duty to uphold the honour of the Crown when it proceeded unilaterally with amendments to the YESAA.

A great friend, Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson, said in October 2014:

Eleven years ago, devolution gave the Yukon government province-like powers for land and resource management. This was an important step in Yukon’s history and crucial in Yukon’s ability to determine our own future, a future grounded in respectful relationships among Yukon First Nation governments and the Yukon government.

With these proposed amendments to what is a made-in-Yukon environmental assessment process, YESAA, it’s no longer ours.

The NDP leader Liz Hansen also said:

What we need, what is sorely missing, is a willingness to engage in an open and honest manner. We need a relationship built on dialogue and respect, rather than on lawsuits and secret negotiations.

A Yukon news editorial in June 2014, entitled “Environmental assessment reform should be done in the open”, wrote:

A long list of people deserve raspberries for this needlessly shady behaviour. At the top of the naughty list are Senator Daniel Lang and [the member for Yukon], who are supposed to ensure that the interests of Yukoners are represented in Ottawa. Instead, they’ve kept the public out of the loop, other than [the member for Yukon] uttering vague generalities about the forthcoming changes without offering any meaningful specifics. Shame on them.

Chief Eric Fairclough, chief of Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, is quoted as having said:

—YESAA originates from and is rooted in our land claim agreements. It manages the use and the development of lands, waters, and resources in Yukon. As a result, implementation of YESAA may affect the exercise of aboriginal treaty rights. In this case, the crown has not acted in accordance with its constitutional duties owed to Yukon first nations. The crown has breached its duties to work with Yukon first nations and take steps to accommodate our concerns. The crown has not acted honourably or fairly. The crown has breached its constitutional duty to act in the honour of the crown.

Chief Carl Sidney of the Teslin Tlingit Council is quoted as having said:

Industry and development come and go, but we are here forever and we carry that sacred responsibility. YESAA is connected to those beliefs and values through our agreements and should not be amended without our consent. We entered into the agreements as a way forward as an expression of who we are as people. An essential part of that vision was the recognition of and respect for our land, our water, and the air we breathe. They are a part of us and we are part of our environment for all time. It is our collective responsibility as a treaty party to ensure these unique relationships will be part of our future.

The amendments in Bill S-6 imposed by Canada at the last minute undermine what we have created together. It is critical to success that we continue to work together as was the vision under our agreements. Canada's stated intention in entering into final agreements was to create certainty about the use and ownership of Yukon land and natural resources. Substantial aboriginal rights, including title, were exchanged for constitutionally protected treaty rights. That was a high price to pay to achieve certainty for all Canadians and the Yukon first nations who have signed agreements and have paid it in full.

I would like to read into the record Chief Angela Demit's words, the Chief of White River First Nation, who said:

We participated in meetings with Canada about the changes to YESAA. Through that experience we have understood that the changes being proposed by Canada have much more to do with an agenda made in Ottawa than with the recommendations that came out of the YESAA five-year review process.

Mr. Tom Cove, director of the Department of Lands and Resources for the Teslin Tlingit Council, said:

If I may, if the bill passes as is, the potential for litigation is a virtual, absolute certainty and is a great concern to Teslin Tlingit Council, other first nations, and a lot of Yukoners, and to investors outside the Yukon who have an interest in investing further in natural resource development, but in many other ways as well. It's of great concern and it is a virtual certainty. I'm not exactly sure, but the last time I looked I think there are five law firms already hired to prepare the work that's necessary in anticipation of this bill going forward. That's a lot of momentum in that direction.

Chief Doris Bill, the chief of Kwanlin Dün First Nation, stated:

Providing a single party with authority to direct the board is fundamentally inconsistent with any legislation that stems from our tripartite treaties. While the treaties obligate Canada to enact YESAA, it does not own YESAA and cannot choose to dictate its own policies on the independent assessment body.

Ms. Millie Olsen, deputy chief of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, stated at committee:

YESAA currently has timelines for assessors to review each iteration. This approach encourages proponents to prepare comprehensive applications that minimize iterations. Proponents who prepare adequate applications quickly are rewarded under the current process because they can proceed quickly.

On the other hand, the Bill S-6 approach of applying a beginning-to-end timeline will reward proponents who prolong the adequacy review phase by using up time with multiple iterations. The approach will penalize assessors and reviewers like first nations because it will shorten the most important public review phase, infringing on our right for comprehensive reviews of projects.

Chief Steve Smith, the chief of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, testified at committee. He stated:

Bill S-6 is a roadblock to reconciliation. The unconstitutional bill demonstrates the federal government's unilateralism and lack of understanding of the relationships that arise from the final agreements, the federal government's failure to abide by the collaborative development assessment regime mandated by the final agreements, and the federal government's indifference to fostering productive and collaborative treaty relations with Yukon first nations. This is fundamentally unacceptable.

Ms. Wendy Randall, the chair and executive committee member of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, YESAA, stated at committee:

It is important to note that YESAB is not part of government. We are not a regulator. We do not issue permits or authorizations, and we do not make final decisions on projects. We are an independent board that conducts environmental and socio-economic assessments and makes recommendations to decision bodies. Those decision bodies are the three orders of government that have control over land and resources in Yukon, so federal, territorial, and first nation governments....

We have 10 years of experience conducting environmental assessments on projects, from very small projects to very large [ones]. We have flexibility now in timelines that we have established under our rules, which for the most part, I feel, work fairly well.

Certainly there are areas in which things can be improved. We have proponents. We have first nations. We have other groups with sometimes different interests who feel there could be improvements made. I'm unsure until I see how these changes would play out or be implemented whether they would accomplish that or not.

Ms. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice-president, Lands and Environment for the Kaminak Gold Corporation, stated:

—Kaminak is concerned that the process through which YESAA is being amended is creating increased distrust between governments and uncertainty in the assessment and regulatory process for current and future projects in Yukon.

I have shared the voices of Yukoners of Yukon first nations who have stood up against Bill S-6. They are standing up against the government's agenda.

As a proud northerner myself, I stand with them, along with my colleagues in the NDP, in solidarity against Bill S-6.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House decline to give third reading 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, because it:

(a) was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon First Nations, as per the government of Canada's constitutional duty, and without adequate consultation with the people of Yukon, as per the government's democratic duty;

(b) provides the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with authority to unilaterally issue binding policy direction on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, which undermines the neutrality of the environmental and socio-economic assessment process;

(c) provides the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with authority to delegate powers to the territorial minister without the consent of First Nations;

(d) provides broad exemptions for renewals and amendments of projects; and

(e) includes proposed timelines on the assessment process that will affect the thoroughness of environmental and socio-economic assessments and opportunities for First Nation input on major projects.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

We are out of time for debate at this point. The hon. member for Churchill will have 10 minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

There are 10 minutes for questions and comments for the member for Churchill.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simply this. The member for Churchill always speaks very eloquently about consultation, discussion, talking with the public, and consulting with indigenous peoples and all Canadians on issues of the day. In her opinion, how has the government consulted on this particular bill?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, our House leader, for that important question, because it really gets to the crux of what we are talking about here today.

Bill S-6 has been a complete failure from the beginning. The fact is, first nation positions were not respected in the deliberations that led up to Bill S-6. There were some discussions, but they do not qualify as appropriate consultation. Certainly when the amendments were made, including the four amendments that are deemed totally unacceptable by Yukon first nations, who said that they are not what they said in their meetings, the government failed to go back to the drawing board and work with first nations to find a solution.

What is clear is that the government fails when it comes to its duty to consult. It fails when it comes to working in the spirit of reconciliation we have been talking about so much over the last few weeks. Fundamentally, it is a failure when it comes to working in partnership with first nations in this country to do nothing more than create certainty and protections that could help support economic development that would benefit first nations, all Yukoners, and all Canadians. This is what is shameful about what we are seeing from the Conservative government on Bill S-6.

As I pointed out in my speech, we have already heard that Yukon first nations, as a result of this failure to consult, are ready to go to court. They are ready to take this to the courts. It did not have to be this way. Unfortunately, this is where the current Conservative government has brought Yukon first nations.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, what I think is shameful is that this member from the NDP voted against giving women living on reserves the same matrimonial property rights that everyone else has across this country, including every single woman in this chamber.

I would like to ask that member how she could vote against a bill that actually put in place equality for women living on reserves.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that government members, instead of actually owning up to their failure when it comes to Bill S-6, their failure to stand up for Yukoners, and their failure to stand up for Yukon first nations, try to change the channel.

Since the Conservatives have raised this issue of matrimonial property rights, speaking of consultation, they also failed to consult when it came to developing that legislation they put forward a few years ago.

I spent the morning in this House, and I find it passing strange that the Conservatives choose to talk about matrimonial property rights when we raise the issue of the $1.1 billion they left unspent on aboriginal issues, when we raise Bill S-6, when we raise missing and murdered indigenous women, fire safety in communities, and boil-water advisories. It is a long list.

It is time for the Conservatives to realize that, frankly, the vast majority of indigenous people, certainly the ones I have heard from, cannot wait to get them out of government. They are an obstruction to indigenous people in our country moving ahead, and Bill S-6 is a perfect example of that.

Yukoners and Yukon first nations have come up with a solution that works for them and works for their territory, and Ottawa is once again waging its patriarchal, paternalistic force to impose its approach, an approach that does not work, that will only lead to further litigation, and that will stall economic development in this territory.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to ask her to comment on the blatant paternalistic attitude of the Conservative government in terms of its dealings with our first nation brothers and sisters, especially in light of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report about coming together.

I would ask the member if she would comment further on how Bill S-6 flies in the face of the spirit and meaning of the Truth and Reconciliation report.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question and for bringing it back to a sentiment that has inspired many of us this week, certainly on our side of the House. It is the idea that now Canada is ready to embark on a journey of reconciliation. However, what is clear is that the partner that is certainly not there and not willing to embark on that journey is the government.

Bill S-6 is a perfect example of how the government is willing to impose legislation that will only lead to it being taken to court by Yukon first nations. It is essentially forcing first nations in the Yukon to spend money they surely could be using on other important priorities to litigate the government, along with the other maybe 95 first nations that are in court right now with the government.

We have heard from members of the government on Bill S-6 that there are only four recommendations first nations take issue with, that basically the government knows best, and that this is about moving forward and supporting resource development. These are the kinds of mistakes of the past made by this government and previous Liberal governments. It is the Ottawa knows best approach. It is the federal government imposing its will on first nations rather than consulting and working in partnership and collaboration where necessary.

At the end of the day, it is Yukon first nations and Yukoners who are going to pay the price. Hopefully, it will not be for too long, because soon there will be a new government in Canada, one that stands with first nations and respects first nations rights and that can truly build a brighter future for all of us in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of the four contentious amendments, and it is on the issue of policy direction.

As the member will know, there are four examples of policy direction having been used in the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories. In each case, policy direction was used to clearly communicate expectations, based on interim measures, with first nations. It was not this government or a previous government. The minister of aboriginal affairs gave policy direction to protect and advance the rights of first nations. When we brought this up at committee when we were in Whitehorse, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said that for a minister to advance the rights of first nation people was actually paternalistic. Those were her words in the committee hearing.

I am wondering if the member could clarify. She is the lead critic for the NDP. Does she believe that the minister protecting the rights of first nations groups through policy direction is paternalistic, as her colleague does?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while I am in the House I want to end off by saying that what is paternalistic is what we are seeing in the House today, which is a government that is focused on bringing forward a bill, Bill S-6, that we know is opposed by Yukon first nations, many Yukoners, members of the environmental community, industry partners, and people who know what is best in their community. These are people who have been part of building YESSA, a made-in-Yukon solution. Yet Ottawa, with the support of the member for Yukon, swoops in to basically stifle all of that progress and place barriers that are about to set Yukon first nations and Yukoners back.

I am proud to stand here with my NDP colleagues in opposition to Bill S-6. I stand along with first nations in the Yukon and with Yukoners as well in saying that Bill S-6 has to go.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of thoughts that I would like to share with the House this afternoon in regard to Bill S-6.

I will start off by reflecting a little bit about the process that we again find ourselves in. Over the last number of years, ever since the government achieved a majority, we have seen a different attitude in the manner in which legislation is passed through the House of Commons. We have had numerous time allocations. I believe it is somewhere around 95, 96, 97 times the government has seen fit to invoke time allocation in order to pass its legislative agenda. Typically, when we invoke time allocation, we limit the number of individuals who would be able to contribute to the debate on a bill. Quite often we will see a very limited amount of time even afforded to members to address important pieces of legislation.

Bill S-6 is an important piece of legislation. We now have the government using that tool to get it through the House of Commons, which I find is most unfortunate. If we look at the manner in which Bill S-6 came into existence to where it is today at third reading, we have seen the government adopt an attitude of “our way or the highway”.

There is no sense that the government has tried to get consensus. Whether it is inside the House of Commons or in Yukon itself, in the committee meetings that have taken place, in the different types of discussions, the government has demonstrated its inability to build a consensus that would ultimately see the type of support that we would argue is necessary when we are passing legislation such as we are in regard to Yukon territory and the impact of the legislation.

I challenge the government. The Conservatives will say they have consulted. When we posed the question to the minister responsible for the legislation, he said that they had the full support of the Yukon legislature. We know that was not the case. I had the opportunity to be in a provincial legislature when something is decided here in Ottawa. If the government has done its homework, quite often there will be unanimous support from a provincial or territorial entity. However, the government was not able to get that unanimous support from the Yukon legislature, which is one thing in itself.

We talk about first nations. The first nations of Canada are of great importance. We in the Liberal Party have argued for that for many years. The way in which governments should be approaching first nations in Canada is one of government to government, of respect. We should look at ways we can better enable the leadership at all different levels to try to achieve the compromises and build on a consensus that would have a far more positive outcome.

Earlier this week we had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. It has been a long time coming. Let us apply Bill S-6 and what the government is attempting to do to that particular report. How would Mr. Sinclair have responded to the treatment of first nations by the manner which Bill S-6 has been brought forward? I would suggest that the government has once again failed the first nations community.

We could talk about the stakeholders, environmental groups and individuals who live in Yukon who are very disappointed with some of the actions within the legislation brought forward by the government.

The minister talks about wanting to promote growth and jobs, wanting to improve the standard of living. These are words that he has used, and I suspect that the principle of promoting growth and jobs is something that all of us want to see. We all want to see an improvement in the standard of living. Just yesterday, I stood in my place talking about the northern food program and how it was of critical importance that the government get it right, not only putting money into an envelope but getting that money delivered or getting the fresh produce into the hands of the people who need it.

We saw that the Auditor General of Canada was pointing out deficiencies, yet the government tended to close its eyes or put its head in the sand and ignore some of those recommendations, or at the very least deny them in debate yesterday when we had the opportunity to focus attention on that program. There is so much more that government can do.

The Conservatives talk about improving the standard of living in northern Canada. We can do more and we should be looking at how we can work with the many different stakeholders from the north in terms of implementing good, solid programs, ensuring that we have good federal legislation, that we are respectful of treaties and so forth. That is something that should be a far higher priority of the current government, and we should not be settling.

I had the opportunity to do a bit of reading on this issue, and I came across a comment over the Internet. It was by Kirk Cameron, and I would like to share, in his words, some of the thoughts he has in regard to Bill S-6. This is a post from December 5, 2014. In reading this, I believe that Mr. Cameron has encapsulated a great deal of the concern that is there in regard to Bill S-6. I appreciate Mr. Cameron's taking the time to post this article. I like the headline, “When is a Government not a Government?”

He said:

Yukon First Nation Chiefs met with the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs this week in Ottawa. They discussed with the Minister their concerns with Bill S-6, legislation that will change a number of critical sections of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act (YESAA).

YESAA is the acronym. We have heard a lot of reference to YESAA, not only here in third reading but also in second reading. If we get a really good appreciation of what YESAA is all about, we get a better sense of why so many people feel that the government has let them down in regard to Bill S-6. However, I will get back to the posting:

This Act is one of the comprehensive pieces of federal legislation necessary to implement chapters of the Treaties agreed to in the 1990s between the majority of Yukon First Nation governments and the two public governments, Canada and Yukon.

These Treaties are a big deal; they are recognized and protected as an expression of Aboriginal rights through s. 35 of the Constitution of Canada, the supreme law of our land. YESAA gives presence and authority to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, one of the co-management bodies that were agreed to in the Treaties. The Board conducts assessments on all lands in Yukon, First Nation, Crown and even lands within municipalities.

I will pause there for a moment and just reflect on how important it is that we recognize the role that YESAA has played in the past. We want to recognize the manner in which it was able to carry itself, building on consensus, contrary to what we have witnessed over the last number of years here in Ottawa.

It goes on to say that:

....the changes in Bill S-6 were never discussed with the Yukon first nations despite the status of YESAA as a legal instrument required to implement the tri-party treaties. The first nations view, as I understand it, is that they’re partners to a Treaty that is supposed to build relationships among all three levels of government (federal, territorial and First Nation), and part of that relationship is an understanding that we are equal partners in the co-management of the territory’s resources.

When we think of resources, it is important to recognize how the mining industry plays such a strong role in terms of the development of Yukon, and also the development of Canada. We can think of gold, zinc and lead as commodities that are mined in Yukon. I am not 100% sure, but I believe it is somewhere in the area of 35% in terms of the overall economy affected by those three products.

What comes with this co-management relationship is full discussion and agreement to any measure that changes the legislative foundation to these Treaty bodies.

Imagine how you would feel as a Chief of a self-governing First Nation to be told that you do not represent a “real government”. Just such a comment was made by a federal Minister. As such, Canada does not have to treat you as an equal participant in the process to amend legislation required to implement your Treaties.

And, this is not just any federal Minister. It is the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Canada’s representative with the lead responsibility to look after the “Honor of the Crown” where First Nations interests are concerned (oh and let’s not forget, one of the parties to the tripartite Treaty with Yukon First Nations). You have been elected Chief to represent the interests of one of those First Nations whose government is now in place to honor that Treaty relationship and work for the betterment of your Citizens within a partnership of governments, and you hear this shocking declaration from one of your supposed “partners” in Treaty.

I think the author of this posting really encapsulates one of the biggest concerns in regard to Bill S-6. I have had the opportunity to talk to very strong advocates in Yukon, one of them being my former colleague, Larry Bagnell, who has done a phenomenal job in making sure the Liberal caucus is aware of what is taking place in Yukon so that members will be in a better position to hold the government to account for their actions or lack thereof.

This is a fairly long story and I am not going to read it all, but I do want to comment on the last paragraph of the posting. It says:

Often in the past Yukoners have complained of a distant and uncaring Ottawa interfering in our lives. It is unfortunate that we have this recent experience to reconfirm this suspicion!

This is a genuine concern that has been expressed.

I have had the opportunity today and at second reading to pose a number of questions of the government regarding Bill S-6. The government genuinely believes that it has done its homework on the issue; I do not believe that it has. When we hear the minister say that they have worked on consensus and done the proper consultation and then we hear first nations and other stakeholders say that the government has not done what it says it has, we see there is good reason that the government has not been able to achieve the support that one would like to have when passing legislation of this nature.

As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, the government says that it wants to promote growth and jobs in the north. It says it wants to improve the standard of living. If the government is sincere about that, why has it not garnered the support that it could have been able to acquire prior to the introduction of Bill S-6?

If the government had not used a closure motion to prevent members of the House from debating Bill S-6, this bill would be far from passing. The government might not even have had the support necessary to get it passed before we break. The government has intentionally chosen to use time allocation in order to force this bill through in what could be the dying days of this regime.

I know that many Canadians in all regions of our country are hoping for change. I suspect that change is on the horizon, but the government's determination to pass Bill S-6 in this fashion is most unfortunate.

Whether it is through education in our public school system, through nature programs, or from talking with individuals who are very keen on travelling throughout Canada, Yukon comes to the minds of many Canadians as a great place to visit. For a good percentage of the population, it would be a great place to live as well. Yukon as a territory is vast in size. It has the highest mountain, Mount Logan, and there are beautiful rivers and all sorts of wilderness. The tourism industry has great potential, and when we look at the high demand for commodities throughout the world, we see that Yukon's mining industry could play a critical role in meeting some of those demands.

Whether it is in relation to tourism, mining, or industries that are evolving and developing, we should be creating and encouraging growth and improving the standard of living for the people of Yukon by allowing true consultation to take place. We should strive to get consensus and respect the treaties that have been signed off on. It is an issue of respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit humourous that this member, who speaks more than any member in the House, is complaining about time allocation. Certainly his right to speak is never curtailed.

However, I want to talk about something he did not talk a whole lot about, which is the bill before us today, Bill S-6. The amendments that really are the crux of the opposition to this bill involve policy direction, delegation of authority, and a significant change in timelines. Every single one of those amendments, all of which were requested by the Yukon government, are envisioned in the Umbrella Final Agreement. The member referred to treaties as kind of an abstract thing, but there is actually a document, the Umbrella Final Agreement, and each one of those amendments complies fully with the Umbrella Final Agreement.

The minister has asked those who oppose the bill to please show him where these amendments contravene the Umbrella Final Agreement. To date, no one has been able to do so. Perhaps the member, in his consultations, has finally discovered the answer to where these four amendments contravene the UFA. Up until now, I have not seen any evidence that they do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary has been here for virtually all of the debate, and that is admirable.

I want to make reference again to the article that was published. When amendments are brought forward at the committee stage, there is a bit of apprehension among different stakeholders, in particular among the chiefs, councils, and local governments. The parliamentary secretary stated that the Yukon territorial government was in support of the amendments, but the issue, as I really tried to emphasize in my remarks, is whether there was any sort of co-operation or consultation with the other partners. On the surface, it appears as if there was none.

I again quote from Mr. Cameron's article, which said:

Ironic that a day after Justice Ron Veale of the Supreme Court of Yukon brought down a ruling on the Peel Watershed calling on the public government to read the Treaties generously as long-term vehicles to bring about reconciliation with First Nations, the federal Minister treats Yukon First Nations so disgracefully!

When the member makes reference to the amendments and even if he believes he has good support for the amendments, how were those amendments worked into what has been suggested in the quote I just shared? How were our first nations consulted? What were their thoughts? Does the government actually feel any obligation to work with first nations, in this case with regard to Bill S-6?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech in the House on Bill S-6. He spoke at length about real consultation.

In committee, the people of Yukon asked for meetings, hearings and more consultation. Obviously, senators failed to listen and did not ask the committee to go to the Yukon to hold real consultations.

According to my Liberal colleague, why did senators not hold more consultations with the people of Yukon?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed that the member would pose a question of that nature in the sense that in the House I have argued, as have other members, particularly from the Conservative side, that there was a need for the aboriginal affairs standing committee to go to remote communities. It was the New Democrats, because they had a bit of a tiff on some issue that was relatively minor, who prevented the standing committee from travelling and doing a lot of the consultation, so they are not all that pure on the issue of leaving Ottawa to conduct consultations. One would want to be consistent.

She emphasized the Senate repeatedly. My understanding of the NDP position is that whether Canadians want it or not, the NDP is committed to abolishing it, even though it is unconstitutional to do that. There would have to be constitutional hearings in order to convince a number of provinces to give in to the NDP's demands, who knows at what cost. Given the current leader's flip-flop on different issues, I do not know if that is in Canada's best interest.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

As the member well knows, Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. For many years Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated was frustrated with the lack of implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement under the Liberal government. The result of that was a lawsuit against the federal government for the lack of implementation of the land claims agreement in Nunavut.

Recently our government has worked very hard under the leadership of Minister Valcourt to settle that land claim agreement so that the Nunavummiut can move forward—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. The minister should be aware that she is not to use the first or last name of another minister or member of Parliament.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Speaker.

Could the member from the Liberal Party explain whether or not Liberals see this regulatory improvement act as a further step in the implementation of our Nunavut Land Claims Agreement?

Second, our government has worked, as I said, to settle the land claims agreement, to move forward in the devolution agreement for Nunavut and put the necessary legislation in place so that Nunavummiut can move forward in making decisions on projects in Nunavut, such as whether they will proceed and under what terms and conditions. We have worked very hard.

In our view, this legislation is very supportive to the devolution agreement that we are now negotiating with the Nunavut government. Nunavummiut want the tools to make decisions for their own future, and I personally see Bill S-6 as another means for empowering northerners to make those decisions.

Do the Liberals not agree that Nunavummiut should have the tools to make decisions on projects of importance to them? Do the Liberals not recognize that this bill is in support of implementing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that Inuit, for over 30 years, fought so hard to get with the Government of Canada?

We are doing our part in settling the land claims agreement, which the Liberals failed to implement. We are moving on devolution. We are restoring the cuts that the Liberal government made to the territorial governments. This is another piece of legislation that would empower northerners to make decisions for their projects and set the terms and conditions for them.

Do the Liberals not support that?

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has a little better than a minute.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given the question, it could be a very difficult challenge to keep the answer to under a minute.

Maybe I will demonstrate the type of support that the Liberal Party has traditionally provided. Has it been perfect? No, it has not. We have not been absolutely perfect. That said, I reflect back to when Paul Martin was prime minister and the phenomenal amount of effort that he put in. In a relatively short time frame, he was able to accomplish a great deal in terms of first nations and aboriginal communities by looking at a framework for future decades to deal with issues ranging from education to financing to issues of land claim settlements.

There are different levels of government and different political entities. It is important that we recognize the priority of settling land claims and looking at ways to make a more positive contribution. I suggest the minister might want to reflect on the accord that Paul Martin had—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I gave the member a few extra seconds there, but time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill today. As the member of Parliament representing Nunavut and the Nunavummiut, and as the Minister of the Environment and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, I am especially proud to defend Bill S-6 this afternoon.

The legislation, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, would drive economic growth and development across the north. In the process, it would improve the quality of life for all living in Nunavut. It would also improve the quality of life for each and every one of my constituents.

Beyond what it would do to attract investment, and create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, this initiative has two symbolic roles. It is both the latest in a series of developments that would enable Nunavummiut to benefit more fully from all that the territory has to offer, and it is a precursor to the territory of Nunavut inheriting more political and economic independence than ever before.

On October 3, 2014, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, came to Nunavut, and together we announced the appointment of a chief federal negotiator, Brian Dominique, to represent Canada in negotiations toward the signing of a devolution agreement in principle.

Devolution in Nunavut will give control over land, water and resources in the territory to those best placed to make decisions about their future, the Nunavummiut. This is similar to the devolution agreement that exists in Yukon, as well as the one that our government recently signed in the Northwest Territories. The benefits of devolution are significant, and I look forward to the day when Nunavut can access these benefits, thanks to our Conservative government.

In broad terms, Bill S-6 would help Nunavut reach this goal of devolution by creating conditions within the regulatory system to allow residents of Nunavut, from Cambridge Bay to Rankin Inlet to Iqaluit, to unlock the great economic potential of their territory. Bill S-6 plays a crucial role in paving the way for devolution. It would ensure that the water management regime that would eventually be transferred from the federal government to the Government of Nunavut would encourage investment and allow the territory to fully benefit from increased resource development. Given our territory's world-class mines and massive natural resource revenues, it is clear that the economic potential of Nunavut is tremendous.

It is our duty as Parliamentarians to unlock opportunities in this region. This will be achieved by building a streamlined and predictable regulatory regime that entices investors and developers to look to the north while at the same time safeguarding our unique environment.

Along with our government's investments in roads, bridges and education, regulatory improvements will stimulate future exploration and development to the benefit of Nunavummiut and all Canadians. The Nunavut government agrees with us. My counterpart, the Nunavut minister of the environment, the Hon. Johnny Mike, has been on record saying, “the Government of Nunavut believes that this bill would make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut”.

I will speak more specifically to what the minister is referring.

Bill S-6 would ensure more timely and predictable water licence review processes. One of our government's objectives in the north is speeding up regulatory approvals to keep pace with the needs of business. This would allow the territories to maximize the potential of their abundant natural resources, and create conditions for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity north of 60. We were determined to improve the regulatory regimes for land and water management in all three of Canada's northern territories. We wanted to ensure modern and efficient systems for northerners, understanding the demands of a highly-competitive, global marketplace. With Bill S-6, we have the final legislative step to realize this goal and to ensure that the required work is in place for the north to flourish.

Changes to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act would make the regulatory process stronger, more effective and more predictable. Even former Liberal Senator Graham Mitchell agrees us, who said:

It's designed specifically to enhance regulatory processes, reduce the complexity of these processes, reduce regulatory overlap and, in doing so, reduce uncertainty in the economic development process in these territories.

This would help stimulate jobs, resource development and economic prosperity throughout our great territory. Bill S-6 would provide, from beginning to end, time limits for water licence review and would give the Nunavut Water Board the ability, at its discretion, to issue water licences for the anticipated duration of the project.

These changes would make the licensing process more predictable for proponents, allowing companies to engage in better long-term planning. It would also reduce the duplication and uncertainty of unnecessary reviews. Not only would this provision streamline the regulatory process, but it would do so without undermining environmental protection.

Minister Mike indicated that he is especially pleased that increased fines would be a deterrent to unlicensed water use and applauded the introduction of administrative monetary penalties, as they would provide additional tools to ensure compliance with water licences. He added that the Government of Nunavut believed life-of-project water licences were better tailored to water use and that the timelines for board review would bring certainty and predictability to both Nunavummiut and industry.

Representatives of the Nunavut Water Board told the standing Senate committee that they were generally supportive of the legislation. For example, Thomas Kabloona, Chair of the Nunavut Water Board said, “A number of the specific issues raised by the board through its participation were considered and have been to some extent reflected in Bill S-6, so we are supportive of the amendments in general”.

Moreover, the bill would increase fines for proponents who violated the conditions of water licences and would introduce administrative monetary penalties, another measure designed to hold industry accountable to regulatory standards.

In throwing his support behind Bill S-6, Minister Mike from the Nunavut government said, “This bill will give the board and regulators important new powers that will ensure that water use in Nunavut is sustainable and environmentally safe”.

This is an example of how our government is protecting Nunavut's environmental heritage without resorting to a costly carbon tax, like the Liberals and NDP would introduce. This tax hike would make life across the north more expensive, increase the cost of everything in the north, increase the cost of food in our communities, and would result in job loss for Nunavut residents.

The success of these efforts is evident in support for Bill S-6 in the north.

Minister Mike, who have I quoted before, said that Bill S-6 would provide more flexibility and enforcement powers to regulators, more predictable timelines for assessments, and would integrate with other environmental processes in the North.

Bill S-6 is supported by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, too. Its president, Cathy Towtongie, stated in her correspondence to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that the organization was comfortable with the changes proposed in the bill.

The wide support that this initiative is receiving in Nunavut does not surprise me. Bill S-6 is an economic and environmental building block for my territory, and is indicative of a broader truth: that no government in Canadian history has done more for northerners than this one.

I urge all parties to join me in supporting and encouraging economic and social development in my riding of Nunavut by ensuring the swift passage of this important bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's intervention focused appropriately on Nunavut. However, the other part of the bill before us is the amendments proposed to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

The minister's colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, said that this measure was “fully supported” by the Yukon legislature. Notwithstanding, there is enormous opposition to that in the Yukon, particularly among first nations. Apparently five law firms are lined up to challenge this as soon as the Conservative government rams the bill through with another time allocation motion.

Does the minister stand by the statement that there is full support of the Yukon legislature and first nations, as the minister, her colleague, suggested earlier today?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, as a person born and raised in Canada's Arctic, I know how important this legislation is to northerners. Northerners want to advance projects in their regions. We want to advance projects under our terms and conditions. If projects are to proceed, the terms and conditions will be set by northerners on the ground in the Arctic. They are the ones who have the tools to make decisions on whether projects will proceed or not.

I am in full support of this legislation because northerners will then have one more tool to make determinations on what they want for their future, what they want for their communities and under what terms and conditions projects will proceed.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact the Minister of the Environment has just spoken and I am going to draw a connection for Canadians who are watching between the whole question of quality of life and economic opportunity in Canada's north, for Canada's northern peoples, and the linkage with this incredibly important crisis we are facing, called climate change.

There perhaps is no more powerful force at play in Canada's north than climate change. The minister knows this. Therefore, I want to give her an opportunity to share with the House today how she and the government will do what they have promised to do. They say that they will reduce emissions by 30% from 2005—

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

What's this got to do with the bill?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I hear on the other side that its does not understand the connection between this bill and climate change, Mr. Speaker. I will restate it again for the members, if they so desire.

However, the whole question for the minister is this. In the United States, the congressional team has put together some 400 pages in a plan to achieve its target. The European Union has a 1,200-page plan.

Could the minister table today, for northern peoples, the operational plan, in detail, to achieve this 30% reduction?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to speak to the Liberal record in the north. For 13 years, the Liberal government did not implement the Nunavut land claims agreement. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated filed a lawsuit against the federal government for lack of implementation of the land claims agreement. Our government settled that dispute out of court recently, and awarded Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated $255 million for the lack of implementation from that government.

Our government is listening and moving forward. The next step we will take is to negotiate a devolution agreement. We are hoping to reach an agreement in principle in the next little while. Again, this legislation would support the implementation of that land claims agreement.

That party and that government cut transfers to the territorial government. The Liberals did not implement the Nunavut land claims agreement, which brings us here today. Northerners want this legislation. Northerners want the tools to make decisions about their future and under what terms and conditions.

As Minister for the Arctic Council, I can also say that the initiatives we undertook over two years of our chairmanship were to address the issues that were important to northerners, hence, our overarching theme: development for the people of the north by incorporating the traditional knowledge of Inuit to science in addressing climate change and by incorporating the traditional knowledge and traditional ways of life of indigenous people in policy work that is done through the Arctic Council. We moved on black carbon and methane for the north, because it was important to the north.

Under the Liberal government, nothing happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for her leadership, both in the portfolio she has been given in cabinet and also for her leadership in the north. It is unfortunate that the member for Ottawa South kept trying to interrupt her while she was speaking. She passionately defends the north, her communities and her territory both in the House and at the cabinet table. We are very proud to have her as the leader of our northern caucus. She does a great job in that regard.

No government in Canadian history has done more for Canada's north than our Conservative government. One can see the legislative steps that we have taken through our northern strategy, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act.

This is the final step to improve the regulatory process in the Yukon and in Nunavut. As the minister has outlined, on the Nunavut side we are protecting the environment by increasing the ability to levy fines. We are giving the people of Nunavut more control over their own territory, which is something we believe in on this side of the House.

It is unfortunate that through this whole debate when we talked about devolution to the territories and giving more powers to the territorial governments, the NDP and Liberals fought against it. They want to keep more power here in Ottawa. We want to give more power to the people of the north and their governments because we believe that the power should be closer to the people.

What have we seen with the bill? Why is the bill necessary? We have seen through independent reports that because of the improvements that have been made south of 60 to the regulatory regime, the Yukon territory has fallen behind in its regulatory environment. It used to be number one in the world in terms of attractiveness for mining companies for resource development. It has fallen to ninth according to the recent Fraser Institute report. Also, in terms of perception of regulatory policy, it has fallen to ninth in Canada. When devolution occurred over a decade ago, Yukon led Canada in terms of its regulatory regime. It has fallen behind and we need to get it back up on par with the rest of Canada.

I want to talk briefly as well, in the limited time I have, about some of the issues that have been raised. The first was raised again by the Liberal Party. It said there has been a lack of consultation, which is demonstrably false. There have been dozens of meetings that have taken place, just on the four contentious amendments alone. There was $100,000 given to first nations groups who participated in those consultation sessions. They submitted receipts to the government saying they had consulted with us and would like to be reimbursed for that. Of course, we have paid those funds. There has been consultation. It has been paid for by the government and those consultations have been meaningful. We certainly believe they have been adequate.

Also, we have seen that this is something that is necessary for the continued economic prosperity of Yukon and Nunavut. We heard from the Yukon Chamber of Mines that said, specifically on the issues of timelines and significant change, we need to bring the regime in Yukon in line with what is happening in the rest of Canada. It is seeing investment decisions and investment dollars leaving the territory because of the uncertainty that its regulatory regime presents.

We have also seen that the bill is completely 100% compliant with the Umbrella Final Agreement. The minister has asked anyone who has a concern with that to point him to the section of the legislation that violates the Umbrella Final Agreement. No one has been able to do that.

This is the final piece of our northern agenda. It is the final legislative step that we need to take to bring about economic prosperity and growth in the north. We are proud to support the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 3, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion 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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading of Bill S-6.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #432

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #433

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)