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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed amendment to section 49.1 would ensure that going forward, reassessments would only be required in the event that the project has been significantly changed. In the past, projects that had already been approved and permitted could be subject to a new environmental assessment simply because a renewal or a minor change in the project had occurred. This amendment would help streamline this process and reduce unnecessary red tape where it was not warranted. The amendment also makes it clear that if there is more than one decision body—which can be a federal, territorial, or first nations government or agency—that regulates and permits the proposed activity, they must consult with one another before determining whether a new assessment is required.

Further, the legislation specifies that in the event of a disagreement, even if only one decision body determines that a significant change has occurred, it must be subject to a reassessment. That is an important point because of what we hear and read in the media. This is also consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement. The Umbrella Final Agreement states, at section 12.4.1.1, at page 107, if I recall, that projects and significant changes to existing projects are subject to the development assessment process. Therefore, the idea of significant changes is embodied in the Umbrella Final Agreement.

Another proposed change is the ability of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The ability to provide policy direction is not a heavy-handed attempt by the government to interfere in the assessment process, nor does it undermine the neutrality of the board. To the contrary, it is intended to ensure a common understanding between the government and the board, helping to reduce uncertainty in environmental assessment decision-making and helping to ensure the proper implementation of the board's powers in fulfilling its role in the assessment process. This is not new. There are also precedents for this power in other jurisdictions. For example, it has existed in the Northwest Territories since 1999, and with the passing of Bill C-15, it was expanded to include all the boards in the Northwest Territories.

As we say back home, the proof is in the pudding. This power has only been used four times in the Northwest Territories. In each case, it was used to clearly communicate expectations on how to address first nations' rights or agreements. For example, it was used to ensure that notification was provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Deline regarding licences and permits in a given region.

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

The legislative amendment also makes it clear that policy direction cannot be used to influence a specific project or to change the environmental assessment process itself. Another contentious amendment, which is contentious because it is opposed by some first nations in Yukon, is my ability to delegate certain powers in the act to a territorial minister. To the contrary, that again is not at all inconsistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I want to also address the Nunavut changes. The objective is to make the regulatory system in Nunavut consistent with what is taking place south of 60 and in full compliance with the land claim agreement that governs our relationship with northerners in Nunavut.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his presentation today on this bill, a bill that really has two parts. One part went through an extensive consultation period. The record of that consultation over five years and the resulting recommendations are not really in the public to the degree they should be.

The second part, as the minister has outlined, for the Yukon side of the bill, had a number of amendments put forward. The minister indicated that there was consultation on these particular amendments, which are the controversial parts of this bill for Yukoners, to a great degree.

What the Yukon first nations are saying is that on February 26, 2014, Canada arrived at a meeting and provided only paper copies of these amendments to the people at the meeting. The first nations who were on the phone could not have electronic copies. To look at this and say that there was consultation on these very vital parts of the bill is not correct.

Could the minister show how this is adequate consultation on these major changes to the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, some people have a strange interpretation of what consultation means.

In this case, in December 2011, after the five-year review process, where we agreed to 72 out of 76 recommendations, the government announced its responsible resource development in the north initiative. We held a video conference on it. Then we had a teleconference in April 2013 with the Council of Yukon First Nations on the way forward for amending YESAA.

In May 2013, we had a mail-out to the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Government of Yukon on a first draft legislative proposal, with a request for written comments. In June 2013, there was a mail-out to industry of a first draft legislative proposal with, again, a request for comments.

The consultation process was so long that I am being stopped and do not have time to lay it all out. There has been ample consultation, as attested to by a Liberal senator in the Senate.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister.

Once again, it seems that the government has succeeded in being offside of what first nations groups in the country are asking for when it comes to enacting legislation for partnership in moving forward with development projects.

The minister talks about consulting, but when you consult, you normally listen. When you listen, you normally put forward a partnership to arrive at legislation and policy that works for all involved. What we are seeing here this morning is that there is consultation on some parts of the bill that is before us, and on some other parts there is not consultation.

The minister talked about meeting with first nations groups this morning. Did they tell the minister what they have been telling all of us, which is that if this bill passes, they will have no other choice but to take legal action against the government?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would again remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's question and her words at the end.

That is the genius of this great country of ours. Yes, indeed, I met this morning with the Council of Yukon First Nations. I explained the bill and those four provisions they opposed. I am still waiting for anyone to show me where these violate the Umbrella Final Agreement. To the contrary, those amendments were all completed in the Umbrella Final Agreement.

The member is talking about the consultation process. If there is agreement by those who were consulted, like there was for the 72 out of 76 they agreed to, it is fine, because they were accepted. That is consultation. That is what the member just said. However, if one does not agree, although we have listened and explained, then it is not consultation. That is the genius of Canada. If the first nations claim that we have failed in our duty to consult, the court will determine the issue, and they are welcome to use the courts.

I know, and I can show clearly, that first nations in the Yukon were comprehensively and substantially consulted on all of the four amendments they oppose.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from a number of groups at the Senate committee that supported this legislation. There is some great news, from their perspective, about what these changes to YESAA would do. However, I would like to touch on the concerns of Yukon first nations.

There are four points, but I would like to focus on one of the concerns we have heard. The Yukon first nations are concerned that some of the legislation would supersede the provisions of the Umbrella Final Agreement. I wonder if the hon. minister can provide assurances to the House, Canadians, Yukon first nations, and indeed, everyone in the Yukon who has an investment in the Umbrella Final Agreement, first nations treaties, and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act that the legislation we are putting forward will respect the Umbrella Final Agreement. If he could point to any of the sections to demonstrate that to Yukoners and Yukon first nations, it would be greatly appreciated.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. In Canada, the crown is fully aware of its obligations under the Umbrella Final Agreement to the Council for Yukon Indians. Each and every measure proposed in this bill would be subject to the act.

Section 4 of the act makes it clear that if ever there was an inconsistency between the position of the final agreement and a law passed by the federal government, the Umbrella Final Agreement would prevail. This is repeated in section 4, in chapter 2, and again in YESAA itself.

Therefore, I think Yukoners can have the assurance that none of the legislative measures proposed today could supersede the Umbrella Final Agreement, which has precedence over the bill.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, to that point, this is what the Yukon First Nations said, and they were speaking to the clause in the agreement:

Although the reference to the clause is accurate, and the Final Agreement shall prevail in any inconsistency or conflict, the only way to resolve this when it arises would be to take the matter to the courts.

I would like the minister to comment, because we are ending up with another bill that will end up in the courts to deal with inconsistencies between the treaty and the agreements that have been signed and what the Conservative government wants to pass into law.

Why is the government moving in that direction? Why does it not recognize the nature of the issue it is dealing with and put forward legislation that will not be challenged in court?

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

Mr. Speaker, the record will show if this ever goes to court. Someone would have to show where these changes would violate the agreement.

Let us talk about, for example, the exemption from reassessment unless significant changes have occurred. Under the Umbrella Final Agreement, at chapter 12.4.1.1, it says, “Subject to this chapter...Projects and significant changes to Existing Projects” will be “subject to the development assessment process”. This is the law of the land. This is a constitutional obligation of Canada and the first nations.

We did not invent this. It is in the agreement. If this is opposed by the first nations, we cannot, with an act of Parliament, change a constitutional arrangement between Canada and the first nations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill in front of us, which has found its way here through the Senate, a completely inappropriate way to bring forward legislation. It should have come here first and should be a government bill, but the government chose that pathway. That way it can move things through the House in a fashion and build a case using its witnesses in the Senate, which it controls, and take away the real responsibility for debate in this place.

This bill deals with northerners' rights and first nations' rights. First nations' rights are constitutionally protected, and northerners' rights have constitutional issues attached to them as well, which I will go into as I go forward. Bill S-6 would amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, known as YESAA, and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. I will deal mostly with the changes to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act. The changes to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act are much less profound and not as controversial.

There is a high level of opposition to these changes. In September, I was in Whitehorse and conducted a public hearing on these bills, with the assistance of the Yukon NDP. There was standing room only in that meeting room. People wanted to understand the bills and were concerned about their impact. Yukoners are sophisticated in their knowledge and understanding of legislative changes. They have been through it to a greater extent than perhaps the other territories. It is a territory that has achieved the highest level of devolution prior to this bill. People are on track in understanding what their rights are and what they see as their future.

However, of course, the Conservative MP, the Conservative senator, and the right-wing Yukon Party government are not listening to the people, not conducting public hearings, and not allowing the people of Yukon to have a say on this bill. They are doing their stakeholder consultation and fulfilling their obligations to first nations for consultations, but where are the public hearings? Where is the engagement of the public at large? They will not do that because they know very well that if they did, the real opposition to this bill would coalesce with the first nations and say no to the bill and the changes.

Why would people in Yukon who are concerned about their livelihoods and futures be concerned about these changes that the minister has presented as simply ways of increasing economic activity in Yukon and making things work a little better? There are four changes that really upset Yukoners. One of them is providing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This is something that was established in the NWT and there were real concerns with it there. The Yukon, which has been dealing with a different system for the past 10 years, is looking at anything like this as an abrogation of its rights and hard-fought authority over the lands and resources.

The second change is the introduction of legislative time limits for assessments. That is another issue that I will bring up a bit later.

The third change is allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all responsibilities to the Yukon government. That is an issue of huge concern to first nations, and Yukoners as well. Yukon has worked out an arrangement between first nations and public government that is critical to the future of the Yukon territory. I do not think anyone would deny that. That relationship is one that the provinces are having more and more trouble with every day. The failure to deal on a nation-to-nation basis at the provincial level is causing all kinds of grief in all kinds of projects right across this country. Therefore, there is concern about how the delegation takes place.

Then there is the question of creating broad exemptions from YESAA for renewals and amendments of permits and authorizations. People look at that and ask what is going on and wonder how they we make sure it is correct.

Additionally, these amendments favour the Yukon government over Yukon first nations, the other partner in the YESAA process. The Council of Yukon First Nations has threatened legal action should the bill become law.

YESAA was established in 2003 in fulfilment of an obligation in the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, which has settled many first nations land claims in that territory. In October, 2007, the five-year review of YESAA was initiated and then completed in 2012. The findings of the review were never made public.

Unlike the provinces, the legislative powers of the territories are determined through federal statute rather than through the Constitution. What we have in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut is what Parliament gives us. While section 3 of the charter of rights, which is part of the Constitution, guarantees that every citizen in Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein, the remainder of the Constitution describes the territories as lesser partners in Canada than the provinces.

We in the three territories have a problem in that we would remain without the authority of this body, the House of Commons, giving us our full due under Confederation. We would not have those powers under the Constitution.

Because of this reliance on the federal government to devolve the legislative powers and authorities that the provinces take for granted, it is really unfortunate and duplicitous that the Conservatives are taking away powers through these amendments to the act 11 years after they were granted.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Some might find it amusing that there are noises in the House, Mr. Speaker, but that is something we all have to live with. The rumbling of discontent in the country toward the Conservative government far exceeds any noise I have heard here in the House.

Yukoners are also angry about the lack of public involvement as Bill S-6 was developed. As I said, I held a public meeting in September. It was a full house. There was another public meeting held later on in the fall in the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre, where there was standing room only. A few hundred people showed up.

Why would people come out to a very dry discussion of environmental assessment? It is because they care. They understand and care about how their laws are being developed. If we went into the province of Alberta and said that we were going to change its laws about environment assessment, that this is the way things are going to go from now on, would the people of Alberta not come out and protest? If we did that in Quebec what would happen?

Why are we treated in this cavalier fashion where the federal government can come into a territory, hold hearings with stakeholders only, take the opinion of the people it considers important and not have any public meetings with the people of the territory about what is going on in their own territory?

When the original YESAA was developed, the department released drafts of the legislation in 1998 and 2001 for public review. It also undertook two separate tours of Yukon to meet with Yukon first nations and other residents to review and discuss these drafts. A little different pattern emerges here. Back then, one of the discussion tours lasted for 90 days and went to every community throughout Yukon. Every first nations community not only had an opportunity to send in written submissions on the first draft, but each community also had an opportunity to have an open public hearing. The way that Bill S-6 has been developed is so different. Listening to the Conservatives one would think this has been a multi-year program with incredible input. The reality is much different.

The parties discussed the YESAA process for many hours between 2008 and 2011 as part of the YESAA five-year review. That review is required under the Umbrella Final Agreement, and not a discussion of a new draft bill.

The amendments to YESAA under Bill S-6 that are of concern were never discussed and never raised by the Conservatives during the five-year review. These new amendments were introduced with little opportunity to ensure there was adequate consultation and accommodation.

On February 26, 2014, as I said earlier to the minister, Canada arrived at a meeting with Yukon first nations and provided paper copies to those in attendance and would not even give electronic copies to those participating by telephone, despite the changes to first nations' relationship with the Crown and the Yukon territorial government. We had meeting where they could not even be there in person and they could not even have copies of the amendments.

What is going on there? They had less than two months to respond to these changes. This was hardly adequate.

Consultation means providing the necessary information to the parties, which the Conservatives did not do. They failed to meet the test of the treaty and common-law duty to consult and accommodate. So there was inadequate consultation with first nations, despite it being required by law. Democracy also requires the participation of the public. On that score, the Conservatives and their elected representatives did very little, and perhaps even nothing.

When I conducted a public hearing there, knowing that as critic I would be responsible for speaking on behalf of Yukoners here in the House, I met with many of the public afterward and the chiefs of the grand council. What did I hear? They questioned the constitutionality of the unilateral changes proposed in Bill S-6, which were not discussed during the five-year review or during the McCrank report.

The government has had plenty of opportunities to discuss changes like these, but did not take those opportunities.

They say that the 16-month timeline is out of touch with the reality on the ground, particularly further north where, depending upon the timing of the review, the project may have only one summer to conduct any necessary environmental work.

When it comes to the timelines, Yukoners, who live there and understand the place, say there are problems with the 16-month timeline, that it may not give them adequate time to provide the information to the board so that the project can be assessed properly.

Also, Yukoners fear that the first nations do not have the financial and person resources to adequately assess proposals and that a timeline like this would artificially strain the few resources they have. This is a common problem across the north, when it comes to environmental assessment.

Companies have adequate resources generally. They do not go into the process unless they do have those resources. Many times large multinational corporations can bring more to bear on the subject than a first nation community that might be the most affected by it.

Yukoners see these amendments as an attack on Yukoners' democratic rights and the constitutional rights of first nations. By ignoring first nations' rights, the bill would create uncertainty in the mining sector, as first nations would now resort to the courts to protect their interests.

We had a system in place that was working. There were some changes required. Those changes were discussed. There were 70 amendments to the act proposed, many of which could have been done in House. People agreed to them, according to the reports that we have heard of, although those reports were not made fully public. Instead, the Conservatives brought in these other measures that would have the ability to upset the operation of Yukon in the years to come, just as in the Northwest Territories they changed the environmental assessment legislation with devolution. We have two first nations now taking them to court over that.

Where is the certainty in the process? Where is the certainty to mining companies? They want to go ahead and do this kind of work, but they are not sure that everyone has come onside and they do not know whether they will end up in a situation where what they propose is in front of the courts?

“Social licence” is a phrase that members of the government need to understand. It should be branded on all their documents. They need social licence to move ahead these days. They cannot simply be the way they have been; that is not working. We can look at all the pipelines and all the proposed energy projects across the country, and we see that social licence has caused grief in almost every case.

We had a system in Yukon that was working. It needed some minor tweaking. What we have ended up with is a series of changes that take it far beyond the pale.

However, I have heard other voices in Yukon speaking against this bill. The proposed amendments in front of the Senate today were not discussed in the five-year process with Canada and the Yukon government.

This is the testimony of Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations, before the Senate Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. She said:

—it is our view that the YESAA has been operating effectively and efficiently since its enactment in 2003. The federal government now wants to unilaterally make additional amendments to the YESAA. We did not request these amendments, nor do support them. These amendments are not necessary.

This is the testimony of Mary Jane Jim, Councillor, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, in front of that same committee. She said:

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.

Yukon NDP leader, Liz Hanson, in the Yukon legislature, on October 23, said, “With these proposed amendments to what is a made-in-Yukon environmental assessment process, YESAA, it’s no longer ours”.

A Yukon News editorial, “Environmental assessment reform should be done in the open”, on June 13, said:

A long list of people deserve raspberries for this needlessly shady behaviour. At the top of the naughty list are [the Yukon senator and the MP for the 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 [MP] uttering vague generalities about the forthcoming changes without offering any meaningful specifics. Shame on them.

Here is the final one, and I know the Conservatives do not like to hear the real people talking. The Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, in a November 21 letter to the Yukon MP., said:

We believe that these changes will have a negative impact on the tourism industry, and for Yukoners overall.

As YESAA is one of the cornerstones of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, we are concerned with the Council of Yukon First Nations’ grievance with the lack of consultation regarding these proposed changes. Moreover, there was no opportunity for the Yukon public and the majority of stakeholders to provide their views through a transparent consultation process.

The members of the House are here to represent the people of their constituencies. The people of Yukon do not want this bill. They do not see the need for it. They do not understand why the federal government is taking things away from them that were well established in Yukon, that do not need to be changed. Why is this paternalistic attitude being foisted upon the people of Yukon?

Democracy is about serving the will of the people. If the Conservatives really cared about what is important for Yukon, they would listen very carefully to Yukoners. They are in an embryonic stage, creating their own society, their own way of life, their own relationships with first nations. This is what they are doing. If the Conservative people want to participate there, then they should go to Yukon and join with them there as citizens of Yukon.

The citizens of Yukon and the first nations people in Yukon should have the absolute right to a final say about how their land is being managed. We have listened to the people of Yukon. We are ready to work to fight this bill.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague was very careful about high grading the testimony he heard in the Senate, only pointing out comments that would fit his arguments. He has used some of his notable and reliable sources, with only the leader of the opposition in Yukon and the NDP, but he does not talk about the comments provided by the premier. He is very much pitching a one-sided piece of a very complex and well evolved story here. That is expected from the member for Northwest Territories.

The member for Northwest Territories is so concerned about the great people of the Yukon territory. The NDP has been obstructing travel non-stop for over a year now for committees to travel across the country and hear from people in their ridings. I have a study that was passed over a year ago to have the committee go to Yukon to study the Yukon River salmon and the impacts it has on our communities, but the NDP has continually blocked that study.

I have called on the government and the committee to ensure they take this committee to Yukon to hear from the great people of that territory to provide input. Will the NDP support that? Could he commit today that the committee will travel to Yukon to hear from the people, not just stand here and blow smoke, like he is?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, on the point of why the committees are not travelling, I can refer back to the Conservative government and its House leader, who is flat out against any of the changes we want to see at committee. Why are the Conservatives continually blocking all amendments at committee? Why are they not listening to people? That is one of the main reasons why the House is falling into disrepute.

We all trust that in the future, we will build to provide the proper consultation with the Yukon people that they well deserve on this bill. That is unlike the Conservative government, its MP and senator, who have refused to do that in Yukon already.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we are sitting here listening to the debate today, and what I am hearing from the NDP side is that it does not want these committees to go out and it does not want to listen to or consult with people. On the other side, we hear the government talking about all the consultation that it is doing, but it is obviously not listening to what people are saying.

I have a question for my colleague from the Northwest Territories. We have consistently seen legislation pass in the House for the territories that has not been supported by first nations and aboriginal groups. What is this doing to relationships between the Government of Canada and first nations and aboriginal governments across the north? What does he see happening here, besides a complete lack of trust in what the government is entrusted with, which is the management of aboriginal treaties and agreements?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between aboriginal governments in Canada and the federal government is one that is now approaching litigation at almost every point. It is also one where we see confrontations on the street. We see groups standing up for their rights in the public eye, trying to work out relationships with other groups in society that understand their rights are very important.

First nations have the right to a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. That is what the treaties gave them. That is the basis of the relationship of Canadians with first nations.

What we are seeing now is this playing of games and small movements by the government in these cases in the north. On the one hand, the government offered us devolution in the Northwest Territories. On the other hand, it took back things from the first nations. It caused a lot of stress within our society in the Northwest Territories. It created a situation where our territorial government, in order to achieve something, had to go back on its word with the first nations about supporting something else.

The same thing is probably going on in Yukon. The Yukon territorial government understands that there is a relationship there, but it is being forced into taking a position like this, which will actually harm its society in the long run.

I really hope we can work around this, but this is a problem that has been created by the federal government and it is intransigent on these issues.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and also for how well he represents the interests of the people of the north. When I see the work that has been done by the Conservative members, particularly the member for Yukon, I think that the people of that part of the country could do a lot better in terms of representation.

Frankly, I find it strange to hear the member opposite calling for consultations and asking to travel all over the country. His government could have consulted the people of Yukon and the other territories a long time ago. Now he stands up in the House to say that the Conservatives need to go and talk to Yukoners. Why did they not do that before? I do not understand. Furthermore, if they really did do any consultation, absolutely none of the comments they received were included in the bill.

Indeed, this appears to be another attempt by this government to put its own interests and the interests of friends ahead of those of Yukoners. There are many natural resource development projects in Yukon, a territory I have been lucky enough to visit many times. There are some very troubling issues, especially around the Peel River watershed.

The bill currently before us is further proof that the government does not respect the people of the north, including Yukoners. I wonder if my colleague could talk a little more about that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, true democracy demands a public process. Everything should be public. That is the nature of it, especially when we deal with the development of our territories.

People who live in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut do not have the same rights as other Canadians. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with our rights, our development and our opportunities, it should be one of the most public discussions that take place.

I think I showed in my speech how the previous governments actually understood that. It is the Conservative government that has not done this. I would ask the Conservative-elected MP why he has not conducted public meetings there.

Government policy needs to be put in front of the people. It needs the support of the people. The government needs to understand where they are coming from, as well. By neglecting that, it is neglecting part of the responsibility we have as legislators and as representatives of our constituency. We absolutely have to engage in public process.

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record.

To this day the government has not had any public hearings in Yukon on this proposed bill. The MP for Yukon has not held any public hearings on the proposed bill. The bill is now in front of us in Parliament. It has been moved through the Senate. We still have not seen the government do any public process in Yukon.

At this point, the government is saying that a particular procedural issue within the House, of which we have many, needs to be solved. I agree, it should be solved by good will on both sides to get this process back to where it was. However, where is the government with its commitment to public process? Where is it on holding public meetings in Yukon. The government is absolutely nowhere.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today because I feel it is important to speak to Bill S-6. It is important not only to the Yukon and the people who live there, but also to Canadians.

Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, is one of those bills that we have traditionally seen come to the House for amendments. It is one of those bills whereby there is partly a consultation with people in the region, and then there are sections that are always added by the government for good measure, which often create controversy. In this particular amendment process, through the consultations, there was agreement on substantial portions of change that would occur as part of the bill. However, there were some portions where it did not achieve or did not work to achieve consensus, and because of that, the first nations groups in the Yukon are not supportive of the bill.

As our party's critic for the north, I have had the opportunity to travel across the territories and other northern regions. I have met with many local stakeholders, community leaders, and individuals, and all too often I have unfortunately seen how the government opposite is failing northern Canadians. I have seen it for many years within my own constituency of Labrador, and it is quite evident in all regions across the north as well. The Conservative government has spent the last few years trying to paint a very rosy picture of life in the north. Much of the legislation that it has introduced and pushed through Parliament has been playing along those same lines. Sadly, for those of us who live in the north, we continue to fall behind the rest of Canada, and the federal government has simply turned its back.

Last week, the Auditor General of Canada released a scathing report on the nutrition north program, which was picking and choosing which communities received subsidies based on historical levels of support. Many communities that should have qualified for subsidies received next to nothing or nothing at all. The government has also insisted that all is well with this program and that somehow the average cost of food for the north, based on the northern food basket, has decreased. However, we know that the costs for food in northern regions increased by 2.5% last year.

When I stop at a grocery store, whether it is in Labrador, as I did this weekend, or the territories, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or Nunavut, shoppers are always telling me that there is increasing price gouging and that the food subsidies are not being fully passed on to the consumer. I am explaining this in the House today because it is another situation of where people in the north are giving the government one message, and the government is sending back a different message and not listening. That is the conclusion that the Auditor General reached in his report. I am using this as an example because he quantified the fact that checks and balances were not in place, and that the purpose of the program was not meeting the needs of the people in the north, regardless of the fact the government continues to say that it is.

In addition to the bill we have before us today, this past year the government pushed through a number of other bills in the House on behalf of first nations people that were very contentious. When it brought forward a bill on devolution in the Northwest Territories, we know that process was started by previous Liberal governments. The Liberal Party has had a long history of working with aboriginal people and the territories to give them greater autonomy over their lands and territories.

When we dealt with the NWT devolutions, the bill included very sweeping changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which served to muzzle the voices of aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. What it did, in essence, was to give the federal minister greater authority to make decisions in the territory, which does nothing to empower northern Canadians, aboriginal governments, and residents there. Instead, we heard that territorial governments were acting on the will of their constituents, and therefore they should be the ones making their own decisions on issues that will affect the future of their territory, based on their own treaty agreements that they have achieved.

As I will outline shortly, Bill S-6 is taking the same approach that we saw in the bill on devolution for the Northwest Territories. It is a top-down, Ottawa-centred approach to dealing with northerners, especially those in the territories. I have been troubled when I have listened to Canadians in Nunavut and the Yukon speak about how these bills would impact negatively on the work they do and on their region.

With regard to the proposed changes to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, known as YESAA, some background information is important to understand. I want to point out that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act was established under the umbrella final agreement between the Government of Canada, the Yukon government, and the Yukon first nations. The act set out an assessment process for all lands in the Yukon.

Responsibility for the management of that land and the resources was devolved from the federal government to the Yukon government in 2003. That is when it was given this authority under what was then a federal Liberal government. I want to point that out because the goodwill that has been built with first nations by previous Liberal governments is being eroded by the current government, in passing legislation in the House that does not respect the rights of first nations, aboriginal governments, and the people in the territories.

The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act was passed, as I said, in 2003. It was done under the terms of the UFA, as I have already pointed out, the umbrella final agreement. It was a comprehensive review of the act by the parties to the agreement. It was required at that time by the parties, including the Yukon first nations, the Yukon itself, and the Government of Canada, that there would be a review of this within five years of the act becoming law.

That review was completed in March 2012, and at the time the Council of Yukon First Nations, and other groups, voiced many concerns over the government disregarding their input into the review, and subsequently into the finalized documentation. The federal government ignored those concerns, which has left us with the bill before us today in the House of Commons.

My party has always supported accessing resource wealth in the north when it is done right. History has demonstrated that developments can find a way to be environmentally conscience and successful, while also finding trilateral support among aboriginal, territorial, and federal governments, as well as local communities. There is no reason why this cannot continue. Indeed, the only way to move forward with resource development is to work together, not against each other.

This is not just a moral obligation, but I feel it is a legal obligation as well, particularly in regions like the Yukon, which are subject to comprehensive land claim agreements. It is important to remember that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, which this bill would significantly amend, is strictly linked with the 11 Yukon first nation claims and final agreements. We cannot ignore that fact. Unfortunately, despite spending years of working with Yukon first nations on a comprehensive review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, the federal government blindsided them earlier this year with a number of key changes that are contained in this bill and were not discussed throughout the process.

The minister says there have been extensive consultations, and maybe there were on some aspects of this legislation. However, we know that through Bill S-6, the government is now proposing new measures without having properly consulted, and that has been the opinion of Yukon first nations groups and Yukoners as well. These areas include giving sweeping powers for the federal minister to issue binding policy direction to the assessment board, unilaterally handing over powers to a territorial minister without the consent of first nations, allowing government to approve the renewal or amendment of permits and licences for projects without assessment by YESAA, and newly establishing unrealistic timelines for assessments.

Northerners are tired of the federal government trying to retain the final say on important matters that affect their own region. Just as territorial administrations cannot and should not be based out of Ottawa, the time has passed for this level of interference and the hands-on approach by the minister. The assessment board ultimately loses its decision-making authority, and that leaves the door open for the minister to repeatedly interfere with binding policy decisions. This is what first nations are objecting to.

This bill includes the ability for the federal minister to delegate binding policy direction to a territorial minister, which gives the impression of local engagement. It still means that local communities and aboriginal governments may not be included in the decision-making process. Again, this is wrong.

It is not sound policy for the government to allow permits and licences to be approved or renewed without any secondary assessments. These renewals could seriously impact the environment, regional economies, and local communities. It fails to recognize that, over time, changes may occur to climate, wildlife populations, technology advancement, and so on.

It is important that we maintain the timely reviews that had been a part of the current process. Local stakeholders have been vocal on this point, and I fully agree with their rationale. I have had many emails and letters from people in the area who are opposed to these recommendations that have been added to the bill at this late date. They feel it has been done with no consultation.

The imposition of new timelines has left many people in the Yukon confused over the approach being taken by government. They feel that the current process for lower level assessments has already been quick and efficient, and, for larger projects, it is only reasonable for those assessments to take a little longer. Rushing assessments in this process will only lead the board to make rash decisions in its goal of meeting these new arbitrary deadlines.

Yukoners believe in working together toward a successful territory, which includes all aboriginal governments, territorial governments, businesses, and developers. Unfortunately, the major changes proposed in this bill will serve to further unravel an already damaged relationship between many of these key stakeholders and the federal government.

Yukoners have publicly stated their pride in the effectiveness of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. It was a very proud moment in their history when they were able to achieve that. They are left wondering why the federal government has decided to take unilateral steps to try to fix a system that is not broken. While doing this, it has ignored local communities and aboriginal governments, thinking that this is the best way to continue developing the north. However, we know that is not the case.

We have seen ongoing lawsuits around the lack of adequate consultation in certain regions, which have blocked some developments from proceeding, and resource revenues have been slowed dramatically. If the government persists in ramming these changes through, it will be creating more legal uncertainty and jeopardizing development in the territory.

Time and again, the courts have sided with aboriginal people regarding constitutionally required consultation, yet the Conservative government has continued to wilfully ignore aboriginal rights and pursued a pattern of litigation rather than consultation.

The Council of Yukon First Nations has made it public that the passing of the legislation before us would lead it to consider legal action. On the other side, business and developers have also found the current unilateral moves by the government to be negative for their advancement. They understand the requirement to ensure that the aboriginal governments and communities have a prominent seat at the table. The government should not have to be told this by developers.

We have seen many major projects move forward in the north and in the territories because of good relationships between aboriginal and first nations and the business community. However, the government would now play interference and be blocking a system of negotiation and decision-making that is already working.

The approach that the government is now taking will lead to unnecessary delays, increased costs, and the further erosion of trust, and because of Bill S-6, the mistrust of the people of the north with the federal government will become even more entrenched.

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

In Nunavut, we see the government proposing changes to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, which would not benefit the territory. The allowing of “life-of-project” water licences in the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act would not allow for reassessments should the need arise, which is very important.

We are in an ever-changing society. The northern regions, despite what the Minister of the Environment claims, are dealing with traumatic factors relating to climate change. There should always be opportunity for reassessment by the people in these areas when it comes to these particular licenses that are being issued today, especially if significant changes to a project should occur or there are other defining factors that could affect the project or the previous decision made by the people of Nunavut.

The introduction of timelines for a water licence review is very troubling to the people of Nunavut and to many others who would be affected. As it is with the Yukon portion of the bill, the timelines would rush assessors and projects into finishing reviews that in all likelihood would require additional time. The measure would essentially invoke closure on an important review process.

We have seen the current Conservative government invoke closure on many bills in the House when it has not wanted to continue debate. Again, the Conservatives would bring forward measures that could invoke closure on very important reviews that should be ongoing by the first nation communities that are affected.

We need to ask and understand why these reviews take the time they currently do. What would we lose by dramatically cutting the length of time available for a review? I am not satisfied that the government has made the case for this or justified it appropriately.

The government is proposing sweeping changes in Bill S-6, which local aboriginal governments and communities do not want enacted and who have been vocal about the negative impact these changes would have on the future of Nunavut and Yukon Territory. However, instead of listening to these concerned groups, as is legally mandated, the government has repeatedly refused to make any changes or include any stakeholders in the review process. This is disrespectful of the territories and its people.

I would strongly encourage the government to make sweeping changes to the bill if it is seeking support from the House. There is an opportunity here for the government to make the appropriate changes and to do so in respect of the aboriginal people and the people of Yukon Territory who would be impacted by the bill. I encourage the Conservatives to build good relations with our first nations people and work co-operatively with them.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, whom you quickly confused with being from the Yukon but who is from Labrador, for her remarks today.

I have two questions for her. First, there has already been testimony and a study of this in the Senate. We have heard from witnesses there. The Senate concluded that the bill ought to move forward, and that was done with Liberal senators, or Senate Liberals, or whatever they are calling themselves now. The Senate had the opportunity to hear the evidence, which we will have an opportunity to do at second reading. When it goes to committee, we will have the opportunity to hear from Yukoners so that we can make an assessment based on all opinions, not just a narrow, focused opinion.

The Senate had that opportunity, and the member's colleagues, the Liberal senators, moved this bill forward. I wonder if she is positing then that they did not do their job right. If that is the case, my concluding question for her is if she will support travel to the Yukon so that we can hear all sides of this issue in our territory from the great people of Yukon. We can get a balanced perspective of what the people's needs are on this important piece of legislation.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the legislation should have come here before it went to the Senate. It disappoints me that it was done the other way.

However, how those in the Senate vote is entirely up to them. I feel that I am entitled to vote as I feel. From the consultation that I have had with Yukoners and aboriginal groups and first nations governments in Yukon, I feel that they have a very legitimate point. These changes, which were slid into this bill unexpectedly by the government, would not do anything to enhance or benefit the ability of first nations to have control over developments in their own areas and to have adequate input.

I have always stood for good relations with our aboriginal peoples in this country. I really feel that developments move ahead and all people benefit when there is good dialogue and good relationships. The Conservative government has not fostered that. In fact, it has fuelled it by not following a process of respect and understanding.

In terms of consultation and going to Yukon, I have absolutely no issue with that. I support it 100%. In fact, we should have been in the Yukon consulting with people before this bill came to the House, instead of having the chiefs and leaders of first nations have to come here to meet with us on the day the bill was called for debate.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her presentation on this bill. Coming from a northern region, I know that she has the same concerns about protecting the people and the land from changes that they do not want, and allowing the people in the north to make valid decisions about how changes should happen. This is what is at stake here.

We are talking about a public process here. We look at the past record, where the government took the time to meet and engage with communities right across Yukon on the original bill. It had public hearings on these original bills, prior to the bill going before the House of Commons.

This is the relationship that we have now. The bill has gone through the Senate. The government has hardened its position on the bill that has been created. Now the government thinks that by going and giving people in Yukon Territory five minutes to speak to the bill, one after another in committee, and maybe giving them an hour or two for debate on it, that it is somehow going to replace the process that the government should have gone through years ago.

What does my hon. colleague think about this process, which is already flawed?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Northwest Territories that government has a responsibility to hold appropriate public consultations and to discuss changes that are coming forward in legislation with the people who are impacted.

However, I also feel that as parliamentarians who are part of a committee, we also have an obligation to do that as well. When we do that is always up for debate. I feel that consultation before legislation is always better than consultation after legislation.

The other point I want to make is that if the government is going to Yukon to consult without listening to people and without wanting to make changes to the bill, what is the point? What is the point in bringing Yukoners before a committee of people, when the majority has no interest in making changes to start with?

What I would suggest is that any consultation needs to be done with an open mind and with a level of understanding that they are going there to make things better so that changes can be made to benefit all people, and not just for the government to say that it was there. That is not the point.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my seatmate, the member for Labrador, has been in politics for in excess of two decades and has represented the interests of northern and aboriginal Canadians at three levels of government. I know that members probably find that hard to believe, that someone this youthful looking could possibly have had such a long career in politics already, but it is in fact the case.

The member is a very influential and strong voice within our caucus, bringing forward the interests of aboriginal and northern Canadians. My question for her is a general one.

The member talked about the deterioration in the relationship between northern and aboriginal Canadians and government and how there is now constant talk of lawsuits and the lack of consultation. My question for the member, based on her years of experience at all three levels of governments, is how it has come to this. How has the relationship so deteriorated? What is necessary to bring back a positive, trustful relationship?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, trust is always earned.

What we have seen over the last couple of years is that trust is not being earned by the existing government. I will cite some examples.

We have seen the erosion of the tribunal process for aboriginal first nations in this country, a process whereby they could go and make appeals. We are seeing that process lagging behind. Why? It is because the government no longer sees first nations' concerns as a priority to be dealt with.

When we dealt with the bill on the Northwest Territories that proposed changes to resource development there and the role that aboriginal governments would play in that particular capacity, the first nations were not satisfied. They went to the government and appealed. They wanted change. They were very vocal about the change they wanted, and yet they were ignored.

Again we are seeing it happen right here in the Yukon, where first nations groups feel that these changes are not going to do anything to protect their rights.

We live in a country that has prided itself on negotiating land claim agreements and treaty rights with first nations and aboriginal people. In fact, today, in Nunatsiavut, we are celebrating. This is the celebration date for our self-government in the Inuit territory region.

These agreements are done in good faith. They should be honoured and respected in that way. There is always a way to come to consensus, but it will not happen if the willingness is not there to make it happen. What I am seeing from the government opposite is consultation on pieces that it knows are not controversial, and when it comes to pieces that are somewhat controversial, it takes the power out of the hands of first nation people. It does not consult. It just slides the changes into the legislation at the end of the day.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Yukon, it gives me a great deal of pride to stand here today and speak in support of Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

No doubt we will touch on this through some of the questions that are asked, but the member from the Western Arctic rose in the House to talk about public hearings and by implication was making the suggestion that I as a member of Parliament for Yukon have not had public consultation, simply by defining it as a public hearing. I can certainly say that since being elected in 2011, I have met with stakeholders, be those first nations or chiefs individually or as a collective group; with industry as stakeholders, or individuals from it; with government folks; and with citizens.

I heard my colleague from Labrador talking earlier in her address about talking to people in grocery stores. In small northern communities, a lot of time that is how discussions and consultations bear fruit. It is by informal discussions where we take the opportunity to meet with people. We give them the time, hear their concerns, provide them with information on the bills and things that are moving forward in Parliament, and we note their concerns and bring them forward. I have always had the opportunity to bring those concerns forward to any minister on any of the topics.

Before I begin to talk about the specifics of the bill, I want to acknowledge and thank the Yukon first nations leadership, who have come all the way to Ottawa. They have travelled very far to be here to participate and hear members of Parliament from all sides of the House speak about this important bill and the topics that we are here to debate.

I am also pleased that they recognize the importance of this legislation to first nation communities. It was great to have met with many of them this morning alongside the minister and to hear their concerns directly.

Many of those concerns I have heard through the evolution of the bill. For months now, we have had the opportunity to talk about some of the direct concerns they have and talk about some of the changes in Bill S-6 that actually are beneficial and that we have found consensus on and want to move forward with.

I believe the meeting was productive this morning. It is always great to hear concerns, of course, in true northern tradition and in Canadian tradition.

As the minister pointed out in the House, we may not always agree, but we always respect each other's views, and it is clear that we share the same desire for a prosperous, healthy, and sustainable territory that will benefit all Yukoners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

Bill S-6 would amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, commonly referred to as YESAA, which would impact all Yukoners. For the benefit of any colleagues who may not be familiar with the legislation, YESAA governs the environmental and socio-economic assessment process in our territory. The intent of the legislation is to protect and promote the well-being of Yukon first nations persons and their communities and Yukon residents generally, as well as the interests of other Canadians.

Just as importantly, the legislation also seeks to protect the environmental and social integrity of the Yukon while fostering responsible development in the territory that reflects the values of Yukoners and respects the contributions of first nations.

When YESAA was first put in place in 2003, as required under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, it was considered state of the art. In concert with devolution, it has certainly served our territory well. I attribute this success to several factors.

First, YESAA respects the co-management structure of the Umbrella Final Agreement among Yukon first nations and governments of Canada and Yukon. This means that the interests of all parties are taken into consideration during the decision-making process.

In addition, the federal government provides significant funds annually to Yukon first nations government to participate in the YESAA process. Last year alone, Yukon first nations received $1.7 million to participate in the process, and YESAA itself received $5.7 million to conduct its important work.

Perhaps most importantly, as a result of devolution Yukoners now have greater control over their own resources and decision-making, and the impact of this control can be profound.

Yukon's unemployment rate is well below the national average. Even more impressive, our territory has had nine consecutive years of real GDP growth. That is primarily due to private sector investments, especially in the mining sector.

As proud as a Yukoner must be with this progress, the current system does require improvement in order to ensure that Yukon remains an attractive and competitive place for investment. However, as a result of regulatory improvements in other Canadian jurisdictions, Yukon now runs the risk of lagging behind. The premier of our territory stated, we desire to ensure that the Yukon continues to be a progressive and responsible place to invest and to do business and an even better place to live.

Bill S-6 proposes reasoned and practical amendments to YESAA following nearly seven years of consultation. These amendments would not only ensure the territory remains competitive in comparison with other jurisdictions in Canada but would also strengthen environmental protection standards.

Under YESAA currently, every single project that requires permitting in Yukon must go through an assessment before a project receives the green light to proceed, including changes to existing projects. This includes everything from a septic tank to a winter road to subdivisions to larger projects like placer mining or projects in copper, gold, and ore mines.

The legislation would also establish the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, or YESAB, which is responsible for conducting these assessments and providing recommendations that would eliminate or mitigate significant adverse effects. Depending upon the proposed project's size, type, and complexity, an assessment can take place at three different levels.

The first is the designated office evaluation. The majority of assessments are conducted in the six community-based designated offices. which that are located in Dawson City, Haines Junction, Mayo, Teslin, Watson Lake, and Whitehorse.

The second process can be an executive committee screening. The executive committee of the board will assess larger projects that are submitted to it directly or are referred to it by a designated office.

Third is review by a panel of the board. A panel of the board may be established to assess projects that, for instance, have the potential to have significant adverse effects, are likely to cause significant public concern, or involve the use of controversial technology.

Thus far, a panel review has never taken place in Yukon.

In 2013 and 2014, a total of 165 projects were submitted for assessment; of those, 163 were reviewed by a designated office and two were subject to an executive committee screening. Many of these projects were related to community infrastructure projects, such as roads, residential development, water, and waste sites.

In 2013-14, the Whitehorse designated office, as an example, assessed 26 projects. Land development made up approximately half of the submissions, followed by utility, which made up a quarter of the submissions. Other submissions were related to solid and contaminated waste, geotechnical investigations, forestry, and scientific research. The remaining projects were related to industrial and commercial mining or energy projects.

Unfortunately, it seems as though some confusion has arisen with respect to some of these amendments. Let me deal with a couple of these head-on.

Amendments in Bill S-6 would not in any detract from the board's independence. YESAB would remain an impartial and independent arm's-length entity responsible for making recommendations to decision bodies. A decision body is set out in the legislation and can be a federal, territorial, or first nation or agency that regulates and permits the proposed activity. A decision body can accept, reject, or vary a YESAB recommendation. It would not change the fact that YESAB is a co-managed process wherein first nation participation is guaranteed through having one of three members on the executive committee and three of seven members of the YESA Board, nor does anything in Bill S-6 deviate from the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement or infringe upon aboriginal or treaty rights.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development addressed this concern this morning when he spoke to the committee. He said that there is absolutely no justification for this concern, because the Yukon umbrella agreement continues to remain the law of the land.

First nation rights are not diminished at all. In fact, the protection for these rights may be found in five legally constituted documents of Canada: the Constitution, under section 35; the Yukon umbrella agreement; the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act; the Yukon devolution transfer agreement; and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act itself.

This legislation is designed to make common sense amendments to the legislation that arose out of the five-year review of YESAA mandated under the Umbrella Final Agreement. One such amendment would be that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 would no longer apply in the Yukon. This would ensure that YESAA, which has many of the same features as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 but was designed especially for the Yukon, would be the only environmental assessment process to apply in our territory.

Another amendment stemming from the five-year review was also to allow a member whose term has expired and who is participating in an executive committee screening or review of a panel or board to continue to act as a member for the purpose of completing the screening or review until the documents are issued.

At the same time, it would strengthen environmental protection by ensuring that designated offices are obligated to consider the need for effects monitoring when conducting an evaluation. It would also allow decision bodies, including first nations, to impose more stringent terms and conditions than required by a YESAA recommendation. Previously, decision bodies could only accept or reject recommendations; now they would be able to modify them by making conditions more stringent.

It would also reduce duplication for project reviews by implementing the principle of a one project, one assessment timeline and would implement several amendments arising out of our government's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. It would introduce beginning-to-end time limits for environmental assessments consistent with time limits effective in the Northwest Territories and under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.

According to the board's annual report, among the designated offices' evaluations, the median number of days spent in the adequacy stage equalled 19 and the median number of days in the seeking views and information stage equalled 20. The total median number of days it took to complete an assessment in 2013-2014 from proposal submitted to recommendation sent, including proponent time, was 55 days. Clearly, in many instances the board is already doing great work in meeting all of these timelines. This is also something that we heard clearly through the consultations.

However, that is not always the case, and Bill S-6 is designed to ensure that all projects are subject to legislated beginning-to-end timelines to ensure consistency across jurisdictions and to provide greater certainty to proponents, aboriginal groups, and governments. This amendment received significant support from Clynton Nauman, president and CEO at Alexco. When he testified at a committee hearing of the Senate, he said:

We support time limits for both the adequacy and assessment stages of the YESAA process. I can give a simple example of Alexco's experience. Over the past five years, Alexco has undergone the environmental assessment process — the YESAA process — four times, specifically for mine development and mine operations purposes.

Another amendment would ensure that approved projects that have not been modified do not need to go through a new environmental assessment for a licence or a permit renewal unless they undergo a significant change. For example, mining projects already granted approval are currently subject to new environmental assessment simply because a water licence or a land authorization needs to be renewed, even where there has been no change at all to the project. This has created an uncertain investment climate and generates significant additional work for all parties involved.

There would be an ability for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board in order to ensure a common understanding between the government and the board. I would like to emphasize that this legislation specifically states that this power could not be used to influence a decision on a project or restrict or expand the powers of the board. That point is worth reiterating: this part of the legislation would not be used to influence a decision on a project or to restrict or expand the powers of the board.

Finally, the ability of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate certain powers under YESAA to the territorial government supports our northern strategy of improving the devolution of northern governance.

I want to also point out that the amendments we see in the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act have been enriched by Yukoners' input. The Council of Yukon First Nations and other aboriginal groups were deeply involved in the development of the original YESAA, which came into effect in 2003. They were active participants in the five-year review process that informed the current legislative proposals. The development of the terms of reference for the five-year review began in December 2006 and was completed in April 2008, at which time the review commenced. The cost of the review was just over $650,000, not including federal official time and resources over the five-year review process.

In December 2012, after the completion of the five-year review, the passage of the amendments to CEAA and the announcement of the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, the Yukon government requested additional amendments to YESAA to ensure consistency across all regimes, including policy direction and the authority to delegate powers to the territorial minister.

While these amendments were not discussed as part of the five-year review, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada consulted with Yukon first nations in 2013 and 2014. The first draft of Bill S-6 was shared with the Yukon first nations for review and comment in May and June 2013. Formal consultation sessions followed, which provided the opportunity for first nations to learn about the proposed amendments, voice their concerns, and make recommendations on how to improve the proposals.

Feedback that was received informed a subsequent draft of the legislation, which was shared with first nations in February 2014. More consultations and opportunities for written feedback followed. I can confirm that continued opportunities for consultation and written feedback are ongoing to the present day. While there are some significant areas of disagreement, it does not mean that consultation was not done or was inadequate. As the minister articulated, it is Canada's belief that it met its duty to consult and that it accommodated where appropriate.

Input received helped to shape the current version of the bill. For example, the legislation was amended at the request of Yukon first nations to explicitly require that the interests of first nations be taken into consideration when conducting an assessment of a project. Funding has been made available to aboriginal groups each step of the way to ensure that they could participate in the many consultations that were held. In addition to this extensive process, aboriginal groups and Yukoners are also participating in the parliamentary review which is currently under way.

At this point, I would strongly urge the New Democratic Party to support the call I have made to take the committee to the Yukon. I was happy to hear that the Liberal Party has confirmed its support for the committee to travel to the Yukon and get input from the people in the territory on exactly what they would like to do. I hope that the past year-long practice of the NDP obstructing committee travel ceases for the purpose of this important piece of legislation.

The bill has, of course, been subject to significant debate already in the Senate, and the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from numerous witnesses from the Yukon. At the end of the study in the Senate, both Conservative and Liberal senators endorsed the bill unanimously. The Senate committee has recognized the importance of the bill for development and investment in the Yukon. In fact, Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell, the opposition critic on the bill, spoke in favour of the bill, stating:

There has been, I think, quite adequate consultation. It's complicated up there in these territories. You have federal, territorial and Aboriginal interests. [...] So it is very complex, and the fundamental core of this bill gets to that and is an effort to make all of that better and to make processes in the North better.

I think that we will find, after the process of reviewing this bill in committee, coming out and summarizing it in third reading, that in fact this bill will have a very good chance of accomplishing what it has set out to accomplish.

The rhetoric from the NDP suggesting that this is supported by just the Conservatives is not factual.

Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it will be reviewed in the House of Commons, and Yukoners will have one more opportunity to provide input to this bill at the House committee. Again, I am urging the committee to travel to the Yukon to hear directly from Yukoners. I invite all Yukoners, as I always have, to provide written comments, to reach out to my office if they would like to learn more about the bill, to talk to me, and to express their concerns. Indeed, on a daily basis, I receive comments from the territory that are compiled, assessed, and reported directly back to the minister. That will be ongoing, in my role and responsibility as Yukon's member of Parliament.

I hope that we can collectively move together to review this piece of legislation with a balanced approach, considering all of the complexities and diversified interests that exist in the territory, with the main objective that I outlined at the beginning of my speech, for a better Yukon and a strong environmental process that respects all Yukoners' needs, including those of our first nations.

I would like to thank them once again for coming to Ottawa to participate in this very important debate.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Yukon. I want to indicate clearly in this House that the New Democrats have signalled, through our House leader, our interest in travelling to the Yukon. We will leave it to the House leaders to sort out whether that will happen.

The member talked about consultations with first nations. A myth has been put out there that first nations have been consulted over the past seven years. The Yukon first nations have said that is not true, that they were not consulted on the amendments to YESAA under Bill S-6, and that many of these issues were never raised with them. The amendments of concern include giving binding policy direction to the board, handing powers over to the Yukon, imposing maximum timelines for assessments, and not requiring assessments when a project is renewed or being amended.

When we talk about consultation, that means providing all of the necessary information in a timely fashion to all of the parties. Therefore, I wonder if this member would clarify for the House if he feels that the Yukon first nations were given sufficient information and sufficient time to adequately consider the amendments that are proposed.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a bit of confusion around this topic. Bill S-6 incorporates a good portion of the legislative review. The five-year review process that stretched on to seven years formed the basis for a good portion of the legislation.

What was confusing is that there are four pieces, which I acknowledged in my speech, that were not part of that five-year review. Therefore, there are four concerns that Yukon first nations are concerned about and have taken umbrage with. It is those four pieces alone that they are suggesting they were not adequately consulted on. However, they are not suggesting that the five-year/seven-year review was not an adequate consultation, that they did not provide input into that, or that those pieces did not form portions of this legislation, because they do. They are suggesting that they were not adequately consulted on the four pieces they are concerned about. The minister dealt with that directly. In a clear fashion, he outlined the amount of consultation that occurred. It is the minister's and Canada's belief that they were adequately consulted on that.

In my opinion, as Yukon's member of Parliament, that process is not yet complete. We still have committee, and we still have every opportunity between now and then to hear their concerns and to address them effectively.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his remarks today. I know he wants to ensure that we have the strongest working relationships we can with our first nations and aboriginal governments across Canada. I am sure he expects to ensure that the government has that same good relationship with those groups in his riding.

However, I have heard from, I think it is 12 particular first nations groups in the Yukon, who are not supportive of the legislation that the government opposite is bringing forward right now. They want some changes made. There are four pieces in this bill that they were not consulted on, that they feel are infringing on their rights, and that are removing rights and powers they had under previous land claim and treaty agreements.

They feel they have lost a relationship of trust with the government over this. That is because during the consultation process, all of the other changes in the bill were developed and decided upon through a process of discussion, understanding, and consensus. There are four pieces in this bill that were added by the government opposite, which give power to the minister and removes that power from first nations governments. They are not supportive of them, and they were not appropriately consulted.

I would ask the member opposite how he can stand and support a bill that does not afford rights, responsibilities, and respect to the very people that he represents?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we have a disagreement on the consultation process.

The minister outlined quite clearly that there was consultation that in fact occurred. Over $100,000 was provided in a one-year period to consult on these four amendments that they have a concern about.

There were letters. I have copies of them. I clearly saw an exchange, back and forth, over a one-year period, where questions were posed, embargoed legislation was provided so they could review it, look at it, and make comment on it. They made comment. They asked questions, and they raised these concerns. The minister replied, trying to assure them that their concerns were heard and were being met by this legislation.

That was done over a one-year period, with financial support to allow them to do that. The point is not that there was not consultation. The point is that there is not agreement on that point of consultation.

As the minister clearly stated, if it can be absolutely demonstrated that there is anything that breaches the umbrella final agreement, all the government needs to see is a clear demonstration of that. If that is demonstrated, then we can look at the amendments. Otherwise, consultation has occurred. Funding support was provided for that consultation. What we have is a disagreement. It does not mean that people were ignored simply because we do not agree or that we they were not consulted. It only means that we have reached a disagreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yukon for his work on this, and for the job he does representing the views of his constituents in the House.

I want the member to talk a bit about how Yukon was seen as a leader in terms of its regulatory processes after devolution, and that the mining sector and the natural resources sector look to Yukon and compare it favourably to the rest of the regimes across the country.

Could the member perhaps talk about how that has changed over the last few years, and how we need to modernize Yukon's regulatory environment so we can provide certainty to the mining and natural resource sector in that territory going forward?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary. He has been up in the north. He has travelled in our territories, dealing with this file and the NWT devolution.

This is an important question. As I said in my speech, the Yukon was very proud of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. We had nation-leading legislation. We were taking full advantage of that, with nine consecutive years of GDP growth and support in our mining industry.

What happened is that as changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act came into play, as the NWT devolution act moved forward, the Yukon started lagging behind. It was clear to industry. It was clear to investors. It was clear to the Yukon government. We went from having one of the best environmental review processes to one of the worst in the country, and it was starting to be noticed in our economic development and our opportunities moving forward.

All we are asking is that we have parity, equality, so that the Yukon stands a fighting chance in a competitive market, and at the same time ensures environmental integrity and socio-economic integrity. I think we have achieved that with this bill. We look forward to continuing talking and working with Yukoners, to make it the best piece of legislation that we can.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a special affinity for the Yukon.

I spent six years in Watson Lake. The first thing I noticed when I got there was that outside of town, it was impossible to do anything or carry out any sort of project because of the ongoing territorial disputes.

In the years that I spent there, I saw the local community and the aboriginal people come to some sort of consensus on how to communicate. When I hear the minister say that if some people do not agree with some of the amendments and there is no consensus, then there is always the courts, I wonder whether that is a step backward.

Will this bill end up bringing disputes back before the courts?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the intention or the interest of our government, and clearly not of the minister.

The minister said that we have done the consultation. We have adequately consulted. The minister indicated that he has heard their point of view, but he feels the concerns they have raised have been met by other terms and points that are embedded in the legislation.

He clearly invited the Yukon first nations in particular to provide comment, and I have been present when he has invited them, and to provide absolute clear evidence that there is something different than what we are suggesting. If that is the case, he is prepared to look at that, which is obviously open and in the spirit of consultation.

The House resumed from December 1 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on 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.

I think the member from western Arctic has clearly outlined the NDP position on the bill, and of course, we are opposing it.

I will focus my speaking time on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act aspect of the bill, because that is very controversial.

To give a bit of background, in May 2003, Canada enacted the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the Yukon first nations' comprehensive land claim agreements. Yukon first nations agreed to accept less than 9% of their historic land. They accepted this small land settlement partly in exchange for the establishment of a permanent assessment process that would manage all projects in their traditional territories in accordance with the objectives stated in chapter 12. That process is defined in YESAA, which was developed collaboratively by Canada, Yukon, and first nations.

A number of concerns have been raised by the Yukon first nations with regard to this piece of legislation. Following are the the primary concerns.

The Council of Yukon First Nations and Yukon first nations are concerned that the changes proposed in Bill S-6 would be contrary to the intent of the land claims agreements, would undermine the neutrality of the YESAA process, and would reduce the effectiveness of environmental and socioeconomic assessments. First nations' main concerns relate to four amendments that were never raised by Canada during the five-year review.

Number one is policy direction to the board. Clause 34 of Bill S-6 would provide an amendment that would give Canada the power to give binding policy direction to the YESAA board. Canada could choose to delegate this power to the Yukon government. Providing Canada with the authority to issue policy direction would undermine the independence of the board and designated offices. Independence is a fundamental element of the YESAA. During the development of the YESAA, Yukon first nations, CYFN, Canada, and Yukon, discussed this at length.

The following analysis is from a pamphlet called Changes to YESAA Threaten Our Land, Our Economy, Our Yukon. How Bill S-6 affects Yukon. It is a background fact sheet.

Providing a single party with the authority to direct the Board is contrary to the spirit and intent of the YESAA and the provisions of the Final Agreements.

The second piece that is controversial in this bill is the delegation of federal powers to the Yukon government. Providing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with authority to delegate powers to the territorial minister without the consent of first nations would create a bilateral process that would exclude first nations from discussions about the balance of power. I will come back to this particular point.

The third sticking point is exemptions for renewals and amendments. This is a particular concern. It is addressed in clause 14 of Bill S-6. Again, I will quote from the background fact sheet:

This amendment allows governments to approve the renewal or amendment of permits and licences for projects without any YESAA assessment. Renewals or amendments could have serious impacts on the environment, regional economies and local communities.

This amendment will make project assessments challenging. Impacts would need to be identified for the entire project life because renewals would likely not have to go through an assessment. For some projects, effects cannot be foreseen at the time of the initial review. This may result in negative impacts to the environment, our economy and communities.

Under the amendment, governments can avoid assessment for renewals and amendments if they decide that the project has not changed significantly. The proposed amendments do not provide a definition for significant change, but rely on the opinion of the regulators. This will create uncertainty, and the perception of political interference, resulting in conflict and could possibly end up before the courts.

The fourth and final concern and objection is on the timelines for the YESAA assessments. The proposed beginning-to-end timelines would affect the thoroughness of environmental and socio-economic assessments and opportunities for first nations' input on major projects. Of course, we know that in many cases, first nations do not have the resources to drop everything and immediately respond to a project when an assessment is required.

It is very concerning and has the appearance of trying to ram through assessments without first nations having adequate time and resources to review them.

What we have heard consistently from the government is that there was consultation and that it was adequate.

I want to start with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and reference two articles, because it is important to set a context with regard to consultation. Article 18 says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

I want to remind the House that the government signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and made a commitment to take some next steps to implement it, but so far it has failed to do anything meaningful or concrete to uphold its international obligations.

I want to address one of the myths with regard to consultation. A paper entitled “Changes to YESAA Threaten our Environment, our Economy, our Yukon” specifically addresses the issue of consultation. This is the myth:

There have been thousands of hours of consultation with First Nations on changes to YESAA over the past 7 years.

Here is the reality:

The Parties discussed the YESAA process for many hours between 2008 and 2011, as part of the YESAA Five-Year Review. It was a review required under the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA). The Parties to the UFA, the Council of Yukon First Nations..., Canada and Yukon agreed to work together to improve the YESAA process through shared decision making and by consensus, when possible.

The amendments to YESAA under Bill S-6 that are of concern were never discussed and were never raised by Canada during the Five-Year Review. The amendments of concern include: giving binding policy direction to the Board; handing over powers to Yukon; imposing maximum timelines for assessments; and not requiring assessments when a project is renewing or being amended. These new amendments were introduced with little opportunity to ensure adequate consultation and accommodation.

I have outlined those amendments before.

The paper continues:

On February 26, 2014, Canada arrived at a meeting and provided paper copies of these amendments and refused to provide electronic versions to the First Nations that were on the phone for the meeting. This stopped them from being able to participate in a meaningful way.

Yukon First Nations had less than 2 months to review and respond to the changes proposed by Canada. That is not enough time to review important changes to the YESAA law. Consultation means providing the necessary information to the Parties. Canada didn’t do that step. Canada failed to meet the test of its Treaty and common law duty to consult and accommodate.

I have heard the government say that it consulted but that the Yukon first nations did not agree with it, so it was going to go ahead with the amendments, even though there was grave disagreement.

We have heard the Conservative government talk in the House a number of times about an agenda around reconciliation. If it has an agenda around reconciliation, does that not mean respect for its partners?

It signed an umbrella agreement with the Council of Yukon First Nations. I would argue that there is a spirit and intent around these agreements that is about a respectful relationship, a willingness to move toward reconciliation, and an unwillingness to unilaterally impose a federal government's will on first nations. It is fine for the government to say that it has consulted, but if it does not actually do anything about the disagreement to try to resolve it, that is hardly consultation.

Representatives of the Council of Yukon First Nations were in Ottawa because of their grave concerns. They we here at the invitation of the minister and had a meeting with him. CBC's headline was, “Ottawa trip on Bill S-6 ends in insult to Yukon First Nations”. In that meeting, Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation Chief Eric Fairclough said:

The minister shut us down by telling us we were “not real governments”, and therefore he does not need to make us active participants in changing legislation that arises from our treaties.

The article went on to state:

Fairclough says that's an insult that "flies in the face of recent court decisions that have affirmed the duty to consult First Nations."

At the aboriginal affairs committee yesterday, I asked the minister whether or not he had said that. He put it into context, and I will read his response into the record. He stated that “The point I made is under the umbrella agreement, government is defined as being the Government of Canada or the Government of Yukon, so my point was that this delegation is contemplated under the umbrella agreement and it does not define government as being first nations. Their argument is that, under the umbrella agreement, they should be considered governments, and unfortunately, that was not the deal concluded. The umbrella agreement is clear that “government” is defined either as Government of Canada or Government of Yukon. I said that for the purposes of the umbrella agreement, they were not considered and defined as government. That does not mean they are not governments. They are governments but not under the umbrella agreement...”.

We have a government that talks about how it supports all government agreements with first nations. I am not a lawyer, but I know there are many fine lawyers in the House who will tell us that we cannot outline every single possible detail in any agreement, and that what a lot of it comes down to is the spirit and intent. From many presentations and court cases, I can tell members that the rights of first nations have been reaffirmed.

I want to refer to a document from January 2007. It is not a legal document but rather an interpretation. It is entitled, “Recognition and Implementation of First Nation Governments”. This was put out by the Assembly of First Nations. Under “3.3 Core Functions of First Nation Governments”, it states:

The United Nations Development Programme views “capable government” as a precondition to development. Governments are the primary vehicles for promoting social, cultural , and economic development within a society. A capable government must be the one that makes decisions affecting its citizens. A government works best when it is close to those it governs.

It goes on to say:

Communities need to be able to govern themselves with real authorities and jurisdiction. We have governed ourselves effectively in the past and continue to do so despite external impositions like the Indian Act....All regions agreed that First Nation governments have the inherent responsibility and jurisdictions to legislate on those areas that affect their communities.

Surely the changes that are proposed in Bill S-6 would fundamentally affect economic development, the environment that Yukon first nations live in, and their way of life. If that does not meet the test of what should be considered a government-to-government relationship, I do not know what does.

It is not just first nations who are opposing this legislation. I have a number of letters here, which I unfortunately will run out of time reading into the record, but I will quote a few to give members a sense of their flavour.

The Tourism Industry Association of Yukon wrote to the member of Parliament for Yukon stating the following:

On behalf of the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, I am writing to express our support for the Council of Yukon First Nations' opposition to particular amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act...by the Government of Canada, through Bill S-6. We believe that these changes will have a negative impact on the tourism industry, and for Yukoners overall.

In conclusion, the TIA states:

TIA Yukon asserts that taking land use planning decisions away from the Territory will ultimately give tourism operators in the Yukon less of a say over land use issues where resource extraction interests conflict with the interests of tourism businesses.

The Casino Mining Corporation wrote to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development stating this:

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 investment in the territory....

Casino believes that if the YESAA has the full support of all levels of government, it will provide greater certainty for the mineral industry. To this end, we encourage Canada, Yukon, and Yukon First Nation governments to engage, work collaboratively and find a solution to address the outstanding issues within Bill S-6.

In a letter to the member for Yukon, the Wildlife Conservation Society states:

I am writing on behalf of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada...to express opposition to Bill S-6, recently introduced through the Senate of Canada by the federal government.

I have witnessed the implementation of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act...since its inception in 2005, and have been generally impressed by the record of its implementation body....

That is the YESA Board.

It continues:

Bill S-6 proposes various amendments to the YESAA that will undermine the independence and integrity of the environmental impact assessment process currently administered by YESAB. Therefore the social licence for project approvals that YESAB has gained runs a strong risk of being compromised. Bill S-6 has substantial shortcomings, both in the process by which it has been drafted, and in its content.

The process for developing these amendments and compiling them in draft legislation has been flawed. The original YESAA derives from the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) under which Aboriginal claims for rights and title have been settled in Yukon. A review of YESAA was mandated to occur after 5 years of implementation, and that review began in 2008. The subsequent process has been long and ultimately produced Bill S-6. The major problems with the process have been: (i) a number of issues raised by First Nations up to June 2011 were ignored or overlooked without explanation in the Interim Draft Final Report of the review process released by the federal government (March 2012) and in the Final Review Report (October 2012); (ii) some of the stages of the review process were held in camera so there is a lack of transparency and accountability to all the negotiating parties and to the public; (iii) certain stakeholders, notably the non-renewable resource extraction industries, participated in the review process in camera; (iv) Bill S-6 has been introduced by your government without the endorsement of Yukon First Nations which makes it contrary to the spirit and intent of the UFA. In sum, the consultation process has lacked transparency, appears biased, and has not addressed First Nations' concerns which are of equal validity to those of Canada or Yukon in a government-to-government agreement such as the UFA.

There are also reasons for concern about the content of Bill S-6, and I highlight three. First, the Bill provides the option for the federal government (Canada), or by delegation the Yukon Territorial government, to impose policy direction on the Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Board (YESAB). This undermines a stated purpose of YESAA (5, 2(a)) which is to produce a "neutrally-conducted assessment process" at arm's length from government. The existing YESAA already allows the Yukon Territorial government, through the Executive Council Office, the power to accept or reject YESAB recommendations. There is no need, in practical or moral terms, to further remove power and influence from YESAB and place it unilaterally in the hands of one or other government. Doing so goes against the spirit and intent of the UFA and the First Nations' final agreements.

Second, Bill S-6 imposes specific timelines on YESAB for project review. As a result, complex projects will receive relatively cursory review because of a rushed process. It is unclear why this would be needed other than perhaps that the YESAB review process in operation before Bill S-6 has come under criticism from the mining industry when YESAB requests additional information during the process. Speaking from the perspective of a biologist who is aware of ecological impacts brought about by mining operations, this is not a reflection of a faulty review process, but a reflection of inadequate preparation by industry and its consultants. In other words, there is a strong argument to be made that YESAB's reviews have been working well by uncovering poor planning and preparation by project proponents.

Finally, as I mentioned, they also raise the following concern:

Bill S-6 removes the need for any YESAB review of project amendments or renewals, unless there are "significant changes”.

A number of bodies have pointed out the very serious concern that this piece of legislation does not define what significant changes are.

There are other organizations, including the the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and the Yukon chapter of CPAWS, who have also raised very serious objections with regard to the independence and impartiality of the development assessment process. Generally, they are calling on the government to pull this bill and to work with Yukon first nations to make sure that the bill reflects both the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement, and the spirit and intent of government-to-government relationships, which would include the Yukon first nations.

Given the number of objections that have been raised by Yukoners, including industry and non-governmental organizations, I would urge this government to take a step back and look at the four key areas where there are very serious objections.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite often about the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement. What we have done with the bill is actually respect the text of it. She spoke about a perceived insult that was reported in the news, and which she did bring up yesterday at committee, where the minister simply pointed to page 4 of the umbrella agreement, which says the following in the definition section:

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

This is not something we have made up. This is not something that has been pulled out of thin air. This is certainly not an insult. This is a definition in the Umbrella Final Agreement, Council for Yukon Indians, which this legislation certainly respects, and it certainly allows for the delegation of federal powers. It allows for policy direction. It allows for all four amendments that have supposedly invoked the ire of the CYI.

I wonder if the member could speak specifically to what sections of the Umbrella Final Agreement have been violated by Bill S-6, not the spirit and intent, but the text itself, because that is what we deal with here as lawmakers. We respect final agreements and the law, and I would like her to point out where it has been violated.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did address that in my speech and acknowledge that the minister had quoted that. He did not quote a specific section, but he indicated that the Umbrella Final Agreement talked about the Government of Canada and Yukon.

I do not believe we can just brush away the spirit and intent. If we are to move toward reconciliation in this country, then first nations must be recognized as an order of government. When we are putting forward legislation that would have a profound impact on first nations' ability to manage their territories, then we need to have them at the table and not just brush them aside, which the government is attempting to do.

The parliamentary secretary can say that it is not about spirit and intent but about what is written right here, but the Conservatives are the ones who signed on to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which acknowledges that first nations have a right to make decisions about matters, legislative decisions and other matters, that directly affect their ability to govern their communities.

I would argue that Bill S-6 directly affects their ability to govern their communities.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill stinks of paternalism. I have noticed that many of the Conservatives' first nations bills have had the same stink, especially when they have to do with first nations women.

Has my colleague noticed this as well?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the last many years, from 2006 actually, we have continually seen legislation come forward that does not reflect, in many of our views, at least on the New Democrat side of the House, the duty to consult.

The government loves to trot out the fact that it has had eight meetings talking to people. What it fails to address is the fact that consultation actually should be a circular process. We provide information, we provide resources, we sit down with people, we hear what they have to say, and then we actually include them in working toward a solution where there were differences. It is the part where we include people toward working toward solutions where there are differences that the government consistently fails, whether it is on matrimonial real property, water, or education. Whatever legislation has come before the House to which first nations have objected, the government has failed to work to resolve those objections.

I would agree with the member for Hochelaga that it is a very paternalistic approach to working with first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of consultation, I think the member is correct. She has pointed out the number of meetings that we held and the fact that over $98,000 was provided to the first nations in question to debate these very specific four points that were not included in the five-year review.

What would the member suggest when there really are two positions that are not going to change and over which there is disagreement? Does the duty to consult fail when the government does not accommodate differences every time? There certainly has to be a test where there is consultation, but it does not always require accommodation.

What does the hon. member think should be done when there are entrenched positions that are mutually opposed? Does she simply suggest that the government knuckle under every time, or how do we resolve that when the positions are entrenched?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I used the words “knuckle under”. What I did say was that, in a respectful relationship, one tries to work toward a solution.

In my speech, I talked about the parts that are the sticking points that are not part of that five-year review process. From the Yukon first nations' perspective, some of their members were not even provided with copies of the documents that were under review at a meeting back in February 2014.

If we are going to have a fulsome consultation process, we have to allow enough time and provide people with the documentation to allow them to review it.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the parliamentary secretary that in the Haida case, which was 10 years ago now, the Supreme Court indicated that the broad spectrum of consultation includes the full consent of the first nations on important issues. I think that the environment is most definitely an important issue to the first nations. I simply want to remind the parliamentary secretary of that.

I have a very simple question for my colleague. I have noticed a common thread in all of the government's actions since it got a majority in 2011. It has been weakening all of the environmental assessment processes to make it easier to develop natural resources. That is unfair to many people—the first nations, of course, but also people who live in the north. They need to be involved in the decisions that affect them, especially when it comes to the environment.

My colleague mentioned a number of important stakeholders in this process, such as the tourism association and mining companies. Are there any others she could mention to show that the first nations are not the only ones who are upset here, but that there are many people living in the north who care about the environment and the economy?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch for one moment on the issue around accommodation. The member cited the Haida case from a number of years ago. However, we also had a recent court decision, the Tsilhqot'in decision, which talked about not only consultation but consent. Consent is missing in Bill S-6. There is no consent to the changes that would be made.

With regard to the environment, there are mining companies that have raised objections, environmental organizations, and tourism organizations. It sounds to me as if there are a number of Yukoners who are really concerned about protecting the wonderful, amazing environment up in the Yukon. People want economic development, but they want it done responsibly and sustainably.

What the bill would do is create more uncertainty. It would not protect the environment and it would create uncertainty for some of these projects.

First nations have already indicated that, if the government is not willing to sit down with them and talk about accommodation and consent, this will end up in court, and that would not provide certainty in terms of development of a variety of projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to Bill S-6, a bill from the Senate, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

I oppose this legislation. I think it is deeply flawed. I would love to hear from the member for Yukon in the House. I do not see him anywhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless the member thinks we should amend the rules so the member for Yukon can give two speeches at the same stage, perhaps he should stick to order and not point out the presence or absence of a member. Perhaps he could check back in Hansard, where he can read the speech of the member for Yukon.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Members may know that, in fact, the Standing Orders do indicate that members should avoid any reference to the presence or absence of members in the House. That is an area of speech we tend to stay away from.

In this case, the hon. parliamentary secretary makes a valid point. Therefore, I would encourage the hon. member to perhaps rephrase that comment and perhaps avoid it in future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take your good counsel on this matter.

To further debate on this bill, it is very important that the government understand that environmental protection is a fundamental obligation of this House. We need to ensure that our environment is going to be there for future generations. We all want to benefit from its wealth, from the bounty it brings us, but we need to do it in full consultation and full agreement with the people who live on those lands.

The current government has had extreme difficulty in being able to bring forward legislation that brings this consultation process to the fore. We need to recall previous bills that this side of the House certainly had a lot of difficulty with, such as Bill C-38, which gutted environmental protections in this country. We see with this bill that we are again going in the same direction.

Environmental protection is an obligation; it is a duty on our part. We want to ensure that resources remain. We want to ensure that people can continue to benefit from the wealth that this land brings us. It is not simply a theoretical question. In my riding, when we speak to environmental protection, we are talking about the fundamental industries that make my riding economically viable: the forestry industry, the fishing industry, the mining industry. We need those environmental protections so that future generations can exploit those resources and, unfortunately, Bill C-38 scrapped those.

With Bill S-6, we have a situation where those who live in Yukon have challenged this legislation insofar as they have not been consulted adequately. In fact, there have been threats of legal action against this bill. I sometimes wonder if the current government is not simply here to ensure that lawyers have as much work as possible challenging its bills before the courts. Let us remember that the Supreme Court, over and over again, has identified that the duty to consult is not a duty to be trifled with.

My colleague recently mentioned that the courts, in June of this year, came up with even stronger language. The court has made it clear that the government not only has a duty to consult but has a duty to accommodate. The duty increases with the responsibility and the rights of first nations on their land. In the case of this bill, we have a number of first nations representatives who have told us precisely why they do not agree with this bill.

A few representatives of first nations have been very clear. I will start with Mary Jane Jim, councillor from the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. She has already testified and has said very clearly that in her opinion there are concerns regarding Bill S-6. They are subject to the matters raised during the five-year review. It is her view that the Yukon environmental assessments have been operating effectively and efficiently since 2003, but that Bill S-6 would amend this process so that the proposed Bill S-6 would breach the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate with respect to the proposed changes to YESAA.

Mary Jane Jim goes on to point out that:

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. These are matters that were not discussed or raised during the five-year review or, in the case of the amendment that would create exemptions for project renewals and changes, contradict agreements reached during the five-year review.

This is the opinion of one person, a representative of first nations. I am going to bring more testimony that was brought to the fore already, to the other House.

Let us be clear. The representatives of first nations are dissatisfied with this bill. This bill does not go far enough in consulting first nations, nor does it go far enough in protecting the environment. It was done in a secretive way. There are a number of organizations that feel that the five-year review process was not respected and they were not allowed the input not only that they were expecting but also that we are duty-bound to supply.

The Nunavut Water Board, for instance, has a number of concerns. It has already brought forward possible amendments; one of them being the question of anticipated duration, which Mary Jane Jim, the councillor from the first nations, has already brought forward in the testimony I just cited. The question of the anticipated duration of appurtenant undertaking is a very ambiguous statement.

The question from the board's perspective is that there is an absence of regulatory definition of what is an anticipated duration, what it means, and it seems to create confusion regarding enforcement. What is an anticipated duration of any project? One would have a hard time defining that from the get-go.

The difficulty is that, if there had been an adequate process of consultation, maybe these issues would have been addressed in the first place.

The problem, again, with the current government is that it is in a terrible hurry to adopt legislation, it does not take the time to consult, and it comes up with legislation that is often flawed, forcing many organizations to bring legislation to tribunals and, ultimately, possibly even the Supreme Court—a very costly, time-consuming undertaking—when in fact it would have been simpler and much more effective if the consultation had been done properly in the first place.

I would like to comment on an issue that the member for Hochelaga also brought forward, that there seems to be a strong sense, a strong flavour of paternalism in the way we deal with first nations, in the way we deal with our territories. When we do not have adequate consultation, the solutions are made in Ottawa and imposed upon people in the north.

Why would we not take the time to bring their concerns forward and have them properly addressed and accommodated for?

The consultation process is not simply a theory where we put up a website and wait for comments to come in. There is an obligation to bring those concerns forward, to address them, and to accommodate them to the extent we are legally obligated, and more. The obligation here is to respect first nations' rights and respect our environment in the long term.

Unfortunately, we seem to making legislation that brings the possibility of exploiting our natural resources at the first possible occasion and in the quickest way to make a buck. However, that is not a long-term view. That is a view that can only bring us forward for a few months, for a few years, but in the long run, we all end up losers in that process.

We should really be looking at why we put in the YESAA in the first place. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board has a reason to exist and it was done through partnership. We brought this legislation forward in partnership with our first nations. We brought it forward in partnership with those who live in the Yukon.

Unfortunately, in this particular case, we have decided that it is much more efficient—and it is certainly not my view, but it seems to be the view of the current government—to just bring down legislation as fast as possible, to use the language of the parliamentary secretary, to “knuckle under”, if we do not allow the process to just be steamrolled forward.

I do not see this as a confrontation. “Knuckle under” sounds awfully violent to me. In fact, we should be looking at a process that is conciliatory, a process that is understanding of people's concerns and that takes the time that it takes to bring legislation that upholds our rights and obligations.

There should not be a massive hurry to exploit our resources. They are not going anywhere. We need to be doing this carefully. We need to be doing this properly. We can only extract a resource once. We cannot extract it over and over again. Let us do it properly, let us do it right, and let us do in full respect of our first nations.

When it comes to what we should be doing, we should have a broad public consultation process, not a process that seems to breach the five-year review that we are legally obligated to bring forward. The YESAA should be operating effectively and efficiently, but at this point it does not seem that the amendments that are being brought forward by this bill would support the process that was put in, in the first place.

When it comes to our NDP leader from Yukon, Ms Liz Hanson, she made a very good point at the Yukon legislature, I thought, where we need a relationship built upon dialogue and respect.

She pointed out that 11 years ago, devolution gave the Yukon government province-like powers for land and resource management, that this was an important step in Yukon's history and that it was crucial to Yukon's ability to determine its own future, one that was grounded in respectful relationships among Yukon first nation governments and the Yukon government.

With the proposed changes that the YESAA brought forward, there was a made in Yukon solution for a made in Yukon economy. It was a made in Yukon proposal that was adopted by those who lived in Yukon. Today we have a relationship that does not seem to be based on dialogue and respect. It seems that we are trying to barrel it through.

There was an editorial in Yukon News in June, 2014, around the same time the Supreme Court came down with the ruling that amplified our duties and obligations to first nations. I would like to quote this editorial from Yukon News on June 13. It said:

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.

The newspaper goes on to say “shame on them”.

I have difficulty with a process that does not seem to have widespread support and that does not seem to reflect the obligation of consultation.

Let us go back to some discussions that were brought forward by the leader of the Council of Yukon First Nations. Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, who pointed out, “The Council of Yukon First Nations reiterates that the five-year review has not been completed”. Are we respecting our terms, agreements and the obligations? According to the Council of Yukon First Nations, the answer to that is a clear no.

There are three issues that the Yukon first nations say remain outstanding. It is worth mentioning what they are.

The first is:

Future Review: It is expected that the YESAA process will require adjustments to deal with future circumstances and ensure effectiveness and efficiency. Some provisions have not been operational. Therefore, it would be prudent for the parties to commit to undertake another review of the YESAA process in the future.

We need to have continuous reviews and input to ensure our legislation stands up. We need adequate funding for Yukon first nations. This is something we have heard frequently in the House. The government seems to impose obligations on first nations, especially lately. It seems to be imposing obligations that are very onerous. They are obligations that we do not even impose upon ourselves, yet we do not give the first nations the capacity to meet them effectively.

Going back to the testimony that was brought forward by the Council of Yukon First Nations, it says:

If the YESAA process is to operate effectively and efficiently, Yukon First Nations must have the resources to fulfill their duties and participate fully in the assessment of projects within their respective traditional territories. Due to the significant increase in the number, scale and complexity of projects proposed in certain areas of the Yukon Territory, this issue has been raised repeatedly by the Council of Yukon First Nations.

The third point that the Council of Yukon First Nations wish to underline and address as a strong objection to the bill is the engagement with affected Yukon first nations. It said:

The CYFN has proposed that a territorial or federal decision body must engage with the Yukon First Nation when it is considering recommendations from the executive committee or a designated office with respect to projects that may affect its Aboriginal treaty rights, titles and interests. This engagement must take place prior to the issuance of a decision document.

This is probably the one that is of greatest concern to me. I do not understand, knowing what the Supreme Court has said over and over again about our duty to consult and to accommodate, how it is possible that first nations are coming back and saying, yet again, that we should be consulting with them before we impose a decision upon them.

I thought that was made clear by the Supreme Court of Canada. I thought the government actually listened to the laws of this land. We are certainly very busy legislating in this place, but we do not seem to be taking the time to read in this place.

I would really enjoy hearing from government members as to why first nations of our country continuously repeat that they are not being heard. The consultation process is clearly inadequate. From the readings I make of the Supreme Court of Canada rulings, it agrees with first nations on this point. They simply are not being heard as far as our obligations toward them is concerned. First nations have the right to be heard and they have the right to expect that we will accommodate them. Unfortunately, we seem to be steamrolling decisions that do not accommodate them, making it possible for companies to come in and exploit the resources regardless of local concerns.

It is a poison chalice when companies come in and try to exploit a resource without adequate consultation and without adequate local support. Ultimately, the process becomes flawed and those companies must expend enormous resources to backpedal in order to compensate for the lack of work that was done by the government with its legislation. We should not be imposing that kind of burden on our resource companies. We should help them to adequately, properly and respectfully exploit our resources so that long-term benefits can be had by all.

There is no reason why we all cannot benefit from our resources, but unfortunately the Conservative government insists that it knows better than anyone else and steamrolls legislation through at all costs and with all speed. The fact that today two motions were brought to this place regarding time allocation speaks to the fact that the government just simply does not want to take the time to listen.

Bill S-6 proposes amendments that were not even discussed with the Council of Yukon First Nations. This is reason for deep concern. How is it possible that the Council of Yukon First Nations was not consulted regarding the modifications? The Conservatives say that they consulted hundreds of people in Yukon regarding this legislation, and I am happy they have.

However, the Conservatives seem to have side-stepped consultation when it comes to representatives of first nations. I do not understand their reasoning for this. If the Council of Yukon First Nations is saying that it is not being heard, then I suspect this bill is probably yet another one that will be brought before the courts because of its inadequate consultation process. Ultimately, bad consultation means bad legislation. We are not going to have the proper safeguards in place and we are not going to see the benefits being shared as they should.

We should stop being paternalistic in this place. Yukon has the right to govern itself. We have had that discussion in the House. There seems to be agreement in principle that Yukon should have much more autonomy than it has now. Unfortunately, with Bill S-6, we seem to be turning the clock back to a process where the House will decide for first nations and for Yukoners what is best for them. I do not agree with that process.

It is important that we take time to reflect on this legislation. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary. I would like to hear from all members of the House. I would especially like to hear any comments that the member for Yukon might have regarding the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier point of order, the member for Yukon has already spoken to the bill during this stage, so he cannot speak again. The member will need to go back and read his remarks in Hansard.

The member should also read the Supreme Court's views on consultation. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the government has a duty to consult and where appropriate, accommodate. The NDP does not seem to like the part that says “where appropriate”.

The assertion that the CYFN was not consulted on these four issues is demonstrably false. The council received close to $100,000 as reimbursement for the costs associated with the consultation. The grand chief of the CYFN in her testimony before the Senate said, “Although we have been consulted several times...we...have been accommodated”. There absolutely has been consultation.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is a duty to consult and where appropriate, where necessary, accommodate. The member is a lawyer. The importance of those words cannot be understated.

Would he not agree that there is a duty to consult, but where appropriate, accommodate? It is not an absolute duty to accommodate.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable question. That question has been brought to the Supreme Court and other court levels on many occasions. It is certainly an evolving process, but the evolving process is pointing in the direction that we need to be much more forceful and forthcoming in our consultation in order to determine the degree of accommodation that must be had.

I would like to point out that the Council of Yukon First Nations was very clear in its testimony at the Senate. When it came to consultation, Ruth Massie, Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, said that Bill S-6 proposed amendments that were not discussed by the Council of Yukon First Nations. It might have been consulted on some aspects, but it was clearly not consulted on others. Therefore, it is pretty hard to determine the level of accommodation if the consultation never happened in the first place.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

What does he think of the way such bills are being introduced? Common sense would suggest that there should be a consensus among the parties before a bill is introduced in Parliament. Had there been discussions, I am sure that there would have been an even greater chance of unanimity among all of the parties in the House.

Does he think that would be the right way to do things given that the Conservatives did the opposite in this particular case? There is no consensus on the bill they introduced, not even within the community it will affect.

Does my colleague think it would be better to turn things around and try to achieve consensus before introducing bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This bill has triggered a debate that should have been held in Yukon long before it reached the House. The government should have taken the time to hold consultations. Unfortunately, this is not the first time the government has chosen this approach. The government has invoked closure 84 times to limit the time we have to debate bills in the House. That is what it is doing on the ground too: limiting consultation with the first nations and people.

This government has made it very hard to achieve consensus or gain the support of community groups and organizations. Social acceptance is just not in the picture. That is a big problem.

We cannot continue to have a government that disregards its duty to help people and protect our rights. This government is very ideological and does whatever it wants. Unfortunately, that means that, sooner or later, many of these laws will be challenged in the courts and overturned. Then we will have to start all over again. What a waste.

I would sure like to know why the government wants to hand so much money over to lawyers.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the member say that there was no support for this bill. I would like to read some quotes from the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources by a few witnesses who appeared.

Samson Hartland, the executive director of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, indicates the organization is supportive of the bill.

Darrell Pasloski, the premier of Yukon, stated:

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I believe that the changes to this legislation that Canada has proposed will ensure that Yukon continues to be a progressive and responsible place to invest and to do business, and even a better place to live, raise a family and make a living.

Cathy Towtongie, president of the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., NTI, has no objections to the modest changes.

Why does the member discount those witnesses at committee and only cites the ones who fit the very narrow view of the bill by the NDP?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not think that the bill has no support. It is clear that if the government brought it forward, at the least the government must support this bill, so I will give him that.

If there was a misunderstanding as to that, either I misspoke or he misheard. Either way, the limited support that this bill has will certainly please those it was drafted for. However, regrettably, the first nations have not been properly consulted, as is clear in the testimony. This House has a duty, an obligation to address those concerns, and in this bill, that duty has simply not been reflected.

The member may have a point that some people have been sufficiently addressed and may actually benefit from this bill, and more power to them. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made the legal obligations clear and has stressed them on so many occasions on so many challenges that were brought to its attention. I do not understand why the government has not taken the time to reflect on those decisions of the Supreme Court and wonder if this bill is not going to go down that same path and go down in flames.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member was talking about the idea of consultation. At the committee stage we get a sense of the lack of consultation, but we have also heard about the lack of consultation directly, in particular from up north.

We want to be able to reach out to our first nations, our aboriginal peoples, and we should be developing legislation that at least in part takes into consideration many of the leaders of the north. This appears to have not been the case. There does not seem to be a consensus.

The member has pointed out that some factions may be somewhat supportive, but the overwhelming feeling seems to be that the government has not gotten it right. As a result, we should be looking at not supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member brings a fair point to this place.

If this House is going to take its responsibilities seriously, I would encourage all members to start reading the rulings of the Supreme Court that have, over time, become ever more forceful as to what the duty to consult and to accommodate looks like.

I believe the Supreme Court is showing a degree of frustration with this place because we simply are not taking that responsibility seriously. I believe the first nations are living through that frustration. We can see it in their testimony and we can see it in the disagreements that they have with the legislation brought to this place.

We need to take this duty to consult much more seriously. Unfortunately, an ideological government is badly placed to be able to take that role seriously. I think first nations would be much better off with a change in government, and I am looking forward to 2015.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Drummond to resume debate, I must inform him that I will have to interrupt him at approximately 2 p.m., when statements by members will begin. As usual, I will indicate when he has one minute left before members' statements are to begin.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to once again defend the interests of my constituents in Drummond, and across Canada, regarding the environment. It is a topic that is very important to me and to them as well.

I am rising to speak 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.

To begin, I would like to say that we will be opposing this bill at every stage, as my NDP colleagues have articulated so well already. This bill is poorly put together, it is biased in terms of consultations and it does not meet the needs of Yukoners. However, it is a very important piece of legislation, and I think Yukoners will keep that in mind during the next election.

Looking carefully at the bill, it is clear that it will dismantle the entire environmental assessment process. I will explain that a bit later. However, it is very concerning, once again. The Conservatives have a bad reputation when it comes to the environment, and unfortunately this is no different. They are systematically dismantling our environmental protections.

As I was saying, the Yukon first nations were not adequately consulted, as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine clearly explained. There are major gaps in this regard. The people of the Yukon are upset about this bill.

This bill is very troubling because it will allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to give binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

In other words, we are handing the minister every opportunity to set policy direction for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. We know about all the mishaps that have occurred over the past few years when it comes to environmental assessments and diminished environmental protections. That is not all.

As if that were not enough, this bill will also establish mandatory maximum timelines for the assessments and allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to download his responsibility. What is more, it will be possible to create broad exemptions in terms of enforcement of the law and project renewals. We can just imagine all the flaws in this bill.

Since we are talking about the environment, this week marks the beginning of the UN climate change conference in Lima, Peru. This has come up a lot in the House of Commons, including during question period, because we want to show that the Conservative government is weakening environmental protections. It is definitely not doing its job in this area.

Furthermore, ever since this government came to power, opposition members have no longer been included in Canadian delegations. The Conservatives seem to believe that there is only one vision of Canada—theirs.

Of course, that vision does not represent all Canadians; quite the contrary. As everyone knows, only 40% of Canadians voted for this government. However, because of the imbalance in our democratic system, that equals 55% of members, but we plan to correct that in the next election.

It is also important to understand that we asked the Minister of the Environment to hold some information sessions so that people could better understand this government's position since it withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, but to no avail.

There was an announcement of $300 million—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House the other day when the NDP was repeatedly encouraging members to stick to the subject at hand. We are on Bill S-6. I know the member only has a few minutes, but perhaps he could stick to the actual bill and not stray into other areas that he may be concerned about.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the parliamentary secretary. I note that the hon. member for Drummond is on a topic that may in fact be related to the question at hand. I am sure that in the time provided to him, he will surely get around to how his arguments pertain to the question before the House.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in fact talking about the legislation with regard to environmental problems. Unfortunately, the government is considering giving the minister all the power. Indeed, this bill gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development certain powers, including the power to establish general standards for environmental assessments and the power to limit them.

Can we trust this government when it comes to the environment? No, because it has made so many cuts that affect the environment. It has laid off 2,000 environmental scientists; it closed 200 scientific research centres; it cancelled 492 environmental impact assessments; it closed oil spill response stations in northern British Columbia; it closed seven out of 11 Fisheries and Oceans Canada libraries; and it has made cuts to research institutes. I could go on and on about this government's abuses.

Bill S-6 continues the trend the Conservative government has established since coming to power. It attacks science and environmental assessments and continues to tear down the basis for environmental protection. That is truly unfortunate. Therefore, we will oppose this bill, which does not have the support of the people of Yukon, aboriginal peoples or Canadians in general.

This bill has shown that this is an issue of concern to many people. I would have liked to quote the testimony of Ruth Massie, the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, but my time is up. In short, the fact that the Conservatives are again attacking the environment is a problem.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Drummond will have 12 minutes left when the House resumes debate on this motion.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House. Today we are speaking to Senate 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.

It is interesting that the bill is coming before us the week that the Yukon Supreme Court just struck down the efforts by the Yukon government, another right wing government, to ignore consultation, ignore environmental due process, ignore first nations in its push and attack on the Peel valley watershed. The supreme court said that it cannot do that. There is a social licence issue here when we are looking at development issues, and the court has thrown it back.

This is a pattern, and we are going to talk about it in the bill. The government thinks it can get ahead of social licence by just bringing in omnibus legislation, by stripping regulations, by doing things in the back room in order to kick-start mega development projects on which it has failed to do its basic due diligence and consultation, especially with first nations, who have enshrined constitutional rights under section 35. In doing so the government ends up creating a situation like the one we have now.

The government's militant advocacy of the big oil agenda has created a backlash across the country. It is a backlash where people say “You stripped the waters act of 99.999% of the lakes and rivers in our country so that the pipelines could get through without having to worry that there are basic protections in place.” Then it goes into the communities and they are saying “Are you kidding me? You're going to run bitumen through my town when there are no shut off valves on either side of the lakes and rivers?”

I represent probably one of the largest mining regions in Canada, if not in the world. When I talk to the mining companies in my region they get it. They understand the importance of having what we call “treaties on the ground”. We need to have the support of the local communities. Some of the ways to do that is by meeting environmental standards and through first nations consultation. Talk to anyone in the Ontario mining industry today about the possibility of getting a project off the ground, and they will say that without that consultation, it is not going to happen

We see a bill come forward like Bill S-6 that is unilaterally rewriting Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system. It is ignoring the issues of first nations consultations. It ignores the incredible economic value of the landscape and natural resource beauty in Yukon. This is another attempt to bypass the people of the country and create consensus on what development should look like. I believe it is only going to end up in another failure and impasse, going all the way back to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline days of these mega projects. If they are not done in a balanced manner, they are not going to get done at all.

Having travelled across the country from one end to the other, having done some of it in the back of a cheap little mini van with a band and other times as a sitting politician, I have never seen a section of the country that has taken my heart as much as Yukon. I love St. John's, Newfoundland, and my family roots—

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

More on Timmins. Shame.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to let the member throw me off. I have been in Cape Breton. However, everywhere I have gone, my wife asks, “Is it as pretty as home?” I say in response, “It's nice but it's not home”. When I went to Yukon for the first time my wife asked me, “Is it like home?” I said, “Well, this is the one place that might actually move my heart”.

Fortunately, where I live in the incredible Cobalt—Temiskaming region, with the beautiful white pines at Temagami, there are incredible opportunities for canoeing—not that I canoe, by the way. If I cannot see it from a car window I do not go there. However, I encourage everyone else to come. I will stay where I am in northern Ontario. However, there is something magical about Yukon.

I say this in all seriousness, because when I am in Yukon and I go to the hotels and see all the people who fly over from Germany, when they come to Canada, their idea of Canada is about these incredible natural resources. They come to Yukon. They fly in from Japan and from all over the world.

Therefore, when we balance the incredible natural resources, we also have to balance the other interests. We certainly know that in my region, which is a very heavy mining region. It has the deepest base metal mine in the world, the Kidd Mine. It was discovered in 1964. It has pretty much the largest gold mines in operation. Hollinger Mines is just reopening now. My grandfather, Charlie Angus, was killed at Hollinger Mines. It was the largest gold mine in the western world. After a hundred years, it is being reopened. Dome Mine is still running. No matter how rich they are, these are finite resources.

We have to find ways to ensure value added. We have to ensure that when we develop these resources, it comes back. I have to admit that in Ontario, the Conservatives have not been very bright on this. Their idea of the north is that it is some kind of colony: the north gets the money and it goes down south. When a mine shuts down, they tell us in the north, it is too bad, so sad, we were never meant to stay.

However, we can do things better. In Yukon, with the spirit of the people there, the incredible natural resources and their sense of community, they have a right to have an active say in whether development will occur, and whether it will occur in mining, hydro development, in oil and gas, or if the land will be maintained in its natural state. That was the fight about the Peel valley watershed.

Bill S-6 would dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment that was developed in the Yukon, by Yukoners, for Yukon. There has been a complete lack of consultation with first nations, which is not surprising for the current government. The Conservatives just do not understand that these are constitutional obligations; they cannot get over it and they cannot get under it.

The Conservative government, with the full assistance of a local Conservative MP and the senator from the Yukon, is forcing a pro-southern-resource agenda down the throats of Yukoners. That is what I heard when I was last in Whitehorse regarding what was happening in the Peel valley. Conservatives see this watershed and they know that there is incredible value in it.

Yukoners do not like that they are being sold down the river for the benefit of companies that are going to be fly-by-nighters, which might be here today but could be gone tomorrow.

There are a number of amendments in the bill that the people of the Yukon we have been talking with have been discussing and certainly the incredible workers of the New Democratic opposition in Yukon as well. The amendments would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. Yukoners are like northerners, so the idea that a minister in his office gets to decide what they are going to do is just not on.

Here is another one that is just typical of these guys. It would introduce legislated time limits for assessments. Conservatives wonder why their pipelines are going nowhere. Regarding public assessments, now people have to write and apply to be able to be part of the public consultation, and the government gets to decide whether people will be accepted. No wonder the National Energy Board is coming up with big blanks time and again. Using the same strategy they are using with the National Energy Board, the Conservatives want to be able to introduce these legislated time limits for assessments. We have certainly seen in northern Ontario that when they do that and ignore due process, there will be a backlash, because they are not respecting social licence.

It would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all of the responsibilities to the Yukon government. There are federal responsibilities here because these are federal lands, and also because of the fundamental legal obligations that the federal Crown has to first nations. They cannot delegate those away just because they figure that the local government is going to be more amenable to ignoring their legal and constitutional obligations.

It would create broad exemptions for renewals, amendments, permits, and authorizations. I have seen that with the attempted development of resource projects. In our region in northern Ontario, we have seen that once they get a permit and it becomes a rubberstamp, they can vastly expand an operation and its impacts. They need to be able to go back to the people and say what the impact is.

The people of Yukon have lived there. The newcomers feel as passionately about it as the original people of the land. This is their land. They will always be there. The mining companies are going to come and go. They will change ownership and some of them will make money and go on and become another company or go bankrupt, but the resource they are playing with is the resource of the people of Yukon.

We have seen a number of really strong voices on this issue. I have enormous respect for Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson and her passion for the people of Yukon. 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 lawsuits and secret negotiations, which again is the fundamental pattern that is undermining development projects across Canada.

Conservatives believe that if they ignore consultation and public processes and do things through backroom regulations, lo and behold there will be all these pipelines and mining projects. I can say, from being on the ground in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, that if there is no social licence, that project is not going ahead, full stop. That is the end of it.

I have an editorial from the Yukon News. The title is, “Environmental assessment reform should be done in the open”. This is from June 13, 2014. It states:

A long list of people deserve raspberries for this needlessly shady behaviour

—that is not parliamentary, but I am just reading it—

for this needlessly shady behaviour. At the top of the naughty list are Senator Daniel Lang and [the] MP [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.

That is a direct quote from the Yukon News.

We need binding policy direction, and we need it from the federal minister to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. We need to make sure that the Conservatives are not undermining the basic rights of protection and consultation through the devolution process.

The government always brags about consultation but ignores the voices of the people who are mostly directly impacted. We have heard the Council of Yukon First Nations Grand Chief Ruth Massie say there was not adequate consultation and that if there is not adequate consultation before this bill is passed, the council will take legal action.

Once again, we see a government that decides that if it ignores its legal obligations, it somehow just might get away with it. The Yukon supreme court this week said no way, that it is not going to happen, so the Peel planning process has to start again.

There have been numerous pieces of legislation that the government has been warned do not meet the constitutional requirements of this country, but that have been forced through anyway and turned back. This is not how to develop resources in this country.

Before the election in 2004, I had the great honour to work with the Algonquin Nation in the La Verendrye park region of Quebec and up through the Abitibi region. At that time, the communities watched as millions and millions of dollars of development, hydro resources, forestry, and mining left the territories. No one local was ever hired. The only way they ever got attention was through blockades, threats of injunction, and protests.

The people in the community asked what would happen if they could put their resources into negotiating and building a relationship with the forestry companies so they could benefit from their territories and have them recognized as unceded lands. No treaties were ever signed, including for the Algonquin lands in northeastern Ontario. They said that if they put their efforts into consultation and building a relationship, communities and the regional economy might start to develop.

That conversation took place 14 years ago in northern Quebec and northern Ontario in the Algonquin communities I worked in, and in the 14 years since I have seen how dramatic the change has been. The mining companies get it. They will now go to communities and have discussions. It is not always easy. We have a long way to go and a lot of problems to work out, but we are a lot further down the road than we were.

I see northern communities like Timmins, Kirkland Lake, and Black River-Matheson that are dependent on mining resources. They get it that if they are not talking in partnership with the Mushkegowuk Cree, the Wabun Tribal Council, and their Algonquin neighbours, the development will not happen.

I ask my hon. colleagues on the government side why they are ignoring the pattern of the refusal to consult, the undermining of environmental regulations, and the stripping of local authorities and local people of consultation in order to pursue a mining, fracking, or oil agenda that is going to be defeated in the courts, just as it was defeated this the past week in the Yukon supreme court, and just as it has been defeated with Kinder Morgan and Burnaby Mountain. It is the issue of a social licence.

I want to go back to Bill S-6. There are parts of this bill that are largely housekeeping, which can be part of any bill. The fact that it would dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process developed in Yukon for Yukoners is a non-starter for the New Democratic Party. New Democrats are not going to go there, because we are on the side of ensuring sustainable development, development that is long term and based on the principle that we have been given.

We have incredible resources in our country, and these resources have to be treated with the respect they deserve. Instead, we see this kind of gambler's economy.

I was talking with a Yukon MLA about the attitude of the Yukon government and the similarity with the Conservative government on the belief that if it could get the resources as fast as it could and get them out of the ground as fast as possible, and these are finite resources, that somehow everything would be better off and that we should not worry about the economic impact or the environmental impact. That is not a reasonable way to do development.

I would like to point out, as well, that in my region we have the Ring of Fire. It is part of the great region of Timmins—James Bay. It is another incredible resource. The Ring of Fire is sitting there among some of the poorest fourth world communities. There is Webequie on one side, with Marten Falls and Ogoki Post on the other. These communities have been left out of the economic development plans from the beginning.

We have an enormous resource to do it right, but it has to be done in consultation. Nothing will happen in the Ring of Fire without the input of the Matawa people and then down river from them the Mushkegowuk people. Then I go into the non-native communities, and I hear the same message, that they want this thing done right.

Coming from a mining family on both sides and representing mining towns and living in a town where half the men in my community travel around the world working in mining, if we asked them about the Ring of Fire, they would say that if it is not done right, then we should leave it in the ground. If there is no value-added plan, it should be left in the ground. One miner said to me that this was the capital for our children's future. He asked why they would strip the bank account now to make some easy cash.

Instead of moving on in a nation-to-nation relationship on the idea of respect, the government believes that it can just change the regulations and everything will be fine. It might get taken to court. If the government does get taken to court, it will lose.

If we look at the legal precedents in terms of all the decisions about the legal rights of the first nations people in this land, it is an unbroken string of victories. It defines more and more, from Taku River, with the second Haida decision, and the Delgamuukw decision. We have been moving on.

Each of these rulings make it clear, and they are boxing government in more and more. Part of the reason the courts are acting in this way is because of the lack of good faith from the Crown. The honour of the Crown is continually undermining and abusing its fiduciary responsibilities.

I will go back, before I go on to Yukon, to my region and Treaty No. 9. When Treaty No. 9 was signed, it was to share the land. There was a promise of education. At the time of the signing, Ontario was an economic backwater and Toronto was just a little town then.

Treaty No. 9 resources turned Ontario into an international economic powerhouse. It was the hydro, gold, copper, iron and the forestry from Treaty No. 9 that created the Ontario economy, which was the juggernaut of the 20th century.

What did the people who signed the treaty get out of that? They got put on these internal displacement camps. All their economic rights were stripped. It does not say anything in the treaty about having their economic, cultural, religious and education rights stripped, or that they would be made wards of Duncan Campbell Scott who came north to sign the treaty.

There needs to be a day of reckoning on this. The communities I am in say that the reckoning is the respect that we move forward with. We cannot fix the past. None of us can. Knowing what has happened and knowing our obligations, we can move forward.

When I look at a bill that will fail the fundamental test of legal duty to consult, that treats the people of the region as though their voices will be less valued than the voices and interests of southern mining, I am seeing another bill that will be challenged in the courts. Like the Peel Watershed decision in the Yukon court, it is another bill that is eventually going down in defeat, and we will be back at square one.

The only thing that will come from this is bad faith. People I know in the resource industry do not want bad faith. They want peace on the ground. I hear that all the time. They want negotiations. They get the idea that if people in the local regions are not happy, then the project will not move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted the member quickly corrected the record when he said that he liked Yukon more than his own riding, and I will give him credit for that.

He said that there was no consultation with the Council of Yukon First Nations. This is demonstrably false. I have a list here of all the meetings that took place. The council received over $98,000 to compensate it for consulting with government on this legislation.

Perhaps the member was not aware of that or perhaps he would like to correct the record and not leave the false impression that consultation did not take place on this bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really thank my hon. colleague for that. I definitely would like to correct the record. I am so glad he stood up on this issue.

I will refer back to the testimony of Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations. I did refer to her earlier, but the parliamentary secretary might not have heard. She said that in the end:

Canada unilaterally finalized the report and systematically rejected the input from the CYFN...The Council of Yukon First Nations reiterates that the five-year review has not been completed, and three key issues identified by Yukon First Nations remain outstanding....The proposed amendments in front of the Senate today were not discussed in the five-year review process with Canada and the Yukon government.

Consultation is not just about holding a meeting. Consultation is about listening and understanding.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay understands first nations, works with them, and knows what the word consultation means.

Over 12 people who were invited by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs came to Ottawa, but they felt it was a waste of time. Ruth Massie said, “We went to actually talk to him, hoping...It didn't matter to him. 'It's too bad about your treaties. This is what we unilaterally have decided to do and that's that”.

Could my colleague explain if consultation is telling them “too bad, so sad”, after having invited them to come all the way here and they put everything aside for this?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it shocking that any minister of the Crown in 2014 would say “too bad about your treaties”.

As I said, we have been dealing with one court decision after another and the idea that somehow these fiduciary obligations will be extinguished by just continual underfunding or ignoring. The courts are strengthening those rights. Coming from a resource area, I would think that we would be a lot better off if we negotiated in good faith rather than having to turn to the courts to bring in these decisions.

I would like to also point out the millions of dollars the government spends every year ignoring the courts. When court decisions are made, the government just goes to the wall. This is not just about treaty rights. This goes right down to individual families trying to get service for their sick children. The government will fight them every step of the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard a few personal insults there, but I will not engage in that. I believe this is an august institution, with my deference to you.

However, what I would like to say in response to my friend who said he feels insulted. The Canadian Press headline of December 3, 2014, reads in part, “Yukon chiefs say Valcourt”—sorry—“[the the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs] insults them”.

Ruth Massie—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know they are going to try to shout me down about facts. If they want to fight in the sewer, they should go to the sewer. This is the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Members who have not been recognized will take their seats. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is on a point of order. Members know that points of order can be raised at any moment, provided they are legitimate points of order.

We will hear the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were some directional approaches, which is unacceptable, and I apologize for that.

However, the one thing I want to know, being first nations, is a simple yes and no. Will the NDP members allow the aboriginal affairs committee to go up to the Yukon to hear other first nations?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. That is really not a point of order. That is really a continuation of the debate on a similar question.

I see the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans rising. Is it on the same point of order?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. It is a different point of order. It has to do with the rules of the House.

The hon. member facing here, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, has much more experience in the House than I do. He should know that one of the things we cannot do here is name other members of the House by their own name. We cannot do it directly and we cannot do it indirectly. That is exactly what he did, and that actually caused disorder in the House. He should know better and he should retract. When he speaks of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, he should do it with a certain level of respect and not foam, using his own name.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans. I think it is true that there was some disorder in the House. I think there would be a difference of opinion as to what caused that disorder. I do not quite share the same view as the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans on that point.

Nonetheless, this is one of the reasons why, when there are exchanges across the floor of this nature, disorder can become the case. I would engage all hon. members to keep their commentary within the bounds of respectability.

To the point the member for Ottawa—Orléans raises, it is true the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay did in fact refer to the aboriginal affairs minister by his name. He very quickly recognized the error and, in fact, changed it. As the member may know, it happens regularly in the routines of debate in the House and members, once they have caught their mistake, tend to correct them, as the hon. member did in this case.

We will continue with the debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I want to honestly respond to my colleague who started off with a question before we got sidetracked, but it was a question on a yes or no. Therefore, how about yes; end of story on that.

With respect to the issue of being insulted, I was reading the Canadian Press headline, “Yukon chiefs say [Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development] insults them over environmental concerns”. This was yesterday, December 3. Ruth Massie said the “amendments...were drafted in secret after a meeting between the government and five industry groups”.

The article goes on:

[Grand Chief] Massie said she and her fellow chiefs hoped to make headway with [the minister] in a face-to-face meeting on Tuesday. Instead, she said, [he] told them he didn't need to consult them.

“We went to actually talk to him...” said Massie. It didn't matter to him. 'It's too bad about your treaties. This is what we unilaterally have decided to do and that's that.'”

I think the record of an aboriginal affairs minister in 2014, saying “too bad about your treaties” is absolutely scandalous and I would be ashamed to be in a House where someone had such a disrespect for their legal obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, to clarify the record, I was also in that meeting, and no such words were spoken.

If we can get back to the crux of the bill, the member talked about policy direction. There have been four examples where the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development used the policy direction he has for other boards in the Northwest Territories. Each and every time, he used that policy direction to communicate expectations based on interim measures agreements with first nations. He provided instruction to the Mackenzie Valley board regarding its obligation under the Deh Cho First Nations Interim Measures Agreement. He ensured that the board carried out its functions and responsibilities in co-operation with the Akaitcho Dene First Nations and the pre-screening board. He required that notification be provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Denesuline regarding licences and permits in a given region.

When the minister has been given the authority to direct the board, he has used it to protect the interests of first nations. Does the member not agree that this is exactly what the minister should be doing with this policy direction?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague contradict Grand Chief Ruth Massie. I do not want him to get into a fight with her, so I will refer to the CBC News article from yesterday, entitled, “Ottawa trip on Bill S-6 ends in insult to Yukon First Nations”, wherein Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation Chief Eric Fairclough stated, “The minister shut us down by telling us we were not real governments, and therefore he does not need to make us active participants in changing legislation that arises from our treaties”.

Talk about banging one's head against a legislative wall and thinking that the wall will come down. That is what the aboriginal minister has done. He is telling first nation people, who have inherent constitutional and treaty rights, that they are not real governments and that he does not have to consult them, as if mining companies are real governments.

What is interesting is that Vancouver-based Casino Mining Corporation, which has a large interest in copper and gold, is encouraging the government to back off on this and to work collaboratively and find a solution, because even the mining industry knows that if the minister has a disrespectful attitude, this bill will go nowhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the parliamentary secretary gets up and says “we have consulted” and “look, we have had all of these meetings”. The Conservatives do that every time they go to the Supreme Court or to the appeal court. They do the same thing. They say they have talked to them.

What happens when we dig into it is that we realize that the government has not consulted. It may have had a few drive-by meetings where it presented some of the things that it plans to do to a group of people. It could be a group of hunters and fishers, a group of environmentalists, or a group of school teachers or health care workers, and the government says it has consulted.

What often happens is that the government talks at people and it does not listen to them. It does not take into consideration the opinions and the interests of the people who are participating in that process. It has been found by the courts on numerous occasions—and not just with the Conservative government, but the Liberals adjacent—that the responsibility to consult is much greater than being able to show that there was an appointment one day.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the presentation by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. It is always interesting to hear him speak about the issues that have been brought up in today's debate.

I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about consultations again. Must we remind him that in addition to the constitutional obligation to consult first nations, there is also an obligation to accommodate them with respect to the concerns they have raised during those consultations? The Conservatives are often content simply to hold meetings, but it does not work that way.

In the 2004 Haida Nation case, the Supreme Court said that the duty to consult can go as far as full consent of the nation on very serious issues. The Supreme Court did not go into detail about what constitutes serious issues, but in my opinion, the environment is a serious issue to first nations.

Having read the Supreme Court ruling in the Tsilhqot’in Nation case, I believe that at least nine paragraphs are about consent and at least 11 paragraphs are about control of first nations' traditional territories. We need to take another look at those issues.

Why does my colleague think that the government has not taken an approach that includes partnering, co-operating and collaborating with first nations? Every time it has the opportunity, it fails to meet its obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the question from my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyouand his leadership on this file, the wisdom he brings to bear as he represents his constituency and brings forward the years of wisdom and experience he has gained from first nations leadership in this country and internationally. I appreciate what he does and the counsel he provides.

I want to indicate to him that I do not understand why the government fails to accept its responsibility in dealing with first nations communities in this country. Conservatives indicate they are trying to make things work better for the companies that are extracting our natural resources, but in talking with the people who lead those corporations, we learn they would rather see a respectful, dependable, responsible process than the kind of confrontation that follows the kinds of approaches the government takes at these negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I will ask will be very simple.

On September 25, Grand Chief Ruth Massie appeared before the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples and clearly stated that they had been consulted multiple times.

Will the hon. member answer a simple yes-or-no question? Is he saying that this person was providing false information to a committee? Is he stating that she is misleading the committee and that she was not consulted? It is either a yes or a no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite brings out a quote and reports that somebody said something somewhere. That is all good. I have also read testimony in which that same person said something different. All I can do is report here what I have read and what I understand to be the position of an individual, and that is what I present to this House.

If the government has any other information it wants to table, if it wants to call witnesses back, or if it wants to stand the bill and have a special committee look at it again, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision as it related to the umbrella agreement and the Peel land development decision, I think that will probably have an impact on this particular piece of legislation, but maybe that is what we need to do in order to clarify and deal properly with a piece of legislation that inevitably, once again, will be challenged by the people who are affected by it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just about consultation. Yes, there has been some consultation, but in other areas there has not been.

The whole thing is about the honour of the crown and respecting treaties and respecting agreements that are currently in place. Maybe my colleague could just explain how much the honour of the crown is at risk here, and the fact that we have heard from mining companies that have indicated that the government needs to ensure that they work together to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, the point is whether the people who participated in the process feel that they have been consulted and whether the process meets the definition clearly laid out by the Supreme Court on the responsibilities of the crown. It has been done. The responsibilities have been laid out.

However, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a quick question. On September 18, the member for Yukon said that he agreed with the idea of having public meetings and public consultation on this matter. Why is it the government did not fulfill his request for having public consultation?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill. I met with the group of Yukon representatives yesterday, who raised a lot of concern about the fact that the government put in amendments that they had not agreed to. Not only did they not agree to them, but there was no discussion about them.

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

False, false.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

The member may be saying that is false, Mr. Speaker, but this is exactly what has occurred.

Let me first talk a bit about the bill. I am going to inform the House that New Democrats are opposed to the bill because there has been a flawed process. I am assuming that if my colleague wants to speak, he will have his turn later or can ask me a question.

Basically, the bill was developed behind closed doors. It actually originated out of the Senate, but it should have been a government bill. That is the lack of respect we see from the government when it comes to treaty obligations and constitutional rights.

There has been a lack of public input because of this. I can say that my colleague from the Northwest Territories actually held a meeting on this issue in Yukon, and there was very little standing room at this meeting. That is how important this issue is to the people in Yukon.

I should provide a bit of background on the bill itself, because it has been a little while since we have talked about it and some people may not be familiar with it. Bill S-6 is an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The short title is the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. It was introduced in the Senate on June 3, 2014.

The objective of Bill S-6 is to change the regulatory regime in Yukon and Nunavut. The bill is composed of two parts. Part 1 proposes a series of amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and Part 2 proposes amendments to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

The problem that needs to be emphasized is that the bill unilaterally rewrites Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system. The system is actually a product of the Umbrella Final Agreement, which settled most of the first nations land claims in the territory. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, the short form of which is YESAA, is seen by most residents of the territory as a made-in-the-Yukon solution to the unique environmental and social circumstances of the territory.

The changes proposed in Bill S-6 are seen as being imposed from the outside to satisfy southern resource development companies. Again we can see that the issue is that the government is listening to industry as opposed to doing it from the ground up, which means starting with the people who actually live and work on these lands.

New Democrats are opposed to this bill, of course, because it was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon first nations and residents of the Yukon and is not supported by the majority of them. Although Part 2's amendments to the Nunavut legislation are largely housekeeping, the Nunavut Water Board did raise some concerns with this part as well.

It is extremely important for us to recognize that Bill S-6 would actually dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process developed in Yukon by Yukoners for Yukon. We can see why people are actually up in arms about what the government is trying to push through.

There has been incomplete consultation, as I have indicated, with Yukon first nations before the amendments were made, but there must be consultations before such amendments are actually proposed. As New Democrats have indicated over and over again, the fact of the matter is that the government has put in amendments that nobody has actually talked about, and it is not the first time that we have seen the government do that. It is grabbing them out of thin air.

The Conservative government, with the full assistance of the Conservative MP and the senator from Yukon, is actually forcing a pro-southern resource company agenda down the throats of Yukoners, so we can see why people are really up in arms about this situation.

As I mentioned, my colleague, the member for Northwest Territories, held hearings on this issue. However, the fact of the matter is that there are four changes that really upset Yukoners.

This is what my colleague said:

One of them is providing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This is something that was established in the NWT and there were real concerns with it there. The Yukon, which has been dealing with a different system for the past 10 years, is looking at anything like this as an abrogation of its rights and hard-fought authority over the lands and resources.

However, we have seen this over and over again with the current Conservative government when it tries to give rights to a federal minister to unilaterally make decisions. I think this is of great concern to these people.

On the second change, I will again quote from the speech of my colleague, the member for Northwest Territories:

The second change is the introduction of legislative time limits for assessments.

The third change is allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all responsibilities to the Yukon government. That is an issue of huge concern to first nations, and Yukoners as well. Yukon has worked out an arrangement between first nations and public government that is critical to the future of the Yukon territory. I do not think anyone would deny that. That relationship is one that the provinces are having more and more trouble with every day. The failure to deal on a nation-to-nation basis at the provincial level is causing all kinds of grief in all kinds of projects right across this country. Therefore, there is concern about how the delegation takes place.

Again, I am quoting from the speech of my colleague from the Northwest Territories when this issue first came before the House:

Then there is the question of creating broad exemptions from YESAA for renewals and amendments of permits and authorizations. People look at that and ask what is going on and wonder how they we make sure it is correct.

Additionally, these amendments favour the Yukon government over Yukon first nations,

—members can see why there are challenges there right now—

the other partner in the YESAA process. The Council of Yukon First Nations has threatened legal action should the bill become law.

As my colleagues have mentioned throughout the debate, the Conservative government is putting forth legislation after legislation that ends up in the courts, and guess what? They lose over and over again. I think when it comes to first nations, the Conservatives have lost something like 200 cases, so we can see that it is not in the best interest of Canadians to table legislation that people are so opposed to.

There is a quick fix here. We can listen to what the changes are, make those changes, and the problem would be solved. It does not cost us a lot of money to do that. However, going through the courts is a different story.

As I mentioned, my colleague held a meeting on this in the Yukon. Talking about the environmental assessment process and having discussions such as this do not normally tempt a lot of people, because a lot of people sometimes do not understand it, but Yukoners do get it. They get it so much that they actually packed that room. Therefore, I think that it is important for the government to listen to the debates that we are having here today, to listen to the comments that were made, to go back and listen to the testimony that was presented, and say, “Hey, maybe we should take a step back here. We can get it right.”

The Conservatives can get it right. All they need is the will to do it.

It is important for me to read some of the testimony that was given before the Senate committee. Grand Chief Ruth Massie of the Council of Yukon First Nations was glad to be there because she wanted to make sure that the council's concerns were heard, in the hope that the government was listening in good faith. She talked about the Council for Yukon Indians that represented Yukon first nations in the land claim negotiations and signed the Umbrella Final Agreement, the UFA, in 1993. The UFA directed the CYFN, Canada, and Yukon to develop legislation to implement the objectives and principles set out in the development assessment found in chapter 12. This is the legislation in the YESAA. They are prepared to do that, but the only thing is that the government has thrown a wrench in there.

I quote from Ruth Massie:

The CYFN has a membership of nine self-governing Yukon First Nations and we work in collaboration with the other Yukon First Nations, including the three unsigned First Nations, with respect to specific projects and initiatives.

This is an organization that has already built a foundation to be able to work together and has been able to move forward on working with mining organizations. It is willing to do that, but it needs to make sure that at the end of the day, mother earth is going to be protected.

She went on to say:

In particular, the CYFN and Yukon First Nations have worked cooperatively to deal with matters relating to the YESAA over the past fifteen years, including its development, implementation and review. The UFA directed the CYFN, Canada and Yukon to complete a comprehensive review of the YESAA in 2008. This is known as the “five-year” review since it was directed to take place five years after the federal enactment of the YESAA. Despite the claims of the federal officials, this review has not yet been completed.

Hold on here. The government put forward this bill, yet there was supposed to be a review and it has not been done yet. There is a problem here.

Grand Chief Massie continued:

For several years during the five-year review the federal officials maintained that no legislative changes would be made to the YESAA in order to implement any recommendations of the five-year review. Canada now proposes that Bill S-6 would amend the YESAA pursuant to its Action Plan to Improve Northern Regulatory Regimes. It is our position that certain amendments to the YESAA proposed by Bill S-6 undermine the spirit and purpose of the YESAA that implements treaty rights of Yukon First Nations and their citizens. These proposed amendments fundamentally alter the operation of the YESAA process. In some cases, these proposed amendments relate to matters that were never discussed during the five-year review or, in other cases, contradict agreements reached by the CYFN, Canada and Yukon during that review.

The government is actually contradicting agreements. We know that is true because we have seen it over and over again.

She went on to say:

If the amendments proposed by Bill S-6 are proclaimed, the Crown will have breached its duty to consult and accommodate owed to Yukon First Nations and its constitutional duty to uphold the honour of the Crown.

In our view, these amendments would infringe rights under our land claim agreements, including the right for independent assessment of certain projects to be carried out in accordance with Chapter 12 of the final agreement. These amendments would also serve to undermine the integrity and effectiveness of YESAA.

Imagine trying to put some legislation in place that undermines the integrity and effectiveness of the act itself. This means that the amendments proposed by Bill S-6 must be rejected or revised. That is why we on this side of the House are standing today to reject this legislation and asking that there be a revision.

There is much more documentation here that I do not have time to speak to.

However, I think it is important to reiterate the fact that representatives came to Ottawa yesterday to raise the issue, to ask that there be some revisions to a bill that will impact their lands and their ability to move forward in certain areas, and on the protection of their environment. Yet we have a minister who has basically shut them down.

I will quote Eric Fairclough, the chief of Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, from a news release from the CBC, dated yesterday. He said:

The minister shut us down by telling us we were not real governments, and therefore he does not need to make us active participants in changing legislation that arises from our treaties.

If the government side of the House is trying to tell me that that is not what the government said, then there is a problem. However, I cannot see anyone saying that the minister told them they were not a real government. They would not just grab that out of the air. That is a serious allegation.

He went on to say that it “...flies in the face of recent court decisions that have affirmed the duty to consult First Nations.”

Again, it is not just this chief who has actually made the comment. I could go on with respect to another northern aboriginal group that governs a New Brunswick-size chunk of the Northwest Territories, who has already asked the Territory's supreme court for an injunction against a similar federal law to the one we are speaking about today. They indicate that it violates their hard-won treaty. That is the Tlicho. They say:

....the law, to take effect next April, would dilute local decision-making by replacing environmental regulators created by land-claim settlements with a single board controlled from Ottawa.

Critics have said the superboard was the price the—Conservatives—exacted from the territorial government in exchange for rules transferring resource royalties to the territory, which were contained in the same bill.

It is not just in Yukon. It is not just in Ontario. It is not just in New Brunswick. We are seeing this in every province and territory where the government is tabling legislation, pushing it through despite concerns about it, with the result that we find ourselves yet again before the courts.

It is imperative for us to indicate that for legislation to work properly and to foster good relationships, and not just good relationship but great working relationships with our first nation, Inuit, and Métis people, we need to make sure that we have that proper dialogue. We need to make sure that we actually listen to changes that they know will impact them negatively. We need to make those changes before we pass the legislation and end up in court.

Another important thing is that we know that our leader would approach resource development in the north in a respectful and consultative manner, unlike the Conservative government. We need to recognize that that nation-to-nation dialogue is extremely important. We need to ensure that any steps taken in northern development are done with the full participation of northern communities.

It is also important to note a few more things. This is from Grand Chief Ruth Massie and Chief Eric Fairclough. The first nations have four concerns: policy direction to the board, delegation of federal powers to Yukon government, exemptions for renewal and amendments, and timelines for YESSA assessments.

I will close by saying that we must emphasize the fact that the government needs to recognize the necessity of making these changes to the bill. I know that the leader of the Yukon NDP has been working very closely with first nations and supports the position taken by them in calling for these amendments to be made to the bill.

With that, I will close and wait for further questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal specifically with the issue of policy direction that the member raised in her speech. There are four examples of policy direction provided to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, which she referenced. In each case, policy direction was used to clearly communicate expectations based on interim measures agreements with first nations.

I asked this of the member for Timmins—James Bay, who refused to answer, so I will ask this member. On which of the following does she think the minister erred when he issued policy direction: when he required that notification be provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Denesuline regarding licences and permits in a given region; when he provided instruction to the board regarding its obligation under the Deh Cho Interim Measures Agreement respecting lands withdrawn from disposal; or when he ensured that the board carried out its functions and responsibilities in co-operation with the Akaitcho Dene First Nations and their pre-screening board?

The minister has issued policy directions solely to protect the rights and interests of first nations. Which of those directions would the NDP not have given? Why is the minister wrong to be issuing policy directions that protect the interests of first nations?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, in any legislation there are some good parts, just as there are some good parts in the budget. However, that does not mean that we have to swallow the bad parts with it.

In looking at this I must reiterate the fact that the majority of the first nations in Yukon have indicated that they are not supportive of this and feel that some changes need to be made to it. They are not against the whole bill, but only against some of the changes the government has made. The government is not listening to the changes being requested.

Again, one of the changes falls under the delegation of federal powers, on which the CYFN has expressedd the following view:

The CYFN opposes any amendment that would allow the AANDC Minister to delegate any or all of his or her powers, duties and functions under the YESAA to the territorial Minister. The CYFN has several concerns relating to this proposed amendment. There is no requirement for the AANDC Minister to obtain the consent of Yukon First Nations before delegating any powers, duties or functions. The AANDC Minister only has to provide notice to the Yukon First Nations.

That is not me saying so, but Grand Chief Ruth Massie of the Council of Yukon First Nations. As I mentioned before, that organization represents a variety of first nations.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from northern Ontario. However, one of the things I noticed that the government has done over the past few years, particularly since the 2012 budget, is to attack environmental legislation and environmental assessments, starting in 2012, when the budget implementation act eliminated the Environmental Assessment Act and rebuilt it in such a manner that it was a sham. As a result, there are portions of that bill that have not yet been enacted. There are regulations that were to come later that have not yet been enacted some two years later.

When the government did that, it said that it was just to avoid duplication because the provinces and territories would be doing their own assessments and it did not want to duplicate those with federal assessments. Of course, we know that the end result is that federal issues do not get assessed at all, because the provinces do not have the right. Now we see the government, through its own actions, taking away or diminishing the right of the territories. It is not allowing the territories themselves to amend this legislation. Instead, the government is taking it away from them and reducing the environmental assessments in the territories.

I think it is appalling that this is happening. Would the member like to comment on that?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we had that visit yesterday with respect to those concerns.

Here is an article by Kirk Cameron of CBC News about the fact there was a meeting with over a hundred people, who packed a small room at the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre. It states:

In the crowd were people from around Yukon, about one half of First Nation ancestry and the rest equally concerned Yukoners. Most, if not all, were of the view that the amendments, known as Bill S-6, violate the fundamental relationship secured between First Nations, Yukoners and Canadians through land claims agreements, modern treaties that have been in place (at least the first four) since 1993.

It goes on to say:

Most of the crowd saw the amendments for what they are—an affront not just to the aboriginal people of Yukon who spent 20 years in treaty negotiations, but to all Yukoners.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing spoke quite at length about how dialogue is extremely important. I could not agree more. It is important that we engage first nations, learn what some of the issues are, and have feet on the ground to discuss them. Unfortunately, it is the member's own party that is stopping us from doing just that.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I would like the opportunity to go to Yukon and discuss first hand with the residents there some of these issues. I would like to hear the member's response and why the NDP is blocking us from doing those important jobs.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is talking about, because we have clearly said that we will actually go to Yukon. Our leader has indicated that there is no problem. If we want to go to Yukon and hear these witnesses—

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

No travel.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am telling them right now. Book the travel. We are on our way.

Here we are. This is from CBC News, posted yesterday, on December 3. It says:

The news release points out that the Yukon First Nations have the backing of at least two mining companies in Yukon, "which have sent letters to Minister Valcourt warning that regulatory reforms without meaningful consultation will create tension and uncertainty and urging the government to find a solution."

I am going to add as well that, during the treaty negotiations, first nations actually agreed to retain less than 10% of their traditional territory in exchange for the partnership and management of all Yukon land and resources, and this is what they get from the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one more question and response.

Just as a reminder to hon. members, with respect to using the proper name of another hon. member, even if it is included in a citation, it is still not permitted. When one is reading the citation, one would simply change the name to the riding or title of the hon. member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brant.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to this debate today and hear the member relay the news that her party was somehow going to change its view on committee travel and travel for members of Parliament to go out to first nations and actually find out.

I am chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and we were doing a study on first nations about job opportunities for them. We had our travel planned and booked, but it was not allowed to proceed because of the NDP's position.

Could the member explain that to the House please?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, I do note that the question from the hon. member for Brant really does not pertain to the question that is before the House. However, I note that the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing did make those comments in her remarks in response to another question, so I will allow the question and recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have always been willing to meet at committees. It is just that the government did not call the meetings until just this week. We are willing to travel. We are willing to travel to Yukon to hear these witnesses.

With respect to all that is going on here, at the end of the day, with this type of legislation, the government has basically said it is a take it or leave it package, and these people are against the taking of it at this point, the way it is.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Agriculture and Agri-food.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill S-6, a bill that would have a significant impact upon us all, no matter what region of the country we happen to live in. Obviously, it would have a larger impact in our northern region, in particular, Nunavut and Yukon.

I would like to start off by, first, acknowledging and welcoming the suggestion, the possibility of a standing committee being able to travel to get direct input on issues such as this, as it would have a very positive effect in certain situations. We will have to wait and see, through the critics and the minister, whether or not that will actually take place. I was under the impression that the official opposition party was not allowing for committees to travel, but I would hope that position has changed, when in fact there is legitimacy for committees to travel. We will have to wait to see.

One member across the way made reference to the aboriginal affairs committee. I, for one, would welcome the aboriginal affairs committee doing something more tangible on a very important issue, which we saw raised inside the House today; that is, the hundreds of murdered and missing aboriginal women and young girls.

Having said that, I will go right back to Bill S-6.

When I think of Bill S-6, a number of thoughts come to mind. I have been listening very closely to a lot of the questions that have been put forward to the New Democrats, in particular, with respect to the whole issue of consultation. I have had the opportunity to ask some questions, again, with respect to the idea of consultation. I recognize that the bill itself would make some very significant changes. Consultations were in fact warranted, and I think there is a huge question mark in terms of to what degree the government did, in good faith, go into the consultation process.

What I do know is that I have had the opportunity to receive some feedback from a couple of people in particular, from the north. One individual who I had known very briefly when I was first elected in the byelection was the former member of Parliament from Yukon, Larry Bagnell. He was sure that we had an understanding that it would appear as if there was a genuine lack of consultation that had taken place and raised a number of concerns that we felt were important, and one would question why the government was unable to build the consensus that was necessary to get more of a consensus in passing the legislation we have here today. I do not think they have achieved that.

We start to get wind of that, whether it was individuals or stakeholders making contact with caucus critics or caucus offices, but we get that sense in terms of the way in which the government also responds to the legislation.

We have Bill S-6, which has already been time allocated. That says something in itself. It means there will be a limited number of members of Parliament allowed to speak on this legislation. I suspect there might be keener interest from certain members of Parliament, quite frankly, over others, but at the very least, I think that all those who would like the opportunity to share their thoughts on this legislation should in fact be afforded the opportunity. However, like other pieces of legislation, Bill S-6 was time allocated

It does seem, on the surface, that the government uses it as a form of process, that the way it gets its legislation passed in the House is to bring in the time allocation tool.

The unfortunate aspect of that is that we have legislation before us that, ultimately, would have been much better had the government been successful in being able to consult in good faith—and I underline the words “good faith” for the simple reason that many of the answers from the government side are that it has consulted. I have even heard quotes from the government side saying that it has consulted. I suspect that, to a certain degree, it has conducted some form of consultation, but obviously the type of consultation the government espouses has not been effective because of the response we are hearing, that there seems to be a genuine need for the government to go back to the drawing board.

What would Bill S-6 actually do? When we read the summary of the bill, we find that it would, in essence, establish time limits for environmental assessments and a cost recovery regime. It further states:

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....

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....

Very substantial things would be applied through Bill S-6 to two pieces of legislation.

Issues have been brought forward. When I say that there was lack of consultation, a few points were specifically brought to my attention. The government is now proposing some new measures through Bill S-6, and it is questionable as to whether there was consultation to the same degree on these new measures.

The bill would provide sweeping powers for the minister to issue binding policy direction to the assessment board; the minister could unilaterally hand over his power to the territory without the consent of first nations; and there could be exemptions of assessment renewals and amendments to projects. There is also the issue with regard to timelines and whether they are unrealistic. These are some of the areas. The general feeling is that there was no real, genuine consultation on those points, and I suspect others.

In terms of the potential development in the north, it would be wrong for us as a nation, as we continue to evolve and develop, not to recognize the potential of the north, in terms of how Canada as a whole would benefit if it is done properly and well under good stewardship; we can all benefit. That benefit goes beyond just finances. Quite often, when there is legislation of this nature or when we talk about the north, we do not put enough emphasis on the environment, the natural beauty, and how we can help the north become that much more alive for people who have a desire to get the northern experience. There is so much more we can do.

The Liberal Party supports assessing resource wealth in the north in a sustainable way. Unlocking this economic activity is contingent on environmental sustainability and on the impacted aboriginal communities being engaged as equal partners.

The government as a whole has fallen short when it comes to the development of our natural resources. That does not necessarily apply just up north. If we look at the Prairies or any other region in Canada, there has been a vacuum created by the Prime Minister in terms of leadership. We have not seen leadership coming from the Prime Minister's Office on the development of our resources.

We could come up with a number of examples. We could make reference to the legislation before us today or to the controversial issue of our pipelines, where one province is negotiating with another province and the Prime Minister is just standing at the side, not providing any form of leadership to bring the different stakeholders together to try to build consensus.

If we want to develop and promote our resources, we need to build that social contract. Ottawa has a responsibility to be engaged with the different stakeholders and to demonstrate strong leadership. That has been lacking for the last number of years, at a great cost to our community, both economically and socially in terms of development. Opportunities have been lost because the Prime Minister has not seen fit to demonstrate strong leadership in building that social contract.

I have had the opportunity to speak on a number of occasions on legislation affecting our first nations and our aboriginal peoples. If there is a common theme, virtually on anything affecting our first nations or aboriginal peoples, it has been the issue of consultation. That is one of the biggest criticisms, once again.

How can the Conservatives expect an opposition party to get behind legislation if the stakeholders are saying that they were not adequately consulted? We are getting feedback that there are legitimate concerns about the legislation and the impact it would have on development. The government seems to have the attitude that it knows best and does not necessarily need to consult. It wants to say that it consulted, but is it genuine consultation that has taken place?

Eleven self-governing first nations have made it clear that the federal government has not held enough adequate consultation on the bill to merit support. That is a substantial statement. They do not feel that they were adequately consulted. The government has brought things into the legislation that they had no idea were going to be incorporated into the legislation. Were they in fact consulted on all aspects of the legislation that has been brought forward? Based on information we are being provided, that has not been the case, and it has been at a great cost.

I have had the opportunity to fly over, and on one occasion be in, Yellowknife. I used to be a serving member of the Canadian Forces, and what a privilege it was. I was posted out in Lancaster Park, just north of Edmonton. We had the C-130 Hercs, and we would do that northern run for the char up north. Everyone loved having that beautiful fish.

Flying over Yellowknife, one gets a good sense of just how vast our country is. There are so many opportunities there. We can talk about gold, silver, copper, zinc, and many more that are being mined in the north. The potential development there is overwhelming.

The entire population of the north is probably somewhere around 100,000 or maybe a little bit more. We need to play a role, but we need to be working with the territorial governments. We need to be working with the Inuit, our first nations, people of aboriginal heritage, and the communities, those who actually have intelligence on the ground on how we can best develop the north for future generations. It is not just about extracting; it is where we might be able to have additional value.

If we want to move forward, the first priority in bringing in legislation of this nature should be to build consensus. I do not think the government has been successful in building consensus.

I do not think the Liberal Party and the member for Labrador would oppose the idea of the standing committee going to the north to get a better understanding and see first-hand some of the things that are taking place.

At the end of the day, Bill S-6 would have a significant impact. We are looking to the government to deal with the issue in a conciliatory fashion and to respect consultation. That is a word I might have said a dozen times in my speech.

If we are not prepared to do the work, we should think twice before bringing in legislation. If we fail on consultation and force through the legislation, what can happen is more confrontation and problems in the future. It is better to get it right the first time and work in co-operation. If that means taking the extra month or two to get it right, let us take the extra month or two. The attitude the government has demonstrated, even by passing this legislation and bringing in time allocation, speaks volumes.

I realize that my time has expired, so I will leave it at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that perhaps another month or two would solve the problem. We have already conducted consultations for over a year, with meetings taking place and, as I stated previously, over $98,000 provided to first nations specifically to consult on the four issues they have raised. They have been reimbursed over $98,000 to compensate them for their time and expertise in participating in that. I would argue that, if over a year of meetings has not solved the issue and brought us to an agreement, another month or two is not going to get the job done.

The member referred to the delegation of federal powers. I want to refer back to the actual umbrella final agreement. The concern seems to be that this violates that somehow. The delegation of federal powers is specifically addressed in section 2.11.8, which says:

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

I have addressed some issues of concern previously in the debate. One of the issues is the delegation of federal powers specifically contemplated and laid out in the umbrella final agreement. Would the member not agree that the delegation of federal powers is already part of the final agreement? The final agreement takes precedence over any legislation that is being contemplated here, so why would that not be acceptable to the hon. member?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member might be somewhat missing the bigger picture here. He makes reference to the fact that the government has done some consultation, and I am not saying that the government has done no consultation. It is an issue of how effective the consultation has been.

If the Conservatives take an approach of saying what they want and what they expect and then go to the table and start consulting but have no flexibility, they can do all the consultation they want, but at the end of the day they will not get that consensus unless they are prepared to be flexible and open to other ideas and thoughts. Maybe that was part of the problem. Maybe they should sit down and listen in some of these consultations that have taken place. I still do not think there were enough consultations, by the sounds of it. Based on what I have been told, it seems as if they cut it off, but it does not seem as if the consultation was one of genuine exchange in which the government was actually listening.

Based on what has taken place in the House in my short period here, I have seen the Conservatives take an attitude of saying what they want, and that it does not matter what we say.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member for Labrador feels about this issue, but the member for Winnipeg North kept on referring to “our first nations” when speaking about aboriginal peoples. I just want to remind the member for Winnipeg North that I am nobody's Indian here, nobody's first nation here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if that is the way the member inferred it, I would apologize to him. It was not meant to be expressed in that fashion whatsoever. I am a very proud Canadian and I recognize the important role of our first nations. Maybe the member can enlighten me on how he would rather I had made mention of it, so I could avoid making that same mistake in the future.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate that we are having around Bill S-6, and I do not think we should lose focus of what is happening here.

This is a perfect example of where the government members opposite are ignoring what first nations people in this country are saying. They are ignoring what aboriginal self-governments in the Yukon are saying. We only have 24 aboriginal self-governments in this country. They have very specific, special legal rights, and there is an obligation by the Government of Canada to honour those rights. What Bill S-6 would do is violate it and disrespect it.

I would ask if my colleague could speak to that particular issue in terms of how these first nations governments have such a legal constitutional right in our country to have every bit of the say that they currently have. Why is that being stripped from them at this time by the government opposite?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by my colleague. The member for Labrador has been a very strong advocate for the north and first nations, not only here in the House of Commons but also at the provincial level. She has an excellent understanding of just how important it is that we do consult.

One of the comments I made in my speech was on a common theme in the government's dealings with first nations and aboriginal peoples, namely that it has not done and is not doing anywhere near the type of consultation it should be doing. That pretty closely applies universally to all of the legislation the government has brought in dealing with first nations and aboriginal people.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador just asserted and the member for Winnipeg North also mentioned in his speech that the bill somehow violated the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I would invite the member right now to point to the section of Bill S-6 that violates a section of the Umbrella Final Agreement. To date, no one has been able to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the stripping of the rights of first nation governments, the member can stand up and wave the agreement, and I appreciate that he has a copy of the agreement in his hand. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is a bigger issue that supersedes it, which is the attitude of the government in dealing with issues of this nature. This is where the Prime Minister and his ministers have been caught falling short.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Winnipeg North, there are numerous times in the House when we have not agreed on things, but this is one of the times that we are in agreement.

When the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board was first envisioned and put together, there was 60 to 70 days' worth of hearings across the north. I have to give credit that it was under a Liberal government when that took place.

Bill S-6 is coming from the Senate. However, the Senate did not do any travel for it. However, if the committee chooses to travel, the NDP will support that travel. I would ask the member very clearly, would he support such an idea by the Liberals?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Given the significance of this, I know that the Liberal Party would be quite supportive of it. My colleague, the member for Labrador, has been fairly clear in explaining that to me. We believe that this is something that would be of great benefit.

Therefore, we have two parties in the House that are saying that we should move forward and do that. Maybe in response to the next question, the government will make that commitment, and so there would unanimous approval by the three major political parties in the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, it was the member for Yukon who first asked that the aboriginal affairs committee travel to the north. We have been quite willing to do that.

Yesterday, the member for Northwest Territories was quite clear that this was not on the table. I guess he has been told that he did not speak for the party, which is not the first time that has happened.

However, yes, I will leave the comment that it was this party that brought it forward. We are glad to have the opposition on board for travel to Yukon.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, Mr. Speaker, you heard it first.

We now have unanimous support among the three major political parties. I suspect that the Liberal Party critic will follow through. Hopefully, we will see the committee actually go up north to Yukon and explore other potential opportunities.

At least the debate is coming to a close on a very positive note.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that the debate was ending, I did not know whether that meant the House was ready for the question. However, I see there are other members who are interested in carrying on.

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou know that there are about 12 minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon, and so he will not have his full 20 minutes. Of course, if he chooses, the remaining time will be available to him when the House resumes debate after the end of government orders today.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of your comment, I will try to wrap up this debate on a positive note. I hope I can. As always, I am very honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-6.

I am honoured in the sense that I always have the opportunity to raise issues that are important to me as the member for the northern riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which is home to a diverse population. I would like to point out that the riding includes 14 Inuit communities, nine Cree communities—soon to be 10, I hope—and two Algonquin communities. In addition, the cities in the riding depend heavily on natural resource development.

It is therefore always a privilege for me to rise to speak to these issues that are important to the constituents in my vast and magnificent riding.

I am particularly honoured to speak to this bill because I would like to raise two critical issues relating to the debate that I am wrapping up. The first is the fact that, in a way, Bill S-6 dismantles the environmental assessment process developed by and for Yukoners. The second is about the whole issue of consulting and accommodating first nations, which has been debated at length this afternoon.

I keep telling the House that these issues are constitutional obligations that we have as a country and that the government has towards first nations. We cannot ignore these very serious issues. They are not fluff and, in fact, I think they are very important.

This very morning, I introduced Bill C-641 in the House. The bill would ensure that the laws of Canada's Parliament are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That international document is the only one that specifically covers the rights of the 370 million indigenous people around the world. I believe that we need to find a way to embrace this important document in the House.

When the declaration was adopted in 2007, the UN Secretary-General spoke of this document as the path to reconciliation between states and indigenous peoples. I wholeheartedly support this declaration. It would keep us from going through the kinds of situations we are seeing right now concerning the whole issue of consulting and accommodating aboriginal peoples when legislation is studied in the House.

Article 19 of the declaration states that indigenous people must be consulted and accommodated, in addition to providing their consent, when legislation that would directly affect them is being considered.

I introduced Bill C-641 this morning, and I am very proud of it. It would put aboriginal people and all Canadians on the path to reconciliation, which is so desperately needed in this country right now.

What will happen remains to be seen, and I hope the House will support and pass this bill. I also hope for the support of every Canadian, as this affects us all.

In the Delgamuukw case, the Chief Justice clearly indicated that we are all here to stay. That is a statement I believe in, so let us try to find a modus vivendi so that we can live together in peace and harmony.

I can speak from experience about the environmental assessment process we are talking about in this bill. I chaired the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment, which is provided for in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This committee oversees the implementation of the environmental and social protection regime outlined in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Having chaired this committee for many years, I could speak at length about it because I currently understand the importance of having a clear, independent and impartial process.

The James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment for the southern part of the James Bay area is made up of Cree representatives, members appointed by the federal government and others appointed by the provincial government, the Government of Quebec in this case. It is therefore a clear process.

In this regard, when the environmental assessment process and the powers and mandates of the assessment committees are clear to everyone, development goes well. Development in northern Quebec is going well because people know what to expect. They know the rules and standards set out in the the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. When these things are clear, everyone understands the rules and knows what to expect, whether it is the aboriginal people who are directly affected or the natural resource developers, particularly in the territories. Everything goes well.

Since I will be concluding the debate, I would like to quickly address the issue of consulting and accommodating aboriginal peoples. That is an essential point that has been discussed all afternoon. I was here all afternoon and I listened carefully to both the speeches and the questions and answers on this topic. It is important to consider all of these issues.

My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan quoted a few examples of the objections expressed to this government concerning the changes it wants to make with this bill. First, she quoted the Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada. She also quoted the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, which expressed its opposition to the bill and its support for the aboriginal peoples in the context of the changes to be made under Bill S-6. I want to quote that tourism association, which is in the territories:

TIA Yukon asserts that taking land use planning decisions away from the Territory will ultimately give tourism operators in the Yukon less of a say over land use issues where resource extraction interests conflict with interests of tourism businesses.

I would also like to read from a letter written by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon Chapter. This letter was sent to the government and to other members here in the House, including some opposition members. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society says it is against some of the proposed changes in Bill S-6, and mentioned four points in particular. The first is, and I quote:

...providing the federal minister new powers to give binding policy orders to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board as this amendment undermines the independence of the Board....

I just talked about the independence of these processes.

I will close by saying that the first nations directly affected by this bill complained that they were not properly consulted and that their concerns were not reflected by these changes.

We must never forget that we have a constitutional obligation to the first nations. We cannot deny that obligation, simply say that the first nations were consulted and then do nothing to address their concerns. We have a dual obligation to consult them and accommodate them. We must never forget that.

Again, our fear is that these matters will end up before the courts yet again and that once again the courts will side with us. That is our concern.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I would ask members to keep their questions or comments to about a minute and ministerial answers to a similar length of time.

The hon. opposition House leader.

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

It has been 90 times, Mr. Speaker. This is the 90th time for closure and time allocation. This is the worst record in Canadian parliamentary history by far. The current Conservative government shows a marked intolerance of debate and discussion.

What is really bizarre about this is that we are talking about a bill that has not even gone for its first round of debate. Only eight members of Parliament have even been able to speak on the bill. We have the government moving time allocation for the 90th time, when the bill has not even received proper scrutiny.

As members know, the government has another very poor record, which is for the most pieces of legislation rejected by the courts in Canadian history.

When we combine the two, the Conservatives' intolerance of debate and the fact that often they put forward legislation that has not been properly vetted or properly written, we can see that we have yet another case when it is very clear that the bill before us may well be challenged in the courts.

Just two weeks ago, the last piece of legislation the Conservatives forced through the House, Bill C-15, was rejected by the courts. There is now a court injunction.

We are seeing with the bill on the Yukon a growing tide of reaction from people in the Yukon territory who are saying that they are very concerned about the bill, that it deserves appropriate scrutiny, and that there has not been appropriate consultation. In fact, the Coalition of Yukon First Nations has now threatened court action for another injunction.

Is that not the reason the Conservatives are forcing through, for the 90th time, closure and time allocation? Is it because they know the bill is increasingly controversial?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member complains about this being the 90th time. Well, that is about the number of times his party has stood up with exactly the same reasons. Every time, it is what they complain about, but he cannot bluff his way around this one.

This is not a bill about the Yukon only. It is about the regulatory system in the north, which affects, in this instance, both the Yukon and Nunavut.

For the information of the hon. member who complains about the bill not having been looked at by enough people, this is a bill that comes from the Senate. It has been before the senators. A host of witnesses have appeared before the Senate committee--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We only have 30 minutes. I am sure the hon. minister would like to finish up, and then we will go to the next question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that in fact, a host of witnesses—from the Premier of the Yukon to representatives from every sector of industry and the first nations—have already appeared, commented and shared their point of view on the bill in question.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are just sitting in the corner here sort of amazed at what is being said about the hearings that took place in the Senate. Those same senators made amendments to Bill C-377, a bill that attacked organized labour. They did not pay any attention to them. Why the difference now?

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

Mr. Speaker, what he says in that corner is in that corner, all right.

The truth of the matter is that Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, is the final legislative step in the government action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. This bill responds to years and years of calls for less duplication and a less cumbersome, uncertain review process to evaluate projects, one that encourages development, investment, and job creation in the north, and for that matter, in all of Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again with the government shutting down democracy, for the 90th time. In this case, it serves to silence the voices of first nation peoples in the Yukon.

As Grand Chief Ruth Massie pointed out, this whole process attacks the integrity of their constitutionally protected agreements, and Yukon first nations will stand by their agreements, even if it means going to court. She said, “They give us no choice. We did not sign our agreements to implement them in the courts, but we will protect them”.

It is a disgrace that the current Conservative government is not only shutting down debate but is seeking to silence the voices of Grand Chief Massie and the first nations that are standing up for their rights and have been part of developing the YESSA agreement.

We will stand here in solidarity with them, sharing their voices and their words. We will fight back on this terrible piece of legislation.

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

That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the Conservative member for Yukon has been pleading with the socialists in neckties to allow the committee to travel to Yukon. We hope that they will abide by the wish of the Conservative member of Parliament for Yukon and allow the committee to travel so that first nations can indeed be heard in the Yukon and so Yukoners have a chance to be consulted and give their points of view on this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, since he served in the cabinet of previous Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, how the Progressive Conservatives ever managed to get anything done, since they hardly ever used closure.

How was it possible that democracy was allowed in the House of Commons in the Progressive Conservative government and is no longer allowed in his administration?

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members call this the shutting down of democracy. They sit in the House of Commons and make their case, and this is not democracy? To me it is democracy, but democracy is also about elected members working for the welfare of Canada and the betterment of Canadians.

We are a government that does not consider the north just a trophy. We have decided that northerners will have their place in Canada. The northern strategy is about enabling northerners to be full Canadians, and we will keep doing this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my role as parliamentary secretary, I have had the opportunity to meet with people at the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. in Vancouver as well as with the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada.

There is a new report out that shows that Yukon has actually gone from the best place in the world to conduct resource development mining to the ninth over the last number of years, because it is falling behind when it comes to its regulatory regime.

I am wondering if the minister can talk about the need to bring in regulatory reform so that Yukon, which used to lead the way with its mining development regime, can catch up now. I would ask him to talk about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point. In fact, from 2011 to 2013, Yukon was rated the single most desirable place in the world for mining companies to conduct business. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the most recent report, however, shows that Yukon has actually fallen to ninth place overall. The leaders, communities, and workers in the Yukon are concerned. They see that the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories has been changed to be in line with the one south of 60, and this is exactly what this would do for Yukon and Nunavut.

It is really important and urgent that we pass this legislation so that Yukoners and the people in Nunavut can get the same benefits as other jurisdictions in the north.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we just got the truth about why this bill is being rushed through. It was rushed through the Senate, and it is being rushed through the House. It is because the only voice that is being heard by the government is the mining associations'.

What is absolutely outrageous is that the government would limit debate on this bill when, in fact, the very issues we wish to raise are the ones expressed by Yukoners and the Yukon first nations themselves. Ruth Massie, the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, is vociferously opposed to this legislation. Why? It is for two reasons. First, it is substantively eroding their constitutionally entrenched umbrella final agreement and all first nation final agreements that were negotiated between the territories, the federal government, and the first nations. Second, the government is obligated by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitution to consult, consider, and accommodate, and it has absolutely refused to hear the concerns of the Council of Yukon First Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is totally false. The bill was part of a rigorous consultation process with first nations, territorial governments, and industry representatives. Drafts of legislative proposals were shared with stakeholders on several occasions. Comments received on the drafts were carefully considered, and where appropriate, were incorporated in the proposed text—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It serves the lobbyists who wrote it.

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

If he would keep quiet, maybe I could get a few words in. The least people can do is be polite. Has he not learned any manners yet?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. When another member has been recognized and has the floor, it is incumbent on all other hon. members to hold their comments—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I am being denied the right to speak on this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Winnipeg Centre will come to order.

The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will finish this up, and then we will go to the next question.

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

Mr. Speaker, most of these amendments stem from the five-year review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, which occurred from 2008 to 2012. These people on the other side say that this would completely change the landscape. Most, if not three-quarters or 98%, of these changes were agreed to by the first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first nations, other stakeholders, and even individuals like Larry Bagnell, the former member of Parliament, have been very clear that the Conservative government has not done any real consultation. Real consultation means listening, and the minister needs to do just that. He needs to start listening to the needs of our northern communities.

The issue before us today is yet again about time allocation, which is closure. It is the lack of respect the Prime Minister has for democracy in the chamber. It is the 90th time the Conservatives have introduced limitations on members of Parliament. Through the House, we represent constituents back in our home ridings.

My question is for either the minister or the government House leader. Can they justify why they continue to deny MPs the opportunity to represent their constituents? Why does the government continue to not listen to what northerners have to say about important pieces of legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not reinventing the wheel here. What we are doing is updating the regulatory regime in the north so that it is in conformity with that south of 60 to create a level playing field for these communities and territories. Why should they be penalized, because they live in the north, with a regulatory system that prevents investment?

When we look at the construction season in the north, time is of the essence. The sooner they enjoy a regulatory system that is modern and efficient, the more chance they will have to get the investments that will create jobs for northerners.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people watching us today on CPAC can see quite clearly that the Conservatives are trying to muzzle us in our parliamentary work.

First they decided to hold a vote to prevent us from presenting petitions. We had some extremely important petitions to present. I have petitions from Development and Peace that I was unable to present today because the Conservatives put up roadblocks.

Second, the government moved a time allocation motion on a bill for the 90th time, which is preventing us from doing our parliamentary work. Frankly, this is deplorable behaviour by the Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, passing Bill S-6 is the final legislative step in the government's action plan to improve the regulatory regime in the north. This bill responds to calls made over many years to establish a review process to evaluate projects that is less cumbersome, duplicative and uncertain. This process will promote development while guaranteeing sound environmental management. That is the intended objective.

As I was saying earlier, I know that the NDP could not care less about whether or not people can work in the north, but it is important to us. Investments will create jobs, which in turn will improve the standard of living of northerners.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP and the Liberals both want to put a carbon tax on the north, a carbon tax on every part of Canada. They want fuel prices going up, heating prices going up, and everything going up because of this carbon tax.

Could the minister tell us if Bill S-6 would actually improve the environment? As well, would it include a carbon tax, or would we leave money in Canadians' pockets?

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

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, not only would the bill improve the regulatory scheme in terms of investment and time efficiencies, but it would also better protect the environment.

The bill has provisions to increase protection of the environment, and I am very surprised that the NDP would oppose that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all sorts of rhetoric about what the bill would do, but this debate is on time allocation being imposed 90 times.

This is the 90th time.

My colleague from Alfred-Pellan asked why this government wanted to delay or stop the work of MPs, and the minister did not answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give him an answer.

It is because we doubt that the NDP can debate this bill expeditiously. As I said earlier, it is important that the regulatory regime in Yukon and Nunavut be updated. The figures support that; I am not making it up. Two years ago, Yukon was ranked second by investors from around the world, and today it is ranked ninth.

I know that economic development, creating jobs and improving the standard of living are not important to New Democrats, but they are to us. We hope that they will join with us and support this bill so that the north can benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us hear the voices from Yukon:

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 [these] amendments.

That is Mary Jane Jim, from a Yukon First Nation.

We have the Yukon News editorial:

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 Conservative member for Yukon], who are supposed to ensure that the interest of Yukoners are represented in Ottawa.

Shame on them. The official opposition NDP leader, Liz Hanson, 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.

Those are the voices of Yukon that the Conservatives are refusing to listen to. Why are they stifling the debate that Yukoners want to be engaged in?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member likes quotes, let me quote Premier Pasloski of Yukon, who told the standing committee:

...collectively, these amendments mark an important milestone as they are the culmination of years of hard work and meaningful consultation between all three levels of government....

Let us listen to Johnny Mike, the Minister of the Environment for Nunavut. He said that

This bill is an important step in creating an effective and modern regulatory regime for Nunavut.

[It] will contribute to the environmental protection and economic development of Nunavut.

That is what they oppose. I cannot understand it.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this discussion we are having. I think it is important that we see the bill move forward.

I had the privilege of serving as chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for approximately three years, and it was one of the greatest privileges I have had.

One of the things we heard during some of the hearings was that there was some controversy surrounding the issue of the minister providing policy direction to the Yukon Environmental Socio-Economic Assessment Board under this new legislation. This would allow the minister to give that policy direction.

It is my understanding that other boards have these same provisions. I am wondering if the minister could articulate the circumstances under which the minister has given, or possibly former ministers have given, policy direction to these boards. Under what circumstances was this direction given?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, because the policy direction issue is one of the specific points opposed by some first nations advocates in the Yukon in particular.

This exists in other legislation. It has been used before. We are not reinventing the wheel. The record will show that each time a federal minister has used this power with the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board in the Northwest Territories, where it exists, it has actually been to protect first nations rights. It has been used to ensure that the board carries out its functions and responsibilities in co-operation with the Akaitcho Dene First Nation and its pre-screening board. It has provided instruction to the board to ensure that it fulfills its obligations under the Deh Cho interim measures agreement. It has required that notification be provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Denesuline regarding licences and permits.

According to the act, these directions cannot affect a project under review and will be beneficial for first nations and everyone in the north.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very discouraging to hear the Conservatives provide the sort of answers schoolchildren would provide. In fact, the answers they have been giving opposition members for the past 20 minutes are worse than the answers schoolchildren would provide.

We are asking to be able to talk about and explain things and participate in the debate. The Conservatives are cutting short the debate and saying something so terrible that I will not repeat it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question.

Once again, for the benefit of the House, I would simply like to remind members that passing Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, is the final legislative step in the government's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

We know that the NDP has opposed all of these measures since the plan was announced. It is not surprising that it continues to want to obstruct the work of the House of Commons and prevent it from moving forward.

However, because we have a majority, we can pass this bill at second reading and send the committee directly to the Yukon to consult the people who live there.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has opened the discussion on this. What is so apparent here is that the government, in wanting to bring limitation on the debate, will give us a remaining five minutes to try to be a voice for the people of the north. Instead of spending the time actually hearing from representatives of this place on behalf of the electorate, it is going to limit our time to five minutes.

Why is that serious? It is because the process for the bill is exactly the same failed process the government followed in similar legislation for the Northwest Territories. As a result, the Tlicho and the Sahtu, whom the minister mentioned, have the government in court for exactly the failed unilateral process it followed, which is unconstitutional.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will prefer the judgment of the court on those issues and questions over the judgment of the member. I respect the court, and since these matters are before the court, we will not comment on them.

In regard to the bill, which they want to delay, what they do not realize is they are delaying investment. They are delaying job creation in the north. Also, since as a government our priority is job creation and long-term prosperity, we are going to stick to our agenda and ensure that northerners get the benefit of this legislation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is being overlooked here is the impact the bill would have on the economy of Yukon and Nunavut. That is very important. We are talking about resource extraction and mining.

Our government has made it very clear that growth and creating jobs and long-term prosperity for the north are a top priority for us. The bill would have a very prominent role in guiding Yukon to its future success.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little about what the bill would do for the economic development of Yukon.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying again for the record that no government in Canadian history has ever done as much for Canada's north as ours. This legislation is further proof of this. It would create conditions to encourage investment, which would in turn lead to jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for Yukoners and Nunavummiut alike.

Bill S-6 introduces timelines that would create consistency and predictability in environmental assessments and the issuance of water licences. This is a big plus for the north. I implore my colleagues on the other side to see the light.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

My comment is to you, Mr. Speaker. Limiting the expression of members of this House and limiting the diversity of voices that could come during this debate is doing a grave injustice to our democracy. It is hurting the integrity of this House. I ask you to intervene in this to improve our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought you were going to offer him a copy of the Standing Orders so that he would realize that you are not here to answer questions.

The opposition members refuse to admit the very fact that if we let them stand up and talk away on this bill, the House will rise without the northern communities in question benefiting from the bill.

This bill must become law. We want to bring it to the north, go to the Yukon, have the people there give their input on the bill, let the committee do its job, consider the bill, make recommendations, and bring it back to the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That will conclude the 30-minute period.

Before we put the question, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Intergovernmental Relations.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #347

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from December 4, 2014, 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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-6. In my role, I have had the privilege of meeting with first nations from Yukon, Inuit representatives from Nunavut, and members of industry from both territories. I am convinced the amendments in this legislation will be beneficial to all parties involved.

Our Conservative government has stood by Canada's north. Our northern strategy has increased funding for infrastructure, protected Canada's Arctic sovereignty and has ensured that we remain a world leader in northern science and technology. A large part of this strategy involves our work to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Improving the regulatory process in the north is something that our government has been accomplishing since it came to office. Improvements began through the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, continued in the Northwest Territories through the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, and will be completed by strengthening regimes in Yukon and Nunavut. Bill S-6 would strengthen these regimes by making effective regulatory framework strong, effective, efficient and predictable.

Let me quote the hon. Darrell Pasloski, Premier of the Yukon. He said:

The amended legislation will be more consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions and will put Yukon in a stronger competitive position to achieve more economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Yukoners.

The changes proposed in the bill will encourage resource development and ensure sound environmental stewardship. In the case of Yukon, amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, commonly referred to as YESAA, would introduce beginning-to-end timelines for environmental assessments. This would align the territory's regime with other federal environmental assessment laws across the north and in the rest of Canada. Regulations under YESAA already set out certain time limits for decision making, and Bill S-6 would enshrine these in legislation.

Legislated time limits are an effective way to provide predictability and certainty for proponents, regulators, governments and first nations, without sacrificing the integrity of the evaluation process, and safeguarding environmental protection. I would like to note that this predictability and certainty is something that is desperately needed in Yukon right now.

The Fraser Institute recently published its annual report which ranks different jurisdictions by how desirable they are as a destination for mining investment. In 2011-12, as well as 2012-13, Yukon was rated as the single most attractive jurisdiction for investment in the world. In the years since, Yukon's ranking has fallen to ninth place. This is a result of the fact that other jurisdictions have caught up to and surpassed Yukon, once a world leader in terms of regulatory efficiency.

For a territory that receives the majority of its revenue from resource development, this drop has had a significant impact, and our government is determined to ensure that Yukon continues to set global standards with respect to the mining industry.

Bill S-6 contains provisions that will introduce time limits to improve proponent and investor confidence, provide consistency and transparency to the process, and gain efficiency at all stages of the process. We know from other jurisdictions that these are vital pieces of an effective regulatory regime and that they will help drive economic development in Yukon.

David Morrison, the president and CEO of the Yukon Energy Corporation agrees. According to him:

Having screening processes that don't have defined timelines, and strictly defined timelines, makes it very difficult for people who are investing millions and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Ensuring timely decision making can have a significant impact on the well-being of northern communities. In a highly competitive global marketplace, businesses need assurance of when their projects will move from approvals to the construction phase and not be delayed by unnecessary duplication of regulatory processes. Too many delays may make a proponent look elsewhere, which means a community or first nation could see an opportunity pass by.

The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard the same arguments last fall from industry and territorial government witnesses commenting on Bill S-6. For example, Samson Hartland, executive director of the Yukon Chamber of Mines described the introduction of time limits as:

—probably the most important aspect of this bill to our membership. The definitive beginning-to-end timelines create certainty and allow for consistency from coast to coast to coast for proponents, regardless of where they are doing business — in the Yukon or N.W.T. It is so important for proponents to have consistency and regularity when dealing with and preparing for their project activities.

Bill S-6 is garnering such support for good reason. Without sacrificing the integrity of the process or protection of the environment, time limits enable all parties to predict how long a review process will take.

In addition to timelines, there are several other aspects of the bill that would improve the regulatory system and drive economic development in the Yukon.

The first is the implementation of the principle of one project, one assessment. If passed, Bill S-6 will ensure that a new assessment of an existing project will only be required if there had been a significant modification to the project as it was originally assessed. This will reduce duplication of work for proponents and evaluators, while retaining the integrity of the environmental assessment. This is the sort of practical approach that demonstrates our government is protecting Canada's environmental heritage, without resorting to a job-killing carbon tax, such as the NDP and Liberals want to impose on northerners.

Another proposed change to YESAA is the ability for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This power would help to reduce uncertainty and environmental assessment decision-making by ensuring that the government and the assessment boards would be on the same page.

It is important to underline, however, that this authority could not be used to influence a decision on a project or to restrict or expand the powers of the board. This power is provided for in both the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act as well as the Yukon Waters Act. In each case, the ministerial power has only ever been used to protect first nation rights.

Taken together, these improvements will create the certainty and predictability needed for responsible resource development projects to proceed.

Our government is committed to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in the north. The legislation before the House today would play a large role in achieving these outcomes by simultaneously driving economic development and protecting Canada's environmental heritage. I urge all members from all parties to support this important initiative.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard loud and clear from the parliamentary secretary the perspective of the government on who should be making decisions about Yukon.

I had the privilege of being the first ever assistant deputy of natural resources in Yukon and I know the way Yukoners like to work. They like to work together with first nations and with other Yukoners.

There was a process going on, a five-year review of this statute, which was cut off unilaterally by the federal government. It threw out the issues and preferences of the first nations and brought in three amendments to which the first nations were totally opposed.

I have a simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Who should decide on resource development, environmental protection and socio-economic development in Yukon, Yukoners and Yukon first nations, as per the First Nation Final Agreements, or the southern-based Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 completely respects the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The decision should be made by Yukoners, and that is what we are trying to do with this bill, and what the NDP is opposing.

The NDP members oppose the delegation of authority from Ottawa to Yukon. They are standing in opposition to that, because they believe Ottawa knows best, that we should keep the power away from northerners and not give them the same powers that other jurisdictions in Canada have.

This bill was developed in consultation with Yukoners and first nations. In fact, just on the few amendments that the member mentioned, the Government of Canada has reimbursed those first nations up to $98,695 for those consultations that took place. Therefore, for the member to suggest that has not taken place, that we have not consulted with Yukoners, is patently false.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is an important one in this sense.

One of the stumbling blocks going forward over the last several decades in Canada with respect to aboriginal participation in large resource development projects has been the notion of equity participation. Aboriginal peoples, in my view, have a right to have a share of the equity in projects, not simply be the recipients of specific outcomes, be it income benefits or socio-economic benefits, but have full equity participation.

What precisely would the bill do to facilitate, encourage, make as an outcome for our aboriginal peoples in all the resource projects that are contemplated for that region full equity partners?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have heard as parliamentary secretary when I have been at either the Association for Mineral Exploration conference in British Columbia or the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto is that mining is, proportionately, the number one employer of aboriginal Canadians in the country. It is an industry that employs aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As for the equity participation, those are agreements that need to be reached by first nations governments, proponents, and the territorial government. What this bill would do is bring certainty to the territory to ensure that Yukon has the same regulatory regime as the rest of Canada, which would ensure that investment continues to flow to Yukon as opposed to a withdrawal of that investment, because Yukon has failed to keep pace with the regulatory regimes in the rest of Canada.

The bill would encourage that economic development, which would benefit not only the Government of Yukon but first nations in Yukon as well.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon first nations group asserting that the federal government would be in violation of its constitutional duty to uphold the honour of the Crown if it proceeded with these amendments to the YESAA legislation. This is according to a councillor with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.

If the first nations were to bring a lawsuit and the delay that would incur, is there a plan B to deal with the delay that this litigation would cause?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the Government of Canada to predict what first nations are going to do, how they are going to react. Any individual or government, for that matter, certainly has the right, as the member has said, to bring an action in court. We believe this bill is fully compliant with the umbrella final agreements. All of the legal advice the government has received has said that.

We believe the bill is in the interest of first nations in Yukon. It is in the interest of Yukoners and in the interest of jobs and long-term prosperity for Yukon. That is why we believe it should be passed.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me tonight.

No government in Canada's history has done as much for the north as ours. From regulatory improvement to safeguarding Arctic sovereignty, our Conservative government has stood by northerners. Bill S-6 is just the latest measure we have taken to ensure the true north remains strong and free. By driving economic development and encouraging jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, Bill S-6 would make sure that Yukon and Nunavut remain attractive places to live, work and invest long term.

Bill S-6 is only the most recent endeavour in our government's plan to improve the northern regulatory regimes. Like all the legislation passed to date under the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, Bill S-6 is designed to increase efficiency, clarity and certainty respecting the regulatory processes. At the same time, the act would strengthen environmental protection and enhance consultations with aboriginal people, reaffirming them in their role in this regulatory process.

Let me cite just a few examples to illustrate how Bill S-6 would achieve these objectives. I will start by noting that the act would implement the principle of one project, one assessment. Under the current version of the YESEAA all kinds of small, routine modifications to projects get caught up in time-consuming and costly reassessment processes.

During meetings held this fall by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, senators heard complaints about this from numerous companies and industry associations. I would like to quote David Morrison, president and CEO of Yukon Energy Corporation from September 25, 2014. He said:

You might get a two-month delay in an assessment process that costs you a year from a construction point of view, because you have missed the construction window. Those things really add up. They add up significantly.

For years there have been calls for a less duplicative and cumbersome review process to evaluate these projects, one that encourages development while also ensuring sound environmental stewardship. This is exactly what Bill S-6 would do.

Consistent with other northern environmental legislation, the act would lead to more predictable and timely reviews, in part due to less duplication and reduce regulatory burden. Going forward, there would be no need for a reassessment, for renewal or modification to a project unless the decision body, or bodies, determine the project has undergone significant change from what was originally assessed.

By retaining the integrity of the initial environmental assessment, but reducing unnecessary duplication, we are protecting the northern environment without resorting to drastic measures, like the job-killing carbon tax the Liberals and NDP favour.

Another example is, Clynton Nauman, president and CEO, Alexco Resource Corp. also told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, on September 30, 2014, that work was needed to ensure Yukon remains competitive with respect to investment in resource development. He said:

The current uncertainty has had a negative impact on our ability to efficiently plan and operate our business, and by extension, it impairs the competitiveness of Yukon as a jurisdiction to assert certainty in the mine development and production process.

The Fraser Institute's 2014 survey of mining companies confirms this. Since 2011-12, Yukon has fallen from being ranked as the most desirable jurisdiction in the world for mining corporations to invest in, to the ninth. Our government and Yukoners like Clynton Nauman know it is important for Yukon to return to this impressive standing. The measures contained in Bill S-6 would help Yukon regain its previous success.

These measures are essential for the people of Yukon to realize the territory's full potential. It would also meet the needs of investors, developers and employers by providing a clear and predictable assessment process that would allow Yukon to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

As I mentioned earlier, to avoid duplication with respect to environmental assessments in the Yukon, Bill S6 would eliminate the need to reapply for water licences in Nunavut, unless there is a substantive change in the nature of the project. Substantive changes are modifications like diverting the course of a stream, increasing the size or changing the location of a tailings pond, or a large increase in the use of water. Again, similar to the YESEAA amendments found in Bill S-6, this provision would protect the environment without implementing a costly job-killing carbon tax.

Another way Bill S-6 would address the regulatory burden is by providing an extension to the terms of board members under YESAA. This was one of the jointly agreed upon recommendations in a five-year review of YESAA by the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, the Government of Yukon, and the Government of Canada. This will increase predictability and certainty by ensuring that the assessment continues to function smoothly, even as its members transition onto the board.

A further example of how Bill S-6 would reduce duplication is evident in Nunavut. I am referring to amendments related to security arrangements to rectify the situation known as over bonding. Let me first explain briefly what this means and how it relates to posting securities. Securities are monies companies set aside to ensure that at the end of a development project, there are adequate funds to remediate the impact of any project on the surrounding environment. Under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, securities for future remediation of resource development projects that use or impact the water in any way are paid or posted by companies. This money is held in trust by the federal government until the end of that project.

Where a project is wholly or partially on Inuit-owned land, the regional Inuit association can request that additional security be posted for the part of the development on its lands. In some cases, this has resulted in over bonding, meaning that a company is required to provide more security than would be required to remediate a project at its completion. This is a significant disincentive to development and places an undue burden on proponents.

Proposed amendments in Bill S-6 would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to enter into agreements with Inuit landowners and proponents. These agreements would recommend the amount of security to be posted on a project situated partially or wholly on lnuit-owned land. When the Nunavut Water Board determined the amount of security required to be furnished by the proponent, it would have to take these agreements into consideration. The introduction of security arrangements to address over bonding would help unlock the economic potential of Nunavut by removing a disincentive to investment while ensuring sound environmental stewardship.

Because Bill S-6 would reduce regulatory duplication and the burden on Yukon and Nunavut, it is little wonder that Bill S-6 has earned widespread support among industry groups and northern governments. From the Yukon Chamber of Mines in the west to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines in the east, from the Government of Nunavut to the Government of Yukon, we have heard both praise and calls to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

We want northerners to have the ability to drive economic development in the north. Passing this bill would create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for the north. This is why I strongly urge all parties to heed this advice and vote with us to move this legislation forward.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's presentation just now. I understand that many in the Yukon, and Yukon first nations as well, are much opposed to this legislation, because it removes the kind of made-in-Yukon YESAA they had in the past. As I understand it, the amendments would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide a binding policy direction to the environmental assessment board.

Mr. Speaker, through you, how does this increase the level of confidence we should have that this is truly for Yukon, Yukoners, and first nations, if the minister gets to tell them what to do?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member missed in my speech was that this is an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, and first nations. There is a consultation process to come to these types of agreements. The proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act would allow the minister, after consultation with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, to give this binding agreement. However, it would be after consultation with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, and those consultations would have to take place before these agreements were reached.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the importance of consultations that are required to take place going forward, and this is what he is implying. The Liberal caucus has been informed by stakeholders, both directly and indirectly, about the lack of genuine consultation with first nations and other stakeholders in the north.

Does the member not believe that prior to the legislation even coming to Ottawa, there should have been a more thorough and robust consultation so that there was a sense that Ottawa was listening to what was being said up north from the people who would be most affected by this legislation?

There is a great deal of concern and a sense of frustration that the government is just not listening, let alone responding to the need for genuine consultation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the question is coming from a member of the party whose leader, when he was doing his northern tour, did not even both to stop in Yukon. For him to give an opinion on consultation with Yukon I find quite disingenuous.

In saying there has not been consultation, he is absolutely incorrect. The changes in the bill were the culmination of a five-year review process. As my colleague mentioned earlier, $200,000 was put aside to fund the consultations, and $98,000 has been claimed by first nations as a result of those consultations.

I think there has been extensive dialogue between the Government of Canada and the first nations communities of Yukon, and I think that dialogue will continue.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out with reference to consultation that a duly elected government in Yukon that is responsive to Yukoners is behind this particular measure.

Mining is a long-term investment. It requires due diligence in looking at the factors that would make for a stable investment or a worthwhile investment, so the regulatory environment is clearly very important.

The fact that Yukon is out of sync, if you will, with other jurisdictions right now in being able to have these types of important, straightforward, simple, single-window reviews is critical for them.

I think the member mentioned that Yukon is losing ground in terms of its desirability as an investment location for mining. I wonder if he could comment on that. Is it possible to quantify how much investment is either at risk or has been lost as a result of potential delay in getting to that regulatory environment?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. I think an issue that has been somewhat overlooked in this debate by the opposition is the impact that passing the bill will have on the economy of northerners.

As a matter fact, I mentioned in my speech that the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Yukon are all in support of the bill. They understand the importance to their economy and the fact that although Yukon was the number one jurisdiction in the world for mining investment in 2011-2012, it has now fallen down to number nine.

We have to take some very aggressive steps to get Yukon back to where it was before and regain that success as a resource extraction economy.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Churchill.

I would advise the member that she will only have five minutes of debate before the debate terminates.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what a shame it is that we in the opposition have only about five minutes to speak to a piece of legislation at second reading that is critical when it comes to a specific region in the country.

It is a crying shame that the people of Yukon cannot depend on their member of Parliament to bring forward opposing voices to Bill S-6. While we are honoured to do that, I want to point out that it is the Conservative government that is taking away time, time that we could use to share the voices of the people from Yukon, to share the voices of first nations in Yukon, and instead it has chosen to muzzle and silence them in this House.

It is clear that the people of Yukon have not given the mandate or the authority to the federal government to implement Bill S-6.

Bill S-6 will serve to dismantle YESAA which belongs to the people of Yukon, including first nations. It was developed by Yukoners and for Yukon. Yukoners, including first nations and industry, are now saying that they do not want or need the changes imposed on them by Bill S-6. They are actively campaigning against it in astonishing numbers.

In fact, contrary to the rhetoric we have heard in this House, we know that there have been no public consultations on Bill S-6 at any point by the federal government in Yukon.

It does not enjoy first nations consent. For this reason alone, it is incumbent upon the House not to pass this bill. It is unlawful for the federal government to impose regulations upon a regulatory body, such as the YESAA board without the consent of Yukon first nations.

Grand Chief Ruth Massie said, “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”.

This speaks to a broader agenda put forward by the government, which is to attack first nations' rights as a result of its failure of consultation and achieving consent, and instead pushing first nations to pursue costly litigation that in some cases is difficult for them to afford, a process that only makes money for federal government lawyers who choose to fight first nations in court.

The people of Yukon and first nations alike are baffled by the content of Bill S-6. Yes, 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 claim agreement and undermine the neutrality of the YESAA process.

Once again, Grand Chief Ruth Massie said, “Yukon first nations have met with the Government of Canada, specifically the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and have asked them to remove four problematic amendments proposed to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act legislation established in Chapter 11 of the Umbrella final agreement and each final land claim agreement of the 11 Yukon First Nations”.

It is not only Yukon first nations that are opposed to Bill S-6, Yukoners have been coming out to public meetings and showing their opposition in public venues in a significant way. It is also industry and members of industry that have been clear in their opposition.

I would like to read into the record a quote from a letter sent by the CEO of the Casino Mining Corporation, Paul West-Sells:

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.

So there we have it. I also want to make a final comment with regard to the Fraser Institute report that we keep hearing about. This has been proven to be a flawed report. In fact, the day it became public, the extent to which this report was flawed, the Fraser Institute itself removed its data collecting portion on its website.

Finally, this is about standing in opposition to a federal government that is seeking to silence the voices of northern Canadians and northern first nations in our country. I am proud to stand with the NDP. We are standing with Yukoners and Yukon first nations, and saying no to Bill S-6.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #348

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Bill read second time and referred to a committee)