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 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it very disappointing that the Conservatives are opposed to Bill C-17, which would allow indigenous communities in Yukon to regain their autonomy and decision-making authority.

When the Conservatives introduced Bill S-6, it was challenged. In fact, it is presently before the courts. The indigenous peoples of Yukon decided, however, to put this challenge on hold while waiting to see whether Bill C-17 would be passed or supported in the House. In fact, they support this bill despite the fact that work remains to be done to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples are upheld.

It is rather difficult to understand why the Conservatives are opposing this bill when it is what the indigenous peoples of Yukon want. We constantly hear in the House that relations between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples must improve and that there must be a nation-to-nation relationship. The Conservatives oppose this.

We must respect the indigenous peoples. I find it hard to see this respect when the Conservatives are opposing Bill C-17.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. To be honest, this bill is regressive. It reverses several positive steps taken by the former Conservative government in Bill S-6 in 2015. It is a poorly conceived piece of legislation that, if passed, will gain votes in the southern part of this country at the expense of northern Canada.

on October 3, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs heard testimony by Mr. Brad Thrall, the president of Alexco Resource Corp. He summed up the problem up best, in stating:

...I'm urging deferral of Bill C-17's passage until all affected and interested parties can deliberate, and mutually determine language to preserve the reassessment and timeline provisions currently within the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. Repeal of the reassessment and timeline provisions, as anticipated in Bill C-17, without replacement language ready to go, will perpetuate economic uncertainty, and will negatively impact the competitiveness of Yukon, and will diminish economic and social opportunities for all Yukoners.

Why would we want to pass legislation that would diminish economic and social opportunities, especially in the north? The population of Yukon, according to the last census in 2016, was just under 36,000 people. It is a small jurisdiction. Therefore, we can understand how the benefits and opportunities of one operation can have tremendous benefits for first nations and all Yukon residents in terms of tax dollars, health care, education, employment, and benefit agreements.

The mining industry contributes 20% of Yukon's GDP and Bill C-17 would immediately increase the regulatory burden on project proponents. It would slow down the review process by increasing the number of projects that need to be reviewed and remove the timeline for approval. Mining representatives testified that over the past eight years, the time period required to deem project proposals adequate was increased more than fivefold. Removing the timelines put in by the former Conservative government would damage proponent and industry confidence in the regulatory regime and cause companies to take their investments elsewhere. It is already happening in this country.

The Prospectors & Developers Association told us that it has definitely seen a decline in investment in Canada in the past two years. If members do not believe me, they only need look at what Shell did with the Carmon Creek project in Alberta, an investment of roughly $2 billion. Shell sold its assets in Carmon Creek while going to Europe, citing a more stable investment regime there compared to Canada. This was a major opportunity lost not only for the people of Alberta but the people of Canada and northern Alberta.

Mr. Thrall went on to testify at committee on October 3 as follows:

The current legislation allows proponents of certain projects to apply to the decision body, usually Yukon or first nation governments, under section 49.1, to allow a project to proceed without the need for reassessment. This allows previously assessed projects to proceed to the authorization process without duplication.

As we all know, the reality of mining is that during the process, new ore bodies or extensions to them may be identified. These discoveries may require slight modifications to mine operating plans under the current legislation, but the resulting modifications would generally not require a complete project-wide reassessment.

However, if Bill C-17 is passed, they would, even though there is no significant environmental or socioeconomic impact and no change in the production stream.

Mr. Thrall went on, continuing on October 3:

On the environmental side of our business, we were required to go back through an entire environmental assessment to maintain a water licence to extend the operating period for various water treatment facilities. Ironically, these same facilities were mitigating historic environmental liability, but this simple extension required 134 days of YESAB's time to assess the entire project yet again. Please understand that we firmly support a rigorous environmental assessment process for the Yukon, for new projects and when fundamental changes are made to existing projects. However, small changes to a mine plan or to environmental facilities should not require a “back to square one” assessment. If set back to the previous legislation, uncertainty will prevail, and investment, jobs, benefits, and opportunities for residents and communities will be compromised.

This is just another example of the Liberals making promises without thinking of consequences. The Liberals could have worked to find a solution, addressing everyone's concerns, rather than rushing forward and choosing to handicap Yukon's development for years to come, possibly even decades.

Mr. Jonas Smith, the project manager of Yukon Producers Group, gave compelling testimony to our indigenous affairs committee on October 3 of this year. His focus was on the matters of reassessment. Mr. Smith explained the burden that will be placed on industry, municipalities, and all Yukoners by Bill C-17. He told us:

The absence of a reassessment provision not only negatively affects proponents, but places a strain on the financial and human resources of publicly funded assessors and governments as well.

Another very recent example from a Yukon mine ramping up to production revealed that in these last few months when Bill C-17 has been making its way through Parliament, the company was once again subjected to an expensive, time-consuming, and ultimately unnecessary reassessment. In this case YESAB ultimately determined that reassessment and any further mitigation beyond the original assessment were not required. Yet despite this relatively favourable outcome, the process that led to it still consumed considerable resources from the company and the YESAB assessment office.

He means there were more delays.

It resulted in a missed season of work for the company [up north], where those financial and human resources could have been put to far better use employing citizens of the affected first nation and the community where it operates.

As I mentioned previously, since section 49.1 was enacted in 2015, over 100 projects have applied for exemption from reassessment. These were not only mining proponents, but municipalities as well. The City of Whitehorse, a major employer in our territory's capital, received this determination under section 49.1 for one of its permanent renewals:

“The project has been assessed once by YESAB in 2013. Since that time, the only changes in relation to the project were minor and regulatory in nature. There have been no significant changes to the project and therefore an assessment is not required.”...

It has been suggested, given the number of Yukon's economic sectors that have benefited from this reassessment provision, including industry and municipalities, that removing it before its replacement is in position is like ripping the roof off your house before you've decided what to replace it with and leaving [in this case] Yukoners out in [the cold and] the rain [and the snow] in the process.

Yukon's mining industry is modern, responsible, and innovative. It is a partner at the forefront of research and relationships that balance economic, social, cultural, and environmental values. It and its supporting service and supply companies are our territory's largest private sector employers. It contributes [as I mentioned] 20% to our GDP, a significant number in a small developing jurisdiction [of just under 36,000] otherwise dominated by the public sector.

The mineral industry is committed to working with all orders of government to provide opportunities that allow Yukoners to grow up in the territory, study and train in the territory, and pursue rewarding and well-paying private sector jobs and careers.

In closing, Mr. Smith added at that October 3 meeting:

In conclusion, Madam Chair and committee members, the Yukon Producers Group proposes that a committee of interested and affected government and industry parties be struck to work on replacement for the reassessment and timelines provisions and provide its recommendations for this replacement before Bill C-17 receives royal assent.

If replacement provisions are not in place beforehand, industry, municipalities, and all Yukoners will suffer.

Mr. Burke, the president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, told us the following on October 3:

I would like to draw your attention to Minister Bennett's commitment in a letter to the Yukon Chamber of Mines dated July 6, 2017, “Once amendments to Bill C-17 have been made, the department is willing to work with Yukon first nations, the Government of Yukon, and stakeholders such as your organization to review these issues in order to identify possible short-term administrative or long-term legislative solutions.”

We appreciate this commitment. However, it is imperative that all orders of government work to undertake and implement solutions to these issues in advance of the passage of Bill C-17 to ensure continuity for all parties involved. The time to start this work is already in the past. Our concerns for the future of our business have been shared with all levels of government. We strongly urge you to begin this work and establish a timeline to report progress on this front.

Mr. Burke went on to tell us the following at that October 3 meeting:

The Yukon Chamber of Mines and our membership support the need for a robust environmental review process. We represent a science-based industry composed of geologists, engineers, tradespeople, and other professional and non-professional occupations, that has made and will continue to make significant investments in reducing the impact our business has on the environment. We do not want to save money at the expense of the environment. That is a myth.

Let me repeat that: “We do not want to save money at the expense of the environment. That is a myth.”

We are at the forefront of reconciliation as we invest in the backyards of Yukon first nations. We are at the forefront of reconciliation as we partner with Yukon first nations and provide economic opportunities where, in many cases, [as we know] few other opportunities exist [in the private sector in this country].

We support the passage of Bill C-17 in order to reconcile with Yukon first nations. We urge the federal government to immediately engage with first nations governments and the Yukon government to find short-term administrative or long-term legislative solutions to the impact of the removal of the reassessments and timelines contained in Bill C-17. The impact of Bill C-17, without addressing these concerns, will have a serious negative impact on investment and mining and exploration projects in the Yukon.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines urges that this work be undertaken to implement solutions to these issues in advance of the passage of Bill C-17 to ensure continuity for all parties involved.

The government has claimed that all stakeholders are 100% behind Bill C-17. That is simply not true. The support was not an unconditional rubber stamp. In fact, the support is contingent on what has been promised by the now Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. They emphatically told the committee:

The federal and territorial governments must work immediately with first nations governments to address the concerns and risks associated with the removal of the provisions addressing reassessment and timelines from the act.

I will reiterate the commitment the minister made to the Yukon Chamber of Mines when she was there in July. She wrote: “Once amendments to Bill C-17 have been made, the department is willing to work with Yukon first nations, the Government of Yukon, and stakeholders such as your organization to review these issues in order to identify possible short-term administrative or long-term legislative solutions.”

I hope the minister is listening to what stakeholders are telling her. We had three excellent people who came to our meeting on October 3 to address this situation. However, it was back in July that the minister addressed these concerns in Yukon. Now we are into November. The months have passed. All stakeholders, including Yukon first nations, are ready to collaborate to ensure the regulations have something in place to address these major concerns, but the minister's office remains silent, surprisingly. It is imperative that the minister follow through on her commitment that she made in July, and do so very quickly.

Bob McLeod, Premier of Northwest Territories, told the Arctic Circle assembly on October 13, a month ago, that people of the Arctic want what everyone else wants. They want good jobs, they want a good standard of living, they want to be healthy, they want to be educated, and most of all they want a sustainable future for themselves and for their families based on their own vision and their own priorities.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am more excited about the member's speech than any others today, for several reasons. First, the member is absolutely right. I learned The Cremation of Sam McGee in grade 3. It is why I moved to Yukon and became chair of the Yukon Robert Service Society. I thank the member for bringing back those old memories.

The other reason I love the speech so much is the three main points the member made related to the bill. I am assured now that he will vote for the bill, because they were all in favour of Bill C-17. The first was that if it is different, will people invest there? People will certainly invest there because, as I mentioned to the media this morning, there is full employment there, unlike the rest of the country, because people are investing there. If it has a better assessment regime than anywhere else in the country, it will encourage people to invest. In fact, one of the most senior mining executives in Canada said that to me yesterday. At an assessment forum here yesterday, I was talking to someone yesterday about an assessment in another part of the country that in fact included four assessments, whereas this regime has only one assessment.

The other point the member brought up was by the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nation, who believes that it would change the distribution of power to a bilateral one not in the spirit of the treaty. All the comments you raised were criticisms of Bill S-6, the previous bill, the one we are changing. It is great that you have raised them, and since all of your points were in favour of this bill and against the previous one, I am delighted that you will be voting for it.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally understand the member's reasoning. However, as the NDP member said, we are talking about Yukon, so I think that we should proceed, and that that is a good thing.

I would now like to talk about centralization. A carbon tax was imposed on the provinces without consulting them. As for health transfers, the government imposed conditions that the provinces opposed but were bullied into accepting. This brings me to the central theme of my speech: devolution.

In the 1980s, under Mulroney, and again under the Harper government, we began a positive process of political devolution that focused much more on Yukon than Nunavut or the Northwest Territories. This bill, Bill C-17, not in its entirety but certainly some of its clauses, works against the very devolution that I believe to be good for the people of Yukon. Why? Because it will eliminate the federal minister's ability to transfer ministerial powers, duties, and functions to a territorial government.

I was very proud to learn about this legislation in 1995. I thought it was fantastic that a Conservative government had introduced it. It is a truly Conservative measure because we support decentralization. As is the case with Britain's Conservatives who ceded power to Scotland, which now has a quasi autonomous parliament, western Conservatives support decentralization. We ceded very important powers to the Yukon government over time.

It actually started with a Liberal government. With the advent of responsible government in the Yukon in 1978, political parties were formed for the first time. Under Mulroney in the 1980s and 1990s, there were transfers of very important federal powers. In 1992, at the end of the Mulroney era, the first nations and the government entered into an agreement. Under the Martin government, Yukon was given all the powers that other provinces had, except over criminal prosecutions.

In Yukon, mining is the main industry. Therefore, it is very important for the people and their government to make their own decisions about environmental assessments and the projects they will accept.

For me, the problem with the Liberals' Bill C-17 is this desire to roll back the powers we delegated to the Yukon government to approve or deny proposed mining and resource development projects. This bill is a definite step backwards in terms of devolution.

This is what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was just referring to when he said that one government takes one step forward and the next takes one step back. I think that if there is one thing that successive governments should not go back on, it is this type of important policy on territorial devolution. Yukon was one of the territories that benefited the most. In spite of its flaws, Bill S-6, which was passed in 2015, did a lot for devolution.

In short, it is a shame. That is pretty much all I wanted to say today. In closing, I would like to add that my colleague takes the prize for hardest-working MP. He is a very brave and courageous man, because taking the plane every week as he does must be gruelling.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here today.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-17 at third reading. I speak from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

In 10 words or less, today is all about Bill C-17 removing four clauses illegally put into law. We are all legislators here, and we should be the first to unanimously agree to pass the bill for that reason. That is why, as the minister said, the Yukon legislature was unanimous in passing the bill, including the Yukon Party, which is the Conservatives. I should in theory be able to sit down now and we would vote unanimously to pass the bill, as the Yukon legislature did.

I would like to thank every member in the House today for their thoughtful debate and co-operation in going through report stage very quickly.

I would like to tell a story to give a sense of the feeling behind all of this. People at home can participate in this exercise too. Think about someone who retired and decided he wanted to get into business with a couple of partners or friends of his. They all got together, spent a couple of years working really hard to get a business set up, perhaps a resort in a wealthy country. He would sit and have piña coladas and enjoy himself. His kids were going to high class school. He mortgaged his house. Everything was on the line. It was pretty important to his family and their lives. Then one day when he went to work, he saw a sold sign. One or two of his other partners had sold his dream business, his life savings, and put it into a factory in a third world country with millions of people, in a dangerous slum, where he would have to try to get his kids into school. How would he feel under those circumstances? Obviously he would be very angry. He would feel betrayed. He would be apoplectic. Under those circumstances, what type of relationship would he have with those two partners? Would he ever do business with them again? He could never imagine that.

In the case we are talking about here, the three partners are the federal government, the Yukon government, and the first nations government. They cannot just walk away. From now onward, indeed forever, they have to work together on things for their people. Imagine the great rebuilding of trust that would have to be done with those partners because of this situation.

How did we get here? As the minister said, after 20 years, not just the two years in the scenario we set up, the modern treaty or UFA was signed. It is constitutionally protected, so even we in the House cannot change it. It prescribed that YESAA would be created for assessments in Yukon. That took 10 years and was approved in 2003.

Imagine, as in the case I just talked about, after negotiating for 30 years, all of a sudden one or two of the partners added four significant clauses without negotiation. This is what happened. The four clauses are probably illegal, if not technically, then in the spirit of the law or the honour of the crown. Anything done illegally, regardless of the content, whether good or bad, had to be undone and cancelled. That is basically the end of the story today.

Normally, for that reason, I refuse to talk about any of the content of those four items. Nevertheless, because I have four minutes left, there were some concerns raised that I might try to alleviate a bit. The minister and the opposition have already mentioned the reaching out that has been done. The process will start right away to deal with timelines and reassessments.

I thank the mining association and the mining companies, because in the years when the government was not really following the honour of the crown, individual mining companies made partners with first nations. The chamber of mines worked with the Council of Yukon First Nations and took a great leadership role, so kudos to the mining industry.

In the second reading debate on April 10, 2017, members commented about the removal of time limits. They said that the Liberals were taking out time limits, that we wanted to remove all time limits, that we put time limits on the review process, that we removed timelines, that time limits do matter, that we eliminated timelines, that we would repeal the time limits, that we would remove the time limits. One would think that people watching this and hearing all those comments would think there were no timelines, but timelines were put into the bill when it was established.

In 2003, the bill explained how timelines were created through the rules of the board. They were gazetted and have been in place ever since. My understanding is that they have not changed in all those years. Since the first project was approved in 2005, the timelines have been there and are still working. The opposition said in the second reading debate that it was important to leave decisions in the hands of Yukoners, and that is exactly what this bill would do, because those timelines are created by Yukoners. I am sure that the opposition would rather have people in their ridings setting deadlines for important things as opposed to the government setting them in Ottawa.

Those timelines compare favourably with those in other jurisdictions. Some of the projects take half the time of British Columbia assessments. The timelines have not been lengthened in recent years. There are two categories of projects. For a district office, the average is only 70 days, and for small projects they are considerably shorter. The timeline put in Bill S-6 is 270 days. That is far longer than those projects' timelines. On the executive committee, the other category, the very serious projects, of which there have been only seven, the fault was in the other direction. There was just not enough time put in. What has happened is that first nations have not been able to do the appropriate analysis, nor have the territorial or federal technicians in various departments.

What happens if there is an assessment without the appropriate input or analysis? Two things probably happen. First, for purposes of integrity, the project is rejected. The mining industry or developers would not want that. Second, a chance could be taken and it could be approved, but it could be challenged, especially by first nations, because there are requirements in YESAA for their input.

The final point I would like to make is on reassessments. I have 10 quotes, but I will not read them. There are two things I will say in the limited time I have. First, technically there are no reassessments. If something is exactly the same, section 40 of the act does not allow a reassessment. In fact, what has happened in reality is that when a project comes up, quite often, on the ground, the decision body will say that it is exactly the same, that it is just renewing a licence and it will not go ahead. A lot of the 100 projects the opposition member quite rightly brought up would not be reassessed under the present system, so there would not be 100.

The second thing that happened in that five-year review is that one of the policies changed and they have gone to temporal scoping, which is a good thing. That means that instead of scoping like they used to according to the licence and causing the reassessments that were of concern, they can scope a lot longer in the life of the project, resulting in far fewer reassessments.

For all of those reason and reassurances, I would like to go back to what I said at the beginning. We have to remove four improper clauses. I hope we can do that quickly, because it will bring back certainty for the mining industry, developers, and first nations and, hopefully, start to rebuild the partnership that is so important for any development in Yukon.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we begin third reading debate on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA.

I want to acknowledge that we are gathered on traditional Algonquin territory.

We know that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the economic success of Yukon. A prosperous resource sector will serve as an important foundation for Yukon's future economic and job growth.

Yukoners have also made it clear that unlocking this economic potential must be contingent on environmental sustainability and on impacted indigenous communities being engaged as equal partners. They understand that this is not only essential to support reconciliation, but a legal obligation as well.

This is even more significant in regions like the Yukon, which are subject to comprehensive land claim agreements and self-government agreements. The original 2003 YESAA stems from the umbrella final agreement between Canada, Yukon first nations, and the Government of Yukon, which required a five-year review of the YESAA. This was carried out by the previous government and resulted in a number of mutually agreed upon recommendations.

Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, was introduced in the Senate in June 2014 and received royal assent in June 2015.

A large part of the bill implemented the consensus provisions based on the recommendations from the five-year review.

Unfortunately, despite spending years working with Yukon first nations on the comprehensive review, the previous government added four further controversial changes outside that process and pushed them through absent meaningful consultation. As members are now aware, these controversial changes included legislated time limits on the review process; exempting a project from reassessment when a authorization was renewed or amended, unless there had been a significant change to the project; the ability for the federal minister to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon environmental assessment board; and the ability to delegate the federal minister's powers, duties, or functions under the act to the territorial government.

This disregard for meaningful consultation reflected the previous government's unfortunate and misguided paternalistic approach regarding indigenous people in Canada. Rather than working in partnership with indigenous communities to find common ground and mutually beneficial solutions to issues, it forced indigenous peoples to resort to the courts to assert their rights. This not only led to unnecessary costs for all parties, but often caused unnecessary delay, legal uncertainty, and undermined reconciliation.

It also positioned the federal government to lose court case after court case.

In response to the passage of these four contentious provisions, three Yukon first nations launched a court challenge in the fall of 2015. The court petition claimed that the amendments were in violation of the Yukon umbrella final agreement and that there was inadequate consultation. Despite their court action, Yukon first nations entered into subsequent discussions with the governments of Yukon and Canada about how to resolve this situation outside of court. These discussions led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding in April 2016, which clearly outlines the steps required to resolve the first nations' concerns with Bill S-6.

As a direct result of that collaborative process, the Yukon first nations pursuing legal action have adjourned their hearing dates while this bill proceeds.

This bill would re-establish trust with Yukon first nations and restore legal certainty for responsible resource development. It would also remove a key impediment to increased investment, development, and jobs in Yukon.

The vast majority of Yukoners support this bill.

In fact, a unanimous motion supporting Bill C-17 was passed by the Yukon legislature last spring. In addition, the Council of Yukon First Nations, Yukon government, and the Yukon Chamber of Mines issued a joint letter last March, urging the passage of Bill C-17, without change, as soon as possible.

The letter also stated that they looked forward passing the bill so, “the Yukon economy can benefit from the certainty established by the final and self-government agreements in Yukon.” My office spoke with the Yukon Chamber of Mines earlier this week and it confirmed its support for passing the bill on an expedited basis, with the understanding that issues, including reassessments and reasonable timelines, would be dealt with through other policy mechanisms shortly thereafter.

First nations and the Governments of Canada and Yukon agree that issues, including reassessments of projects and reasonable time limits for assessments, require a strong policy framework. Canada, Yukon, self-governing Yukon first nations, industry, and the board are all committed to working in collaboration through the regulatory process to establish practical timelines for the assessment processes and clear and sensible rules for when reassessments may be required.

The Conservative opposition told the committee that the bill should be set aside not just until the process moved forward, but until it was finalized.

The members claim that this is in response to concerns expressed by some industry representatives about delays in moving forward with the regulatory discussions I referenced above. Yukon first nations have been clear. Passing Bill C-17 is an important show of good faith and a first step in moving forward with these important discussions.

It is disingenuous of the Conservatives to cite delays they caused by filibustering this bill last spring as justification for further delaying moving the legislation forward and the subsequent needed regulatory discussions. By trying to further delay, or even derail the bill, the Conservatives risk driving this matter back into litigation and undermining the very certainty for industry for which they claim to be advocating.

Bill C-17 clearly demonstrates our intent to work closely with all partners, including Yukon first nations, the Yukon industry, and the Yukon government, to re-establish trust with Yukon first nations and restore legal certainty for responsible resource development.

I hope all members will support this bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking against the proposed amendments for Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

The bill seeks to reverse progress in Yukon's economic and natural resources development. For years, northerners have built and relied on their increasingly thriving economy, unlocking the opportunity and prosperity of their natural resources. From mining, to hunting, to tourism, Canada's northern territories are an important and strategic asset to Canada's future.

The YESAA became law in 2003. The goal of that original bill was to develop a single development assessment process for projects on all federal, territorial, and first nations land in Yukon. Part of the legislation included a mandatory review after five years of becoming law. The review was a joint initiative of the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Governments of Canada and Yukon, and was completed successfully in March 2012. These changes were formally introduced in Bill S-6 in 2014, which intended to make northern regulatory regimes more consistent with those in the south in order to attract investment and expand economic opportunities now and for future generations.

The bill, which was called the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, amended both YESAA and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, and was part of a broader suite of reforms intended to give northerners greater control over their resources and to help promote resource development and economic growth.

The changes to Nunavut's regulatory regime have not been controversial. Bill S-6 reflected many of the jointly agreed upon findings for the five-year review of YESAA, but also reflected changes to regulatory regimes in the rest of Canada, as well as input from Yukon's government.

Bill C-17 proposes to repeal many of the changes enabled by Bill S-6. These include removing time limits on the steps in the review process, removing an exemption for projects that have already been approved through the assessment process, removing the ability for the federal minister to provide binding policy direction to the board, and removing the ability to delegate the federal minister's powers, duties, or functions under the act to the territorial government.

At its core, the bill would make natural resources development much more difficult in Yukon for project proponents and investors. It would slow down the review process by increasing the number of projects that need to be reviewed and by removing timelines for approval. It would also damage industry and investment confidence in the regulatory regime. It is a step backward for the self-determination of Yukoners, because it takes away northern control over northern resources and puts it in the hands of federal ministers and of MPs from large, southern urban centres. Northerners know their needs and capabilities best and they should be equipped and empowered to make decisions for themselves.

However, Canadians should not be surprised. The Liberals have shown their cards, sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally, that prove they are fundamentally anti-Canadian energy and anti-Canadian resource development. The bill is another part of their plan to dismantle Canada's successful natural resources development.

Bill C-17 brings more uncertainty to the resource development review process that will undermine economic opportunities for all Yukoners. It also introduces new uncertainty for the rest of Canada about whether it is a template for the basis of Liberal policy going forward.

I had the amazing opportunity to visit Yukon last summer. Of course, the landscapes are breathtaking, the resources vast, and the people are friendly. However, what stood out to me was an almost universal and distinct, independent, pioneering, adventurous spirit, and a deep appreciation and abiding love for their land. It is the same can-do streak of Canadian miners.

The most important sector of Yukon's economy is mining. The territory is extremely rich in mineral potential. The main resources mined are gold, which in 2011 accounted for 70% of metal mining, copper, zinc, lead, tungsten, silver, and coal.

Yukon has some of the largest iron ore and zinc deposits in the world. There are over 80 mineral resource deposits there with enormous economic potential. Last year, more than $300 million was spent on exploration and mineral production soared above $400 million, from just $46 million in 2006, according to the Yukon Chamber of Mines.

The mining sector in Yukon is very successful, but it has challenges. Difficult access and rugged terrain of the territory make it difficult to access many of these deposits. That is where the federal government can assist, by investing in infrastructure and making it easier for developers to access resources across the territory, given all of the challenges.

Bill C-17 would not make any of this easier. In fact, it would make mining more difficult for many families who have been in the industry for generations.

Last fall, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources heard from several witnesses during a study on the future of the mining sector in Canada. Mike McDougall is the president of the Klondike Placer Miners' Association. He came to Ottawa representing the 160 family-owned and operated placer mines in Yukon. I would like to share his thoughts on Bill C-17. He said:

YESAA defines much of how the placer industry's operations are assessed for impacts and how these impacts are mitigated. Placer mining is the single-largest client of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board...

Issues such as costly and time-consuming reassessments for unchanged projects, inconsistency and lack of accountability between designated offices, and a lack of clear timelines all leave our industry with uncertainty. The amendments were meant to bring YESAA into line with the other Canadian jurisdictions, provide certainty for investment, and allow the Yukon to be competitive. As the government is now prepared to amend this legislation once again, we would like to see these issues addressed in the amended bill.

The federal government has heard the concerns of the first nations. As the number one client and end-user of the YESAA process, the KPMA expects that government will engage with us prior to finalizing any amendments.

Mr. McDougall's testimony highlights how uncertainty and ongoing regulatory changes and challenges will hinder their ability to fully engage in northern development, which should be a serious concern to the Liberals, since mining is the most important part of Yukon's economy. Putting up more roadblocks and adding more red tape is not the answer. Bill C-17 adds a barrier for investment as companies would be uncertain as to when a decision will be made.

Furthermore, the bill would immediately increase the regulatory burden and major costs for proponents, which would impact many working Yukoners and their families, since mining is a major employer in the territory. The bill would worsen the economic situation in the north by putting thousands out of work.

The Liberals claim consultation as a cornerstone of their platform, and they consistently refer to it as an important part of their legislative process, but in this case stakeholders such as the KPMA, which would be impacted significantly, were not consulted before the changes presented in Bill C-17 were hastily introduced last spring.

The Liberals' Ottawa-centric agenda is not working, and worse yet, they are not listening to those who are and will be worse off because of it. Their promise to simply repeal the controversial sections of Bill S-6 is yet another example of how they made promises during the election campaign without considering the consequences. Now they put Yukon at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of Canada for attracting private investment.

Their regulatory changes are not the only ways they are harming the north, though. The Liberals' carbon tax burdens northerners, their businesses, and their families more than any other region in the entire country. People in northern territories are already required to pay more in fuel and transportation expenses just to sustain the basic necessities of life and to get essentials to their communities. The carbon tax will victimize people who rely on these services.

The Prime Minister said his plan will be good for the economy, good for innovation, and good for jobs, but it is just not true. His carbon tax will cripple industry, hinder the economy, and drive up the cost of living for northerners. It will also mean northerners will pay more for food that is already more than four times more expensive than the costs elsewhere, along with other essential goods and products. Electricity will become unaffordable to communities that do not have any other source but diesel. In the north, the carbon tax is really a tax on living. In a place where home heating and travelling long distances is part of life, northerners cannot afford it, particularly when legislation like Bill C-17 forces further barriers to their most important economic driver, Canada's world-class mining sector.

Whether it is higher taxes, more red tape, or ongoing uncertainty, the Liberals make it clear that developing Canada's natural resources will be more difficult than ever before, everywhere. At a time when technology, research and development, and innovation are at an all-time high, the Liberals are attacking the very people who are ensuring the long-term and sustainable development of natural resources in Canada.

The bill would not help Yukon, a territory rich in natural beauty, natural resources, and irrepressible human capital. The Liberals are limiting opportunities for future generations and are just adding challenges to the north. The Liberals need to do what they have pledged all along. They need to listen.

That is why I oppose these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the sub-amendment and the amendment to the second reading motion of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, respectively standing in the name of the Member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and the Member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, be deemed negatived on division.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-17, a bill that would change significant amounts of a bill that was passed in the previous parliament, Bill S-6.

It is with some reluctance that I stand up today. I am quite concerned about the direction the current government is going. In particular, I am convinced that the government is certain that it does not want resource development to happen in this country. However, the Liberals are not willing to come out and directly say that. No, they are going to ensure resource development does not happen in this country in much the same way as they did when they said that they approved pipelines to the coast. They said, “We approved pipelines to the coast”, but they have no interest in those pipelines actually getting built.

I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Lakeland.

I sit on the northern and aboriginal affairs committee. I represent 14 first nations or Métis communities in my riding in northern Alberta. The north is where I come from. I always say to the people from Thunder Bay that if it is not still light at 11:30, they are really not in the north yet. They have to go where there is pretty much 24 hours of sunlight to understand what the north is all about.

However, it does give me some perspective for sure. Yukon is within sight, I like to say. I can nearly spit from my riding and hit Yukon, so it is within sight, so to speak, and I have some understanding of how things operate in the north.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is a straight shooter, and I appreciate her comments. She talked about the increase in red tape, uncertainty, and this new carbon tax. When I visited Yukon, I saw so much optimism there, so much potential for development. I am concerned that this bill would repeal major sections of Bill S-6, and at the end of the day, it is all about competitiveness.

I know the government is repealing a lot of things, but which part, if repealed, does the member think would be the most damaging to Yukon and its competitiveness?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, a predominantly small community in a rural riding of eastern Ontario with a significant number of jobs that rely on the land, I chose to participate in today's debate as someone who can empathize with the people of Yukon on how bad federal policy impacts rural people. In addition to representing the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to represent the people of northern Ontario as the Conservative Party critic for economic development for that region.

Like my riding in eastern Ontario and like Yukon, northern Ontario shares many of the challenges faced by residents north of the 60th parallel. Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, would directly undermine the economic well-being of people living in Yukon, but it should set off alarm bells for every Canadian about what kind of Liberals were elected in Ottawa. Canadians were pitched a story about a new warm and fuzzy, centrist Liberal Party. Instead, they got the old Liberal power brokers, trading votes and money for policies infused with the radical left-wing ideology of paternalist progressivism. It is like Frankenstein's monster. It is alive, and it has the brains of Dalton McGuinty bolted onto the body of a Chrétien-Martin money machine.

Bill C-17 is just the latest example of the horror story that is the current government. It is a story that can be told in three chapters: from cynical vote buying, to an arrogant Ottawa-knows-best attitude, and ending in despair and economic destruction. Let us start at the very beginning, a very good place to start, with chapter 1, entitled, “power brokers, or how I learned to stop stressing and fight the Liberal vote-buying machine”.

Bill C-17 comes straight out of the Liberals' campaign platform, so it is important that we look at how it was developed. Unlike our Conservative Party's grassroots approach to policy development, the Liberals outsourced to their pollsters, ad agencies, and special interest groups to cobble together “a chicken in every pot”. The pollsters, ad agencies, and focus groups wrote the headline promises the Liberals would promptly break, like Chrétien's promise to scrap the GST, or the current government's promise on electoral reform, or the promise of tiny deficits, or the promise of using deficits for infrastructure, or the promise of eventually ending deficits.

For the rest of the Liberal platform, they hit control-C to copy and paste lists of demands from various special interests who promise to deliver cash and votes. Those big promises test well but quickly get forgotten while the government gets to work delivering for its friends.

For the big promises the Liberals have not broken yet, the only reason is that, like legal weed, they made the promise having no clue of how they would make it happen. Therefore, they have to commission consultations—which is Liberal code-speak for hire their friends at taxpayer expense—to tell them how to do their job.

The promises in the platform they made to their lobbyist friends is the stuff that gets fast-tracked into legislation, which brings us back to Bill C-17. The government is rushing forward with a blunt instrument to enact a copy-and-past election promise. Instead, it should have worked with all the parties to ensure any amendments protected everyone's interests.

Let us take the section of the bill that would repeal time limits on the review process. The government claims the time limits are unnecessary because the review board already exceeds the current time limits in law. However, time limits provide certainty. That certainty is how we balance the interests of the environment and the interests of the economy. The environmental review is not the economic cost; it might even save the company from an expensive future cleanup. What costs the economy is the uncertainty and its invisible cost. We cannot see the jobs not created by the investments not made because of the uncertainty the government seeks to create. If the time limits are too short for a thorough review to protect the environment, we should lengthen the times or add additional resources.

The costs of review are recovered from the companies and they will be happy to pay the costs. They just want some certainty about what those costs will be and how long they have to pay for them. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. The environment gets protected and Canadians get economic certainty.

Therefore, why is the government being so unreasonable? Removing the time limits means reviews can be indefinitely delayed to satisfy the government's radical left-wing agenda.

That brings us to chapter two: paternalistic progressivism or how to shut up and do what Ottawa says.

Bill C-17 is symbolic of the government's approach to resource development and environmental protection. That approach is to dictate to the provinces and territories. The bill would remove the ability of federal governments to transfer powers, duties, or functions to the Yukon government. It would be one thing if the Liberal government just thought Ottawa knew best and just never used the power under the current law to transfer any power to the Yukon government. However, to repeal that section, to make it so no future government has the legal authority to transfer powers to the territory, shows Ottawa knows best. It is more than just a little attitude; it is part of a larger agenda.

The government clearly seeks to expand its powers and simply order the provinces and territories to do what it says. Look at how it imposed a carbon tax on the provinces. It does not matter if different regions have different economies; Ottawa has ordered a carbon tax, so a carbon tax it will be. Already Canadians living in rural and remote communities like the Yukon pay higher costs for food and energy. Now the government wants these Canadians to pay more for a regressive agenda.

At the very same time it is increasing the cost of doing business in Canada with carbon taxes, it wants to repeal time limits on environmental review. Its agenda is clear. It wants to phase out natural resource development by strangling the industry with higher costs and longer reviews. This is not about carbon emissions or protecting the environment. Nothing in Bill C-17 actually improves environmental protection. All it does is inject uncertainty into the Yukon economy, which is the point: create enough uncertainty and investors will look elsewhere. Of course, the government hopes those investor dollars will flow into one of its super-duper clusters located in urban centres.

That brings us to the final chapter of the Liberal horror story. If this chapter needs a title, it would be, “How the Liberals plan to spread their anti-development agenda across Canada”. Bill C-17 is like a Liberal test tube. It makes these changes in Yukon like an experiment to see how well they can strangle development. If they are successful in creating economic uncertainty up north, they will replicate it across the country. In fact, one of the government's very arguments for repeal of the time limits on environmental review is the claim they will be reviewed across Canada, so they might as well do away with Yukon's. This is not a hidden agenda; it just an under-reported agenda.

Bill C-17 is just one part of that agenda. Eliminating the exploration tax credit in the recent budget is another part of that agenda. Removing time limits on environment review is another part. A punishing country-wide carbon tax is just part of the same agenda. Higher taxes, fewer credits, more regulation, and longer reviews are all part of the same Liberal agenda to eliminate our natural resources industries. They will scoff and claim how much they support rural and remote Canada, but actions speak louder than the PMO's scripted talking points.

With every action the government takes, it injects uncertainty into the economy. Even worse, with the government's love of picking industrial winners and losers, we will soon see the hollowing out of many industries in rural and remote parts of Canada. This will force even more Canadians to migrate to the cities, leaving rural Canada even further depopulated. Across Canada, we will see more and more ghost towns.

This is truly a Liberal horror story, but it does not have to end this way. For one, those sitting on the government side could speak up in caucus and call on the government to reconsider. Perhaps there is a compromise that can be found on setting time limits rather than unilaterally repealing them. Did they even try to find one? Sadly, I doubt Canadians can rely on a common sense revolution within the Liberal back bench.

The only chance will likely be in replacing this incompetent government with one that takes campaign promises seriously, one that takes protecting the environment seriously, one that takes growing our economy seriously. Fortunately for Canadians, we have a Conservative Party with a better story to tell.

For example, we created the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency in 2009, a new stand-alone agency that not only benefited the development of the entire Canadian north, but directly benefited local businesses and entrepreneurs by providing them with better access to lines of credit, loan guarantees, and other things to foster growth.

Bill S-6, passed in 2015, amended the YESSA and granted further autonomy to Yukon by giving the federal minister the power to delegate federal powers to the Yukon government, or establishing timelines for environmental assessments so the process could be completed in a timely manner, without forgetting the importance of environmental sustainability.

That is just some of what we did for Yukon, which was part of a larger strategy to responsibly develop Canada's natural resources. We can protect the environment and develop our natural resources. It is not even a question of picking between the two. However, the Liberals have decided they will pick. Bill C-17 shows they pick. They picked more uncertainty. They picked less investment. They picked fewer jobs.

Hopefully, when Canadians next go to the polls, they will pick a different government. Hopefully, they will pick the one like they had before. Prior to the last federal election, with a Conservative government in place, Canada was successfully working to secure a position as the world's superpower in energy production. We were ensuring that Canada's precious natural resources were being developed in a way that respected the economy, by creating jobs and respecting the environment, without pitting one against the other.

Unlike the current government, with its policy of burdening future generations with its high deficit policy and the spectre of huge tax increases to pay for out of control spending today, the Conservatives believe a healthy environment and a job should be our legacy for our children's children to enjoy. It was in that context that we brought forth legislation to benefit northerners in the last Parliament.

Bill C-17, in stark contrast to the Conservative policy of job creation and a balanced budget, is symbolic of the government's approach to resource development and environmental protection. The Liberal Party is committed to a policy of fostering a lack of public trust in any environmental process. It is called “delay, delay, delay until the project collapses”. It demonstrates to Canadians, and to the world, that confusing environmental regulations and a weak economy go hand in hand, which is the Liberal government's policy on the economy and the environment.

With Bill C-17, Yukon's economic development is in jeopardy. It is an attack on natural resource development. The bill would remove provisions that would limit the length of time for environmental review. This action adds a barrier for investment, as companies are now uncertain as to when a decision will be made. There will be an immediate increase in the regulatory burden on proponents. The mining industry will face the largest impact, and it is a major employer in Yukon.

Bill C-17 would further worsen the economic situation in the north by putting thousands of Canadians out of work, while denying the opportunity of future Canadians to find employment in that region.

The proposed legislation removes northern independence. It is a proven fact that government undermines economic opportunity, in this case Yukon, by adding unnecessary red tape to the environmental review process. It threatens jobs in the private sector and investment.

The Liberal government is taking power away from the people of Yukon and not allowing them to make decisions that concern the development of their communities. Part of the policy interference when it comes to natural resource development is to create uncertainty in the review process. Our Conservative government worked hard to strengthen environmental protections and streamline the regulatory process in order to promote northern development while protecting the unique relationship between northerners and the land.

The removal of time limits and option for exempting renewals fits well with the ongoing narrative that Liberals use a false concern for the environment to introduce unnecessary delays and uncertainty into our regulatory processes. This will impact on the economy, similar in the manner that was used by Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's principal adviser, and how he directed the Toronto Liberal Party to use the pretext of saving the environment to jack electricity prices to unaffordably high rates in order to shut down tens of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector in Ontario.

The Liberals' promise to repeal certain sections of previous Conservative government legislation is just another example of how green ideology over there trumps common sense. This change puts Yukon at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of Canada for attracting private investment. Yukon has huge jobs potential that only comes with development. The Liberal government is intent on adding stress to an already troubled industry through the addition of extra red tape, an unclear, unpredictable evaluation system, and the politicization of the final determination of projects.

This legislation hurts workers in Yukon and it hurts the heavily taxed middle class across Canada. Not only do the Prime Minister and his closest Toronto advisers not understand that northern development creates jobs, they prefer to create a patchwork of regulatory regimes across the country with no regard for cross-Canada economic development. There are many other examples of the bad practice of only listening to Toronto-based advisers with under-reported agendas on the environment, agendas that are based on junk science.

This is an intervention where no intervention is necessary. Yukon is already suffering from the federal 2016 budget measure to unfairly tax family campgrounds. It is absolutely ironic when I hear the Liberals claim they will replace lost resource jobs when the legislation we are discussing today goes into effect. They claim that jobs can be replaced by developing tourism. Promote the environment by promoting tourism. It sounds catchy. The reality is the Liberal Party brought in legislation that unfairly targets family-owned campgrounds in its 2016 budget. They reason that some slick city accountants have found a way to create a tax loophole using campgrounds.

The Liberal Party responds by attacking all campgrounds without taking into consideration private, family-run campgrounds. That attack is an insult to every husband and wife team working 18 hours a day in a seasonal business. The Minister of Finance could care less about family campgrounds. He has a vacation property, a holiday villa in the south of France. The Prime Minister uses the taxpayer dime to party in the Caribbean on a friend's private island in the Bahamas, someone who just happens to benefit from receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer handouts from the federal government.

Campgrounds offer an opportunity for families to spend time together, create lifelong memories, and discover Canada's natural landscape. It is an activity dominated by the middle class as their form of rest, relaxation, and entertainment. Camping creates a sense of community that is unique to this form of travel accommodation.

In Yukon, of the 60 campgrounds that operate over 2,000 campsites, there is one federal campground and it has all of 39 sites. Unlike the private campgrounds that are serviced, all the sites at the federal park are unserviced. In addition to providing services like water and sewer hook-up and electrical plug-ins, private campgrounds on average stay open one month longer. Taking away privately owned family campgrounds takes away local tourism in that industry and the jobs that go with it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-17.

I was a member of the aboriginal and indigenous affairs committee when we started to finish up the initial bill, which was through the Senate, Bill S-6. I understand concerns were raised. However, I have heard many times in the House today from the other parties about this lack of consultation.

There was a great deal of consultation as we moved through this process. Again, that was highlighted by my colleague's previous comments with the fact that of the 76 elements of the legislation, 72 had strong support and consent. There were four areas that needed to be discussed and were discussed. There was a great deal of consultation. Our committee even travelled to Yukon to meet face-to-face with government officials, industry, and representatives from indigenous communities. It was a process done in partnership with the communities, which is important to note.

I raised some concern with dismantling some of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA and the precedent the Liberal government was setting. I am very concerned with the future economic development opportunities of the Yukon and other territories if we take some key elements out of YESAA, such as the moratorium on Arctic drilling and the tanker ban off B.C.'s northern coast. Now there is a carbon tax. It seems that limits will be put on communities in Canada's north over and over. They rely heavily on natural resource development and the economic opportunities that brings to those communities. They will be further restricted, not only by taking some of these elements from YESAA, but part of the bill would also add additional bureaucracy and red tape to the approval process.

In my home province of Alberta, more than $50 billion in capital investment have left the province. A big part of that was the downturn in oil prices, but we have been through that before. The most significant impact has been the federal carbon tax, provincial carbon tax, and axing the discovery of well tax credit. All of these things are having an impact, and we have seen the devastating effects this has had on Alberta. I fear the next areas to start to feel this and the implications of these Liberal policies will be Yukon and some of these other northern territories.

However, Bill C-17 would change four key areas. I mentioned that we had near consensus on 72 out of 76 elements of YESAA. Now we want to address time limits on the review process; in fact, removing these timelines. My colleague in the New Democratic Party, who I respect a great deal, talked a little about why it was important to remove these timelines. It is because we need to discuss these issues long term. I think he was saying that we were looking at 500 years down the road.

We are not going to attract investment from the energy sector. We would not have large private-sector companies, maybe in partnership with the public sector, municipalities, provinces, and territories. They will not invest in a project if they do not see a clear goal or clear timeline to approval or denial. If they see there are no timelines in place or very limited timelines on the review process, they will not take that chance. They will take their investment dollars and put them in jurisdictions where they know they have a chance to succeed, or at least a very clearly defined process on how to get to that place. They will take their investments, as we see right now, to the United States, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other countries where they will have a much better ability to get a return on their investment or at least see their project be approved. However, by eliminating those timelines, we will not be making our territory or jurisdiction attractive to capital investment, especially when it comes to the natural resource sector.

When we were in government, looking at Bill S-6 and making these changes to YESSA, we wanted to empower Yukon, the territories and the communities in these jurisdictions to make these decisions for themselves. That was a key element to this. We wanted to ensure Yukon and the communities in Yukon had a level playing field that was comparable to the rest of Canada. We wanted to ensure the regulatory process and the review timelines were the same for Yukon as they were in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. We wanted to ensure there were no obstacles or detriments to attracting new capital investment to Yukon.

That is one of the reasons why Bill S-6 was so important. It was intended to make the northern regulatory regimes more consistent with other provinces. The key to that was to ensure Yukon would not be at a competitive disadvantage compared to other jurisdictions. We wanted to ensure these reforms also gave northern communities greater control over their future. They would have more impact and more say on what resource development would happen and what economic growth opportunities would be available.

We wanted to ensure there was predictability with these projects. We wanted to ensure there was certainty for proponents, regulators and governments, as well as aboriginal and indigenous communities. When they are making these decisions, we want to ensure they have all the information available to them, including timelines, and predictability. The process of getting those to conclusion is also very important.

The removal of these timelines as part of the review process shows we were introducing unnecessary delays in the approval process. We see the impact that has with other infrastructure projects across Canada when it comes to our energy sector. We want to ensure Yukon has an opportunity for economic development.

A good example of that is when I was at the PDAC conference in Toronto earlier this year. I had an opportunity to meet with stakeholders from the mining industry in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut. They talked about the importance of the mining industry in those remote northern communities. We also did a mining study at the natural resources committee. Certainly, a very high priority was not only their ability to do business and work with their indigenous communities, but also the importance of having that strict timeline as part of the regulatory review process.

The stakeholders at the PDAC meeting told me that the carbon tax on its own would cost their two companies combined about $25 million. These projects may not even go ahead because of that tax. How can we have new economic opportunities in these northern and remote communities that need it if private-sector companies do not see a friendly government at the federal level, which wants to embrace these opportunities for the northern communities?

When stakeholders of two major projects in the tens of millions of dollars are now questioning their future, their ability to be successful, and may move out, other companies will follow. When we add the ban on Arctic drilling, the moratorium on tanker traffic off the coast of northern B.C., a carbon tax, and now red tape and bureaucracy to the regulatory regime and review process, they simply will not go ahead. Rather, they will look for other areas that they feel are more business-friendly and more friendly to economic and resource development.

The key there is that Yukon was one of the most attractive territories and jurisdictions in Canada for mining companies and for mining projects and to invest in new opportunities. Yukon very quickly fell down that chart not only in Canada, but around the world because of the regulatory regime in place. Bill S-6 was an attempt to clean that up to ensure Yukon would not be at a competitive disadvantage. We wanted to ensure Yukon remained in that top five as not only a jurisdiction that was welcoming, had willing partners, and offered great opportunities, but also had a regulatory regime in place that allowed these things to happen.

Therefore, Bill C-17 is a step backward with respect to resource development and economic opportunity in Yukon. We have to be extremely concerned about that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for her speech on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, and I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his hard work on this matter and for his leadership.

We are neighbours. As a British Columbian, I feel very closely connected to Yukon. We share many important values around respect for the environment. Trying to find balance with the environment and the economy is very important to both of us in our province and territory, as well as trying to find balance in working with indigenous people on a nation-to-nation basis and trying to move forward from the wrongs and policies of the past.

The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA, was an opportunity for us to move forward. It implemented the environmental assessment framework set out in the Yukon umbrella agreement. That agreement, which Yukoners worked so hard to get, was a multi-faceted stakeholder agreement led by indigenous people with government. In June 2015, the Harper government passed Bill S-6, amending YESAA. This bill was opposed by the NDP in Yukon, so we share those values.

The opposition was based on four changes to YESAA that the Yukon first nations opposed.

First, time limits were imposed on the review process. I cannot understand why we would put a time limit on looking at something that is going to have an impact on people for generations to come, for hundreds and hundreds of years. Where I live, the indigenous people like to look at the economy and look at a forecast and a plan of what it is going to look like for the next 500 years, not the next five years. It is very important to understand that this is a very in-depth process, especially when development in the north has left environmental damage and a legacy of cleanups impacting the local people.

Second, changes were implemented to allow the minister to give binding policy direction to the board overseeing the environmental and socio-economic assessment process.

Third, the bill provided a delegation of authority that allows the minister to delegate any or all of the federal minister's powers, duties, or functions to the Yukon government and change the requirement for additional assessments to only where the project has been significantly changed.

We led the fight against these changes being unilaterally imposed by the Harper regime and we have fought to reverse them since the passage of Bill S-6. On October 14, 2015, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and the Teslin Tlingit Council took these legislative changes to the Supreme Court of Yukon. Their case says these changes are inconsistent with their final land agreements. They have agreed to put the litigation on hold to see if Parliament will pass this bill to roll back these changes.

We support this bill for this very reason. We want to get these cases out of court and work on moving forward together. Unfortunately, these changes did exactly the opposite. They put confrontation at the front of this.

Bill C-17 proposes to remove these four changes that were unilaterally imposed by the Harper government. We have been leading the fight against these harmful provisions, which were aimed at dismantling the environmental and socio-economic assessment process in Yukon. This process was developed in Yukon, by Yukoners, for Yukon, and the Harper government imposed these changes without consultation with Yukon first nations.

We are willing partners in working with the Liberal government to roll back the damage from the Harper Conservatives, but New Democrats know we must do more for indigenous peoples in Canada than merely roll back these damaging changes, and that is where the Liberal government has continued to fall short.

We are still seeing indigenous people in court. In my riding, the Nuu-chah-nulth are still in court regarding their right to catch and sell fish. They won. In the Supreme Court of Canada, the case was thrown out twice in support of the Nuu-chah-nulth and their right to catch and sell fish, yet the government is still dragging it out.

The Huu-ay-aht won a case in the rights tribunal, and the government has also now challenged that case, so we need to do more. We are calling on the present government to stop fighting indigenous people in court.

In addition to the provisions in this bill, the Liberal government must reverse the Harper government's unilateral imposition of a new fiscal agreement on the first nations in Yukon.

In terms of some context or background, YESAA was established in 2003 in fulfillment of an obligation in the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. In October 2007, the five-year review of YESAA was initiated, and it was completed in 2012. Due to a disagreement over the recommendations, the review was never made public. The amendments were developed through a secretive process.

Bill S-6 unilaterally rewrote the Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system. This system was the product of the Umbrella Final Agreement, which settled most of the first nations' land claims in the territory. YESAA is seen by most residents of the territory as a made-in-Yukon solution to the unique environmental and social circumstances of the territory, while the changes proposed in Bill S-6 were seen as being imposed from the outside to satisfy southern resource development companies.

The New Democrats opposed Bill S-6 because it was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon first nations and the residents of the Yukon. It was not supported by the majority of them.

Yukon first nations took these changes to the Yukon Supreme Court. On October 14, 2015, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and the Teslin Tlingit Council took these legislative changes to the Supreme Court of Yukon. Their case states that these changes are inconsistent with the final land claim agreements. They have agreed to put the litigation on hold, as I stated earlier, to see if Parliament will pass this bill and roll back these changes.

As we know, Bill C-17 proposes to remove the four changes that I discussed earlier.

We support this bill. A few people have spoken about the situation, and I would like to mention some. In her testimony before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on February 25, 2016 , Grand Chief Ruth Massie, from the Council of Yukon First Nations, stated:

You're right. This fiscal policy is being imposed. We have not accepted it because of the language in our agreement. How is it going to affect us if it goes forward? We have no choice but to defend our agreements. That means going back to court because that's not what the provisions in our agreements say.

That is when she is referencing Bill S-6. I could read quotes all day from leaders from the Yukon in support of rolling back these changes.

We know that in this agreement, the Harper government systematically weakened environmental protection legislation, with no public consultation and little parliamentary oversight. Since coming to power, the Liberal government has not done enough to systematically reverse these changes, but we are very happy to see this as a step forward.

I congratulate the member for Yukon again for moving this forward and for working hard so that we can do what we need to do. We need to ensure that laws changing the implementation of land claim agreements can only be made with full and active consultation with and participation of first nation governments. We need to understand that YESAA is a made-in-Yukon environmental assessment process, so any changes to it must only be done with broad public consultation and participation.

The NDP has led the fight against these changes and to support YESAA because we understand they diminished the rights won by Yukoners through the devolution process.

Again, we support this bill. We are excited to see this opportunity for us to roll back these changes and for the people of Yukon in order to move forward.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to let the House know that I will not be nearly as exuberant as the previous speaker, and I apologize for that.

It is important for everybody also to know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni on this very important issue.

Today, I will address Bill C-17, a bill that would amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. As the title suggests, this bill does not directly affect my beautiful riding of North Island—Powell River in B.C. Nonetheless, I am happy to rise today to speak to these amendments for first nations and Yukoners whose voices were lost and opposition eerily ignored in the last Parliament.

Without affecting my riding directly, the matter at hand is a very important example of the behaviour lauded during the Harper years. This legacy reverberated in all ridings across Canada. We should not forget that this approach was alienating and downright contrary to the idea of a nation-to-nation relationship.

As the Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson said, in a public letter:

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.

We are here today to repeal the most damaging clauses in Harper's Bill S-6.

In 1993, after 20 years of discussions, the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Yukon reached an agreement concerning the management of land and resources in Yukon and the settlement of land claims. Chapter 12 of this agreement called for the establishment of federal development assessment legislation. This obligation was fulfilled in 2003 with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

The five-year review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act was completed in March 2012. Due to a disagreement over the recommendations, the review was never made public. The amendments were developed through a secretive process, yet at the end of it came Bill S-6, which unilaterally rewrote the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. Bill S-6 imposed time limits on the review process. It implemented changes to allow the minister to give binding policy direction to the board overseeing the environmental and socio-economic assessment process. Bill S-6 provided a delegation of authority that allows the minister to delegate any or all of a federal minister's powers, duties, or functions to the Yukon government, and it also changed the requirement for additional assessments to only where the project has been significantly changed.

New Democrats have been leading the fight against these harmful provisions unilaterally imposed by the Harper Conservatives to dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process. This process was developed in Yukon, by Yukoners, for Yukon, and the Harper government imposed these changes without consultation. Like many of Stephen Harper's agendas, this fell into the hands of the courts. On October 14, 2015, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and the Teslin Tlingit Council took these legislative changes to the Supreme Court of Yukon. Their case states that these changes are inconsistent with their final land claim agreements.

Grand Chief Ruth Massie stated:

It is very unfortunate that Yukon First Nations are forced to bring this matter to the courts. But after numerous overtures to the Harper Government resulting in no compromise or real effort to accommodate First Nations’ interests, Yukon First Nations are left with no choice but to defend our rights and established treaty processes. This Petition has broad based support, but we hope the case won’t have to go the distance once a friendlier federal government assumes power in the coming weeks.

Some will see this dismantling of the Harper legislative agenda by the courts as judicial activism, but I caution members to acknowledge the reason we are here. Bill S-6 represented a complete lack of co-operation. It was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon first nations and the residents of Yukon, and it was not supported by the majority of them. Moreover, many provisions in the review were not addressed during the review the government unilaterally imposed on the system.

Forty years of discussion have resulted in a unique relationship between first nations, Yukon, and Canada. The steps of Bill S-6 were an example of the realities. When one bullies one's way through, this does not lead to relationship building.

In addition to the provisions in the bill, the Liberal government must reverse the Harper government's unilateral imposition of a new fiscal agreement on first nations in the Yukon. Not directly associated with any provisions within Bill C-17, two weeks before the writ was dropped the Harper government unilaterally imposed a new fiscal agreement on comprehensive land claim agreements, including first nations in the Yukon. This new approach was produced and adopted behind closed doors with no meaningful consultation. It undermines these treaties and cannot be implemented without breaching these agreements.

It is the opposite of a nation-to-nation approach. In November 2015, the Land Claims Agreement Coalition, which includes first nations in the Yukon, wrote the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs requesting the immediate suspension of the previous government's fiscal approach as it was incompatible with their treaties. Too often we have seen this top-down approach failing indigenous communities across Canada.

The Harper government systematically weakened environmental protection legislation with no public consultation and little parliamentary oversight. Since coming to power, the Liberal government has done little to reverse these very important changes. Sadly, the Liberals are also still using Stephen Harper's inadequate targets that will not allow us anywhere close to meeting our international commitments, and nothing in their plan does anything to address this ever-growing, gaping problem. We have seen Liberal and Conservative governments repeatedly make international commitments and then fall very short of following through, and so far the current government looks no different.

New Democrats will be raising the continued refusal of the government to fix the National Energy Board review process, as the Liberals committed to in the last election. It is important that all energy projects be subject to a credible and thorough environmental assessment that allows for public participation, respects indigenous rights, and considers the impacts of value-added jobs.

New Democrats are willing partners to work with the Liberal government to roll back the damage from the Harper Conservatives, but New Democrats also know that we must do better with indigenous people in Canada, that merely rolling back these damaging changes is one step, but it is not enough, and that is where the Liberal government has continued to fall short.

I look forward to seeing some positive movements in the future, and I will continue to do my work in this House to make sure that happens.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of comments, so I will try to keep my rebuttal brief.

As for clause 1, the delegation to territorial ministers, I do not think the member talked about that one. When an authority is delegated to a territorial minister, the decision is brought much closer to the population it affects. The presumption in the bill is basically that somehow the territorial ministers and the territorial government cannot make decisions, and the people there cannot keep them accountable. That is a worrisome change. I also do not think that delegation is somehow an abdication or surrender of responsibility.

Another significant change is clause 2, which would amend the act to repeal section 49.1. That removes an important pro-job amendment introduced by Bill S-6, although the member did not appreciate my commentary about Bill S-6 and called my remarks anachronistic. This piece of legislation is trying to overshadow the kind of desperate policy dives that the Liberals are doing in every single direction, trying to find something that will work to create jobs, anything, even if it is public service jobs, doing more regulatory work, overseeing more paperwork with more red tape, catching more companies, more people, and more projects, in this regulatory environment that they are creating.

No piece of legislation is perfect, and this is much more imperfect than the usual ones. I could go through clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 about the time limits that the Liberals have introduced. I disagree with the member's characterization that there will still be some time limits. They are all fuzzy and washed out, and there is no certainty for companies. Those would be my comments to the member's commentary on the bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoy the member. I enjoy debating with him on PROC, and it is great to debate with him in the House. His speech would have been a perfect speech to bring forward Bill S-6, because all the things he talked about were what Bill S-6 hurt in our economy. Therefore, it was a bit of an anachronistic speech.

Economic development, for instance, has been slowed down. Companies cannot move forward. As we know, the environmental assessment is tied up in the courts, which has slowed down the assessment.

He talked about northern control over northern resources, and that is exactly what the complaint was. That is why this is coming forward. I am not sure if the member was here when I mentioned earlier that there were two very large public gatherings of people pretty upset with the federal government because it had taken northern control and imposed these items on northern resources. That led to the great uncertainty we have right now with environmental assessments, which will be reduced once Bill C-17 is passed.

There was talk about different approvals, and exactly why the YESAA process led the country. In other parts of the country they would have to go to different levels of government. The brilliance in the YESAA legislation is that for the first nations, the Yukon government, and the federal government, it goes through the one process, and that applies to all the governments, as to whose land it can be on.

I am glad he mentioned that we reinstated the mineral exploration tax credit. We fought hard for that. I thank the finance minister for putting that back in. Some of the members he quoted, particularly David Morrison and Samson Hartland, wholeheartedly support Bill C-17 now.

The last point I want to make is on the timelines. Virtually all the speakers in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have suggested there is a lack of timelines, but timelines exist now. They exist for the designated office, which is the office that makes the decision coming out of the recommendations of the YESAA board. It has timelines, and they are already in regulations.

For the other two processes on the assessments for the designated office, which is for the small projects, and the executive board, which is for the larger projects, those decisions are policy decisions. They are set in rules on the board.

I just wanted to make those points. This will ally all the fears the member talked about in his speech.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear from my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. Hopefully I have pronounced that correctly. I always struggle with it. This House has some interesting riding names; many of them I avoid saying. Again, that speaks to the fact that in this House we have many members who have a great deal of technical knowledge who bring it to the House in order to explain their viewpoints on the value of a particular bill, either based on the clause-by-clause assessment they bring to it or because they have, perhaps, concerns of principle and differ on principle with the direction the government is taking.

I am pleased to rise on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Obviously I do not entirely agree with all of the content, but I want to bring up a few points, perhaps, on clause-by-clause issues that I have with the bill, the intent of the bill, and the possible consequences of it.

With that in mind, I do have a Yiddish proverb. Many members know I care much for the Yiddish language, especially the proverbs, and this one is “A fool says what he knows and a wise man knows what he says.” What I hope to live up to in this speech is very much the latter instead of the former, so judge me based on when I am done at the end of it.

I think the bill again represents the positive and sunny attitude the government has taken on, the sunny agenda of just taking the entire accomplishments of the previous government and wrecking them, whether it is the economy, the low-tax environment, the success in the economy in more general terms and also specific sectors that did so well, and then the legislative initiatives that actually made it easier to create jobs, made it easier to develop an approach, and gave us the certainty that if we put a project forward, we were going to get an answer, a yes or a no, and some type of content so that we could decide as a shareholder, a company owner, or a worker whether it was worth pursuing or not. That simply does not exist anymore if we go ahead with this particular piece of legislation.

Revoking everything that our government has done is not a positive agenda. I want to make that point, because that is consistently what I see here. A bill that was passed by a private member in this House before, the member for Foothills, was torn apart by the government.

Again, this is another continuation of that positive sunny attitude, and I say that with a great deal of sarcasm in this House.

It is typical of a government, I feel, that has no clear or credible plan, whether it comes to the economy or whether it comes to ensuring jobs are created by the private sector. It does not really have a plan. We saw that in the budget as well. It just went all over the place. It did not have a focus to it, and now we are spending a Monday debating a bill that would make it more difficult to grow the economy in the Yukon.

That is my personal belief, of course. The member for Yukon is here, and he sits on the opposite benches, which is most unfortunate, because I do appreciate his chairing the House procedures committee and I have been there many times now. I am so glad we are able to have a debate here, he and I, and that he can listen to me debate Bill C-17 during daytime hours as opposed to midnight hours.

Again, I really do believe that Bill C-17 would make it more difficult for companies, workers, and shareholders to move forward with some type of understanding that they will have the project assessed in a reasonable amount of time and have a decision rendered upon it.

One of the reasons I have for opposing the bill is that it is a step backwards for the self-determination of Yukoners. It takes away northern control over northern resources.

Members will disagree with me, but I still think it is that “Ottawa knows best” attitude. I feel that is the vein in this bill. As someone from Alberta, representing a constituency full of people from all across Canada who have made Alberta their home, who have chosen Alberta, we have this strong attitude that Ottawa has this kind of vibe that it knows best. They come to our city, to our province, pretending they can fix all of our problems. The best thing they could ever do is simply stay out of our province. We can handle things ourselves. I think many people in the territories and the other provinces would feel the same way.

Another reason to oppose the bill is that it introduces unnecessary delays and a potential for delays. I think it's the potential for delays, the uncertainty that the bill continues to create and aggravate, that is far more critical to this debate.

I will bring forward my experience. I actually worked for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development in Alberta, which took care of fish and wildlife, lands, water, biodiversity, forestry, so it was very much the ministry responsible for an entire landscape of Alberta and the industrial development happening on it, whether people like it or not. I know there are many members in different parts of this House who do not like industrial development. They do not like timber. They do not seem to like oil and gas. They do not seem to like the products and the fruits of the labour of individuals who create wealth, and then we get to put up buildings such as this. We get to renovate buildings. We get to grow the economy. The jobs created are created, again, by the private sector. They allow us to create that wealth and to trade and find opportunities to meet each other's needs.

I also think, as a last reason to oppose this, that it puts Yukon at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of Canada because, again, the system of approvals will differ from some of the provinces to some of the territories, and I think that is an error. I think, as much as possible—because companies in Canada operate throughout all jurisdictions; the really large ones are interested in large energy or mining infrastructure projects—we should ensure that they have the same rules apply to them wherever they go because it is much simpler for their technical staff, the workers who are there, to understand the rules and make sure they can comply with them.

Bill C-17 shows, yet again, a deep disdain for natural resources and energy workers. This is something that many constituents of mine have expressed, through email, in phone calls, and at open houses that I have had. There is this continued kind of dislike. Being in mining and energy development is just not trendy or, as was in the budget, innovative. The word “innovative” was used 212 times in the budget. I think “small business” was used six times. It is a supercluster of innovation. I do not know what these buzzwords in the budget really mean. They were just slammed together. I think it was called a “word salad” at one point.

The resource industry and the mining industry are some of the most innovative industries. The workers there spend years upon years getting a technical education that allows them to develop these resources responsibly, which is what they want to do, very much. They are hearing that the government is making it more difficult to develop mining and energy projects, that there is even just the potential for extra difficulty. There is the potential for projects not being approved within 18 months or 24 months, or for being denied with no explanation. It concerns them, because some of them have put two years of their life into trying to find a way to meet the approval requirements. Now they may be faced with potential changes again, and there might be more changes down the line that the government may want to make.

In the budget we saw changes to some of the ways mining tax credits and the exploration tax credits work. All of those things add up. It has a cumulative impact on industry. We always hear about cumulative impacts on the environment, but the decisions being made by the government are having a cumulative impact on industry. It will affect jobs, GDP growth, and child poverty rates. The government is paying itself through these metrics that it will have to meet some day. Again, it likely will not be able to.

Without clear and predictable timelines, it is impossible for companies and their workers, as I said, to plan anything. We have had the pipeline debate in Canada. I know there were some approvals that the government went through, but there was also cancellation of the northern gateway. That had a big impact on Calgary. It had a big impact on companies, and the certainty they had that a process that was followed to a T by companies would actually end with an approval and the jobs that come with it. Even though there was an approval, it did not mean the company would be able to go ahead and build, if they thought the government would change the rules and arm the opponents of the project with extra judicial or legal tools to try to delay the project. All of these things matter.

As we have seen over the past weeks, many international companies are leaving Calgary, leaving their head offices, selling off their assets, and basically abandoning Alberta, because they do not feel they can make a good enough return.

The energy industry in Alberta, western Canada, and in the northern territories and Yukon is still hurting. I am still hearing from my constituents who are still considering work outside of Canada or in one of the eastern provinces, because they just cannot find work in the sector that they have trained for their entire lives. Alberta spent a generation trying to find the requisite human resources, the workers who we desperately needed to fill the jobs. It was the same for Yukon. People from the Yukon travelled to Calgary. I used to work in human resources; we had people travelling.

Companies were actively recruiting workers in Calgary with amazing compensation packages, just trying to bring them to Yukon and trying to convince them that it was worth taking two, three, or four years making incredible pay, making an incredible contribution to the economy there. Now it is not happening anymore.

I believe Bill C-17 will only make things worse. What the Liberal government is doing through this specific piece of legislation is just spreading that joy and sunny ways all across western Canada and into the north now. We have seen what it has done to the economy in western Canada with two consecutive budgets. There is a pittance, in terms of job creation. There is no business confidence that good times will return. There is no certainty in the regulatory environment that a project put forward today will receive approval within 18 or 24 months.

That is what many of these companies want. It is not just for the companies, not just for the shareholders, but it is for the workers. If individuals are going to spend two years of their life trying to meet the regulatory requirements of the government, that is two years of what I would call red tape.

One person's red tape is another person's responsible accountability, but two years, three years, four years? What about the Mackenzie gas pipeline? What about the millions of hours of worker time spent on a project that never ever went ahead?

I am not a biologist. I am also, thankfully, not a lawyer, with all due respect to the lawyers in this House. I am just speaking a bit from my time working for the minister of sustainable resource development, because it informs how I view the bill specifically.

That department took care of public lands, grazing leases, forestry, mining, energy leases, fish and wildlife, wildlife management areas, wildlife protection, and provincial parks. It took care of forestry, the economics, the leases, the public lands associated with it, the regulations governing the industry. It was what I would call almost like a hodgepodge of different types of sectors of what the government is so-called responsible for, setting the rules of the game for different companies and different individuals who want to participate in it.

I will be the first to say that I am a city boy. I have lived all my life in big cities. I was born in a large city, Danzig, in Poland. My parents came to Montreal. That was the city I grew up in. I have lived in Calgary. I have lived in Edmonton. I have lived in Ottawa. I have lived in many great, large urban centres, but working for this department gave me a much greater appreciation for the breadth of activity across Alberta and the breadth of industrial activity and what industrial activity actually means to the people on the ground, to the jobs, the families, the incomes that it creates. How can government make it simpler for industrial activity to happen in a responsible way?

I do not think Bill C-17 accomplishes that. I think it takes a step backward. I think it makes it more complicated to meet the requirements that the government might support. Again, it is a lack of confidence. There is a general lack of confidence with people here that this government actually has it right, that it actually knows what it is doing.

We look at things like the economics of development, the certainty of decision-making, that when one puts forward one's project, it would be approved, or not approved, with very clear reasons why it would not go ahead.

Many workers I speak to, energy workers and mining workers, take an immense amount of pride in the work they do, and it goes from worker to management. It really does not matter. Even the families take pride in this too. More often than not, what they are looking for is ensuring that the industrial footprint of the projects they are connected to, they are working on, becomes kind of exemplary. We could almost think of that as a postcard. This is how we do development.

That is true for Alberta. That is true for Saskatchewan. That is true for every single western province. It is true for everywhere in Canada. Nobody goes out there with the intention of wrecking the environment. That is just the point. I think we have it inverted in Bill C-17. I think it comes with the presupposition that industrial development is automatically wrong and we should not move ahead with it.

That is fundamentally an issues of principles. That is not how it works. It should not be thought of in that way. I think, with the vast majority of energy workers, mining workers, what they are looking forward to is having the best possible stewardship rules that they can apply, and the certainty that their projects will go ahead or not, but with very clear reasons why they cannot go ahead, so they can try to meet them in the future. They do not need the government hanging over their shoulder telling them what to do every which way. They can do it themselves. They are the experts in the field. They are the ones who accumulate decades of traditional knowledge on the ground, working with aboriginal groups, working with different companies, because they may switch companies as well. They are also working in those communities, getting a better understanding of the lay of the land and the impacts that industrial development will have.

Albertans have fought ardently for that good stewardship concept. The minister I used to work for was known as a kind of right-wing environmentalist. At the time, Ted Morton was well respected in the environmental community, because he did quite a bit of work on land-use management on the forestry industry side, but especially on fish and wildlife, ensuring that the resource was well looked after, but that the rules of the game were consistent and certain. Consistency and certainty were the main things that both the political staff and the civil servants were responsible for, and again, with Bill C-17, it worries me that we just may not see that.

On Bill C-17, just to refer back to a few points I made before and why I think it is an error and why I oppose a great deal of the bill, I think it does take away northern independence. I do think it is an attack on natural resources development, mining, energy, and forestry, potentially. I think it does add uncertainty into the review process. I think the removal of the timelines and the option for exempting renewals fits well with the ongoing narrative on that side.

Introducing unnecessary delays and uncertainty into our regulatory process is not the right way to go when we are trying to induce or convince companies that they should be creating jobs. We are creating quite the opposite. Multinational companies are very much leaving Canada or leaving the jurisdictions in Canada where they are working right now because they do not think they can earn a return on their investment.

Many domestic companies, good Alberta-based, B.C.-based, Yukon-based companies, which would like to take a chance and be entrepreneurial and take a risk, are uncertain what is going to happen. These rules change today and perhaps the rules will change again in a year or two years down the line. If innovation is the name of the game, then maybe we should call all these mining projects superclusters and just call it the supercluster diamond mine, the supercluster energy development, the supercluster pipeline. If the name of the game is the buzzword, then maybe they could meet it if they are just told which buzzwords to use.

Also, I fear the impact to the economy. Bill S-6, the original bill that made those amendments, was reasonable. I was not a member at the time, but I remember some of those debates and I have gone through Hansard to see what leading members of the business community in Yukon were saying about it at the time.

I have an article I want to refer to before I go into those comments from the debates at the time. It is called “Feds table legislation to repeal parts of Bill S-6” on June 10, 2016. We are debating the bill today in April, so obviously this was not a huge rush in terms of coming up for debate, but one of the comments I want to refer to here says, “he claimed his government would 'not be a barrier' if the new Liberal government did repeal the four provisions.” This was Yukon Premier Darrell Pasloski, a good name of eastern or central European descent. The article went on to say:

...during a campaign visit to Whitehorse last fall, former prime minister Stephen Harper said it was the territorial government that requested the changes to the assessment act laid out in Bill S-6.

The Yukon government has also spoken out against [this particular piece of legislation] more recently, after oil-and-gas exploration company Northern Cross filed for a judicial review of the board’s decision to refer its Eagle Plain drilling project to a higher level of assessment.

Now we can differ perhaps on these quotes being related accurately, but it shows there was industrial development and energy development going on and now uncertainty is starting to get into the whole process: judicial uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty, and now perhaps legislative uncertainty is being added onto it.

Bill S-6 was the final legislative step in the previous Conservative government's plan to approve northern regulatory regimes. I do not think we can talk about Bill C-17 without talking about Bill S-6, because from 2011 to 2013, Yukon was rated the single most desirable place in the world for mining companies to conduct business. Bill S-6 was improving upon that goal because Yukon had started to fall. Other jurisdictions were catching up. It was not so much that they were falling behind, but other jurisdictions were making the necessary amendments.

I will finish by mentioning those people who were for Bill S-6 at the time. 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.”

At the time also David Morrison, president and CEO of Yukon Energy Corporation, agreed:

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.

Clynton Nauman, president and CEO of Alexco Resource Corporation, also told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources on September 30, 2014:

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.

This is a very important matter in very many important matters, especially as the PROC committee filibuster continues. I look forward to seeing the chair, the member for Yukon, there at midnight hopefully next time. As long as he wishes to continue, I will be there participating in those debates.

I move:

Motion

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I heard loud and clear in my riding of North Island—Powell River during the last election campaign was that consultation was at the very heart of building a relationship with indigenous communities, and that simply did not happen with the last government.

It was very clear with regard to Bill S-6 that the Conservatives felt very strongly that they had consulted appropriately. My question for the member is this: if that proper process happened, why did Council of Yukon First Nations Grand Chief Ruth Massie say that there was not adequate consultation, and why was legal action taken?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-17. The background leading to Bill C-17 is as follows. The federal government's role in the management of lands and resources in Yukon was devolved to the Government of Yukon in 2003. The Government of Canada maintains the responsibility for outlining the environmental regulations there. The Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment Board was established under the final agreement.

Our Bill S-6 was intended to make, and did make, the northern regulatory regimes more consistent with those in the south to attract investment and develop economic opportunities. Bill S-6 was a very good bill. It put time limits on the review process. It exempted a project from reassessment when an authorization is renewed or amended, unless there was a significant change to the project. It gave the federal minister the ability to provide binding policy direction to the board, and very importantly, the ability to delegate the federal minister's powers, duties, or functions under the act to the territorial government.

I became a member of Parliament in 2010. For the first term of our government I was on both the fisheries committee and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. For most of that time, I was the only member of Parliament of any political party who was on both of those committees. I was very privileged to get a view into our environmental policy-making and I participated fully in many of the changes that we made. Many of the changes that we made improved the environmental process, cleaned up a number of very bad pieces of environmental legislation, improved the potential for economic development, and had absolutely no negative effects on the environment. We amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to remove duplication.

We changed the Navigable Waters Protection Act into the Navigation Protection Act. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was a particularly egregious act. It was a good act when it was written back in the 1800s when Canada depended on water navigation to a very great extent, and blocking navigable waters simply was not an option for our growing economy. However, over the course of decades and years, judicial interpretation of what was a navigable water kept growing smaller until intermittent streams were considered navigable waters. There are those who have a strong interest in stopping economic development. My colleague opposite inadvertently used the phrase “environmental industry”. I think there is an industry that has been developed that is doing very well financially in stopping projects. The old Navigable Waters Protection Act was a particularly bad act because it forced municipalities to spend inordinate amounts of money to build bridges over tiny intermittent water bodies.

We also changed the Fisheries Act quite dramatically. As a fisheries biologist, I was very much involved with the changes to the Fisheries Act.

These examples that I am citing are germane to the topic of the Yukon situation because the regulatory regime of a country is critical to the economic development of that country. Modern projects must be environmentally sound, and indeed they are, and at the same time investment must be encouraged.

Revising the Fisheries Act, 2012, which was our Fisheries Act, was one of the current federal government's platform policies. The fisheries committee had extensive hearings. I am still on the fisheries committee as the vice-chair. We had weeks of hearings where people who were opposed to the changes we made to the act wanted the act to go back to the way it was, the old way, where basically the entire country was considered fish habitat, and the Fisheries Act was able to be used by the environmental industry and environmental lawyers to block, hold up, or otherwise stop economic development.

I have a strange view of the environment. I believe that when we talk about environmental policy, we should actually talk about ecology, nature, landscapes, and water, because presumably that is what it is all about. However, all I hear mostly from environmental advocates these days, especially those on the Liberal left, is process, process, process.

In our Fisheries Act hearings, over and over again we asked this of the ones who were so excited about the changes we made to the act. Since the act was changed in 2012, we asked them if they could point to any fish populations that had been decimated or affected by the changes we had made. Not a person could come up with any examples, but they sure were mad at the process. Their metric for success of an act was how many investigations there were, how many charges there were, and how many processes there were. The fish and the environment actually became an afterthought.

The changes we made in the Yukon Act included putting in time limits, no reassessment unless the project was significantly changed, the federal minister binding policy direction, and delegate the federal minister's powers to the territorial government.

When I was an environmental director at a paper mill, I remember being involved with a change in the direction of our mill. Multiple bodies were regulating the environmental assessment we were doing. We never knew which level of government would step in since it was optional. They would sit in the weeds, we would do the environmental assessment, and we would ask what they thought. They would say that they were not sure, that we should keep doing what we were doing. This kind of uncertainty has a very direct and negative effect on investment. It is great for lawyers, the billable times just keep going up and up. However, with respect to communities, people, livelihoods, it is the worst thing that could happen.

When I was a young biologist in the seventies, and right out of university, one of my very first jobs was being part of the environmental assessment of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It was dream job for a kid out of university. I was able to play around with fish, fly around in helicopters, and sample rivers and lakes in remote parts of the Mackenzie Valley. It was an absolutely marvellous experience. This was back in the days of the Berger commission. I remember the team of which I was a part. We sampled every waterway in the Mackenzie Valley, every tributary, all the lakes along the proposed pipeline route. We flew the pipeline route, wrote copious reports, and took a lot of water and fish samples, all the usual kinds of fun stuff that field biologists get to do.

The report was written and the Berger commission was held. At that point, oil and gas prices were not too bad. We had an oil embargo, so there was a certain urgency for Canada to develop our natural resources. The government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau of the day ultimately turned the project down after all that work.

Interestingly, the project was resurrected in the 1990s again. Gas prices were up. I think it was $15 a thousand cubic feet. It was a high price and they wanted to see if we could get the Mackenzie Valley pipeline going again. The proponents for that project in the 1990s had to do exactly the same environmental assessment that we did in the 1970s. Nothing had changed. The rivers and lakes were exactly the same. There had been no development, no economic expansion, nothing, yet what we did in the 1970s was redone all over again for a number of years.

As time went on, the price of natural gas declined dramatically and the project became uneconomical. Delay and uncertainty kill projects. Now we have no Mackenzie Valley pipeline and we have 15 or 20 communities that are in dire economic straits. We know how to build pipelines safely. They are all built in an environmentally sound way. It is because they are so good that when a spill actually occurs, then it is a big event because it is an extremely rare event.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of modern economic development, especially resource projects. All projects are built with state-of-the-art environmental technology. The implication when one goes into an environmental review process is we either do this review process or the environment will be destroyed, which is complete and utter nonsense.

Again, in my own experience managing a waste water treatment plant at a paper mill, doing environmental assessments in the oil sands, and many years of experience doing environmental assessments across the country, working with companies, working with engineers and designers, I can absolutely guarantee that state-of-the-art environmental technology is built into every project before any shovel goes in the ground. Scrubbers are put on smokestacks, waste water treatment plants are designed for, and the technology for environmental improvement is increasing all the time.

One can look at the miracle of Inco. Thirty or 40 years ago there was a moonscape around that town because of acid rain emissions from the mill. The mill has been cleaned up and the landscape around Sudbury has come back. I have been there and seen it. This is what advanced industrial capitalist free market societies do. We get richer and we do a better job environmentally, and the process is ongoing and continuing.

The other thing about environmental policy is that it is very important to measure environmental results.

There was a great philosopher, Pythagoras, who said that all was math. What I see in environmental policy-making is that nobody measures anything. We have this faith, and I use the term advisedly, that what we want to do is good for the world because, “I am a good person and I want to save the world, therefore what I do is good.” We do not do the hard-nosed measurements to zero in on what the environmental problems may be, measuring the state of the earth, measuring fish populations, water quality, and so on, and then focusing our efforts on where environmental programs will actually make a difference. For example, wetland loss is very serious in the country, yet we only have halfhearted measures to preserve wetlands.

Again, I go back to the process and I go back to what we, as the previous government, did to streamline the process and remove duplication. Hearings and meetings by themselves rarely result in environmental improvement. Spending $25 million putting a waste water treatment plant at a paper mill will improve the environment. That is how I look at environmental policy, and that is how it should be looked at across the country.

When we were going through the process of the Fisheries Act, as I mentioned earlier, there were critics of what we did under the Fisheries Act. Their metric as to what the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act did was how many authorizations, how many charges resulted from the 2012 act, whereas our main concern, obviously, was the health of the fish.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Yukon arrived in Ottawa on the same flight with me, but I did not have to start in Yukon, getting in at 2:45 in the morning. Yes, we touched down.

I just want to say that I do not know why he feels that this is less important for all Canadians. I appreciate that it is only within the riding he represents, the riding of Yukon, but this was an egregious thing that happened, Bill S-6, for the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, for the Teslin Tlingit First Nation, and for the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation. They entered into good-faith negotiations with Canada. It is the honour of the crown that is at stake when one party to the negotiations unilaterally pushes through changes to something that was arrived at through good-faith negotiations with those particular first nations.

I welcome the fact that now, in the 42nd Parliament, with Bill C-17, we are redressing what was quite egregious under Bill S-6. At the time, I fought those changes as well, and they clearly went to court.

This should be a classic case of a lesson learned for a majority government in power, not to force through that which it wants when it knows the courts will overturn it. It wastes public resources. Frankly, Stephen Harper's administration did this all too often. I make no comment on most of my Conservative friends in the room at the moment, because they were not in the 41st Parliament. This is a classic case of wasting the public's time and insulting first nations, and now we are putting it right.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yukon has worked hard on bringing this bill forward to Parliament to ensure that we have an approach that ensures trust among the Government of Canada and the people of Yukon and Yukon first nations in deciding on projects that are important in their area. I have never seen a bill come to the House that has really outlined the difference between two governments more than this bill today.

I was in Yukon with my colleague when first nations and mining companies both were at the microphone saying, “We do not want to see these changes in Bill S-6”, but the government of the day, the opposition now, was adamant that these changes would go through. The Conservatives were imposing their government's views on the people of Yukon.

I am happy to say that the people have spoken and their rights will be respected under this government. I would like to ask my colleague to comment on what that means to the people of Yukon today.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the hon. member for Yukon's fatigue from travel, I thought he did an admirable job of explaining a complex bill.

I was pleased to be involved as a lawyer in the creation of the final agreements in those 20 years culminating in the YESAA and am very pleased to be standing in support of the bill today. He talked about the four new clauses that Bill S-6 brought in and how, obviously, they were contrary to the letter and spirit of treaties. Of that there can be no doubt.

I have two questions, if I could, for the hon. member. He referenced the case of the Peel watershed that last month was before the Supreme Court of Canada, talking about the honour of the crown and the like. I would like to know if he feels that case could have any impact on the YESAA bill before us and, second, whether he believes that the free, prior, and informed consent of the Yukon first nations is required as a consequence of the YESAA in its current form.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to talk about Bill C-17. I apologize if I am a little groggy. I have not been to sleep since Saturday night. It has taken me since 4:30 p.m. yesterday to get here, with my three plane flights. However, we will go ahead.

It is seldom that we have a bill before Parliament with respect to only one riding. Therefore, I appreciate having Bill C-17 on the agenda. I appreciate that many members in the House, maybe all of them except the minister and parliamentary secretary, may know very little about this bill because it relates to just one riding. That is totally understandable. Therefore, I will try to explain it to make it clear to members what they will be voting on.

The bill removes four issues that were put into place through Bill S-6 in a totally inappropriate process. The four issues are timelines, reassessment of ongoing projects, ministerial policy direction, and a delegation to the Yukon government of that authority. Although first nations negotiated all of the other changes, they were not offered the opportunity to negotiate these four matters. Therefore, for the other 336 members who do not live in Yukon, I will try to put this bill into context.

On February 14, 1973, the chiefs of Yukon went to Ottawa and presented Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau with a paper entitled “Together Today for our Children Tomorrow”, which started the land claim and self-government process in Yukon. Negotiations went on for 20 years, until the modern treaty, the Umbrella Final Agreement, was signed on May 29, 1993 by the three orders of government: federal, territorial, and first nations. The UFA is constitutionally protected, so not even we, as legislators, can change it. It is truly a collaborative, negotiated effort, which is now sometimes used across Canada and around the world. However, we must remember that it took 20 years.

Part of that treaty prescribed the development of YESAA, the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment Act, again a unique Yukon creation and model, our own assessment act. Unlike most of the rest of the country, we do not fall under CEAA. However, it deals with assessments on the lands of all the governments: the first nations governments, the Yukon government, and the federal government. Creating YESAA was a negotiation exercise by the three partner governments. It took 10 years. YESAA was passed in 2003, and so far so good.

YESAA had a built-in five-year review. That review took five years, from 2008 to 2012. A five-year review is not supposed to take five years. It not only happened after five years, but it also took five years. However, there was a lot of hard work that took place in those five years. There were 72 recommendations agreed to by the three levels of government after all of that work. These were implemented either in Bill S-6, or administratively. Once again, so far so good.

However, at the eleventh hour, near the end of the five years of negotiation, the federal government said it was adding four new major clauses to Bill S-6, and it was not negotiating them. After 20 years of the three partners working together on the UFA, and 10 years working together on the YESAA legislation, would members not be outraged if one of their partners said they were adding four new major clauses and that they could not negotiate them? It is probably not in the letter of the law, and certainly not in the spirit of the law. If we have an illegal law, or a law created in contravention of the treaty, then it does not matter what is in it, it has to go.

We are now in a whole new era of partnerships and collaboration with indigenous people and first nations governments. Often, industry has led the way in making partnerships with first nations people. Therefore, I want to go on to talk about some of the elements that people have raised in the debate so far.

One of the elements was that it is very important for mining. The Conservatives made a good point about how important mining is to the economy of Yukon. It has been the biggest producer of our GDP since the gold rush. That is a very important point. That is exactly what this bill is supposed to do, help that along and add the certainty needed to go ahead.

I am going to quote a couple of speeches and letters. Paul West-Sells, the president of Casino Mining Corporation, one of the biggest in the world and a world-class mine, said:

On behalf of Casino Mining Corporation (Casino), 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.

He went on to say:

Casino believes that if YESAA has the full support of all levels of government, it will provide greater certainty for the mineral industry.

This is exactly what the Conservatives were saying, so it is great that they are supporting this.

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.

That is exactly what Bill C-17 does.

Another speech was made at committee by Ms. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice-president, lands and environment of Kaminak Gold Corporation, which has a good chance of being the next mine to open in Yukon. She said:

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

As the Conservatives have so rightly said, it is exactly that uncertainty that this mining vice-president is talking about that we want to fix. She went on to say:

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

Again, that is exactly what the bill does. It is what everyone is asking for.

I want to go on quote from a letter, once again in light of the Conservatives' emphasis on mining letter. All these documents I am quoting from are much longer and emphasize the situation, but we would not have time to go through them all.

This letter is signed by Sandy Silver, the Premier of Yukon. As the Conservatives and the NDP have said, it is important that decisions are made by Yukoners. This is signed by the Premier of Yukon; Peter Johnston, grand chief; and Mike Burke, president of Yukon Chamber of Mines. Once again, it is important for mining to get that certainty back. It says:

Repeal of these amendments and addressing industry concerns through collaborative framework is critical to re-establishing confidence in the development assessment process in Yukon and to honouring the intent of Final and Self-Government Agreements.

We were pleased to see Bill C-17, which removes these contentious clauses, introduced in the House of Commons on June 8, 2016.

[...] The Government of Yukon, self-governing Yukon First Nations, Council of Yukon First Nations and Yukon Chamber of Mines look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible.

Before I go on to some of the other points that have been made in this debate, I want to mention that the honour of the crown is incumbent not only on the federal government, but also on the territorial governments.

As recently as March 22, and this is mostly to make sure that the lawyers in the various government departments and the House of Commons are aware of this, during the Supreme Court appeal hearing, Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella discussed the responsibilities of Yukon government in relation to first nation states, particularly the Yukon government, to whom the honour of the crown attaches.

It was 18 years earlier, in 1999, Justice Vertes' ruling in 1999, Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, in the case of Donald Morin v. Anne Crawford, reflected on the constitutional status of the territories which had direct relevance to their function as the crown.

I do not expect anyone in the House to understand this complex legislation, because it only applies to Yukon, and it was a treaty between three governments there. That is why I am trying to explain some of the facets of this.

First of all, there was the comment that the people of Yukon should decide. That is exactly what this bill would do. What happened is that Bill S-6 came forward with the four clauses being thrown in at the end. As I said, it was great in the sense that 72 things got approved, either administratively or in Bill S-6, 72 things that the three governments negotiated and agreed on. However, the four things thrown in at the end really aggravated the people of Yukon. They did not like them being imposed, without being able to negotiate. Two large town hall meetings, with around 100 people each, spontaneously occurred. People were enraged about this imposition by the federal government, and rightly so.

Let us remember the 20 years of negotiation for the constitutionally protected treaty, the 10 years of negotiation for the YESAA legislation, and the five years of the five-year review. Obviously people were outraged when, all of a sudden, four items were added to their environmental legislation, by Ottawa, without allowing them to negotiate, as they had with everything else.

Another item that was raised, and it was a very good point, by the Conservatives is about northern strategy. As I responded to that, it is being developed right at the moment and, once again, by Yukoners from the bottom up. The chiefs, the premiers, and the people who live in Yukon will put their input into this northern Arctic policy framework. We really look forward to seeing this, in these days and times.

I can say that my view of the strategy for the north is that it first has to start with the people of the north. There will be great sovereignty and great success in the north if we focus on the people.

Another item I want to talk about that was raised is the reassessments. When a project needs to change, expand, or do something else, in the old days there was a reassessment that had to occur at the exact time that the next permit came due. Permits are what trigger assessments in this particular act, permits by various orders of government. Some people were concerned about that. It was mentioned in debate.

As I outlined, this system has been changed, through the recent amendments that have been made, and as I said, of the 72 some were policy and some were legislative. Now the assessments that YESAA can do are not limited to the next trigger, let us say the five years when the next water licence or mining permit is due. The assessment is not limited to that time frame. The assessment can be for as long as the assessment board and the proponent think is reasonable, a time that fits with the project. Therefore, reassessments would not be due in those particular time frames, as was talked about earlier.

The other aspect is this. Let us say that a project has gone on for 10 or 20 years, and the permits are expired; water permits, assessments, everything has expired. That does not mean things are going to be exactly the same. There is a number of things that have changed: the climate, patterns of wildlife, the amount of wildlife affected by the road, and the air and water affected by the tailings. Even though nothing is new in the particular production, there could easily be things that have to be changed.

The present system where that can be decided between the board and the deciding bodies makes a lot of sense, and that those assessments are only done when required.

We talked about barriers to mining, barriers to investments, disincentives to investment, and as I said earlier, that is a very important point raised by the Conservatives because that is exactly what this bill would do. It would remove those barriers, the ones that have been holding assessments in limbo. I will explain a little later about how that happens through this bill, and how this would clear it up. The minister talked about some of that in her speech.

I want to talk about the barriers that would leave it in limbo. Unique in the country is this partnership of the three governments that signed the treaty. The three governments all have particular roles to play in the assessment. If we were to change it and totally aggravate one of the parties, these changes are likely illegal but are certainly not in the spirit of the treaty. There would be huge uncertainty in the assessment process.

We first have to realize who will be on the board. The board is made up of the three parties. If one of the parties to the board makes these decisions, obviously there will be a problem. As the NDP also said, there are section 35 constitutional rights, which is, once again, why we have to have the first nations onside. They each have settlement land, over which they have total control and make decisions in light of what YESAA recommends. The way the UFA works, the entire Yukon is divided into all 14 first nations' traditional land. They have certain influence and say about their traditional land as part of the treaty, which included the huge quantities of land they gave up.

With these three huge types of influence in the process, if we make them furious by circumventing them and not acting in the honour of the crown or in good faith in the negotiations, obviously there is going to be huge uncertainty in getting environmental assessments done. That is why we have the letters from mining and from the Chamber of Mines, because they want to negotiate things correctly in the future and have a partnership. As I said earlier, there are some great partnerships between first nations and mines in the Yukon, and they are leading the way.

The last item I want to talk about is the timelines. Once again, it would be hard for people who do not come from the riding to understand how this works. It looks as if we are getting rid of all timelines, and that is not true. The timelines are set out in the regulations as a matter of policy and, as we know, there is a process regulations have to go through. If it were the riding of other members, would they not want something sent by the economic experts, environmental experts, first nation experts, and Yukon government experts, as opposed to it being imposed by Ottawa? That is exactly how it works. It is the same as the executive board decisions being made by the rules of the YESAB. Therefore, the timelines are there.

Finally, as was said a couple of times, even without timelines, the YESAB has a great record and was making decisions in less than the timelines, almost all of the time, anyway. In a way, it was a solution to something that was not a problem.

Let us have a new beginning. Let us have negotiations, which may be tough, but will include the three legal signatories to the treaty, with the federal government, the first nations government, the Yukon government, and industry now all onside working collaboratively. Hopefully all of us, as parliamentarians, will join this partnership, put this quickly behind us, and get on with building a fair and prosperous country for us all.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again that we want a genuine renewal and rebuilding of our relationship between Canada and indigenous people. I was in Yukon when the hearing went on with respect to Bill S-6. People did not want that legislation passed in the House of Commons and fought against it. The government of the day fought back. Today we are doing as the people of the Yukon are asking, and I ask my colleague opposite this question: is this not a great sign of renewal of a relationship between the Government of Canada and indigenous people?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I do not want to impinge on the hon. member's unbridled enthusiasm for Bill C-17, so I will let him comment as he wants. However, I did want to comment on the comments of the last two Conservative speakers. I know they are not allowed to repeat themselves, but they both talked about uncertainty and how much jobs and investment depend on this uncertainty.

In doing that, the members are supporting this bill. If their next speaker says that, the Conservatives are in fact supporting this bill, because this bill is about the uncertainty that has shut down a lot of investment in mining because of the items in Bill S-6 that upset one of the parties to the treaty. Who do people think is on the board that makes these environmental assessments? It is the three governments. If one of them has not been treated fairly, obviously there is going to be a lot of uncertainty. That is why certain mining companies have written and been in favour of this.

I want to reiterate the point on timelines, as I guess I was not clear enough for the Conservatives. Since Bill S-6 went through, other sections of it have allowed that there are now timelines. The timelines are in the policy, the rules of the YESAB. These rules are established. They had to be gazetted. There are already timelines, so they should not keep saying that we are taking away timelines.

Finally, on reassessments, that is another change that came about through another part of Bill S-6 that was approved. As I said, most of it is approved, and it is just these things thrown in at the 11th hour. Before, the assessment was only up to the time of the trigger, say the five years that the member mentioned. Now, with the new rules, the assessment can be longer; it could be for what they think the life of the project is. Therefore, there are times when this reassessment will not occur. That does not lead to the uncertainty that was being suggested, and I will therefore let the member continue on with his good points.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by repeating the opening of the minister's speech but by adding another dimension to it. Yes, it is fine to acknowledge that we are on unceded Algonquin territory, but it is quite another thing to recognize as well that Ottawa has not been paying the rent on this place. It is unceded Algonquin territory but we also must recognize the second part of that.

I want to acknowledge the importance of this legislation. There is a lot of talk today about nation-to-nation reconciliation and so on and so forth. This is one example of how to get it right. This is one example of how to proceed.

The previous bill with respect to environmental assessment in Yukon, Bill S-6 was unilaterally imposed on indigenous peoples in Yukon and the Yukon government. That is not the way to go about it. We do not change agreements that we sign with indigenous peoples unilaterally. It is supposed to be done collaboratively and that did not happen with the previous bill. The present bill would have the effect of repealing some of the controversial aspects of the previous bill. Let me repeat some of them.

The previous bill would have authorized the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to delegate any of the minister's powers or functions and duties under the Indian Act to the territorial government. One of the first things we learn in law school is that cannot happen. We cannot delegate powers to another. It is one of the first Latin phrases that I learned when I went to law school, delegatus non potest delegare. We are not supposed to do that.

The other controversial aspect, and I pointed to this aspect a while ago in my question for the minister, is that the previous bill established time limits on environmental assessment. That is problematic, because my constitutional rights have no time limits. Time limits cannot be imposed on the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples. That was one of the other controversial parts of the previous bill.

I want to talk a bit about the notion of clarity, the notion of having clear rules under environmental assessment. I am from the James Bay northern Quebec region. The entire area is covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement . A special constitutional and legal regime is in place and the rules are clear in the agreement as to how development is going to happen in James Bay territory.

Section 22, which is a highly complex chapter of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, provides for that environmental and social protection regime where Cree are a part of the environmental assessment and review board. The Cree nation and the Inuit can appoint members to the board. That is true participation in the environmental assessment process. Section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is the environmental and social protection regime that is provided for under that treaty.

A lot of people have said, especially at the beginning of the regime, that this process is too heavy, too complex, and will impede development in the territory. Quite the contrary happened after 40 years of experience with this regime, after 40 years of experience with these processes. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has not impeded any development in the territory.

In fact, it has even allowed many partnerships to happen between the Cree and Inuit in the territory and mining companies, forestry companies, and hydroelectric development companies, because the rules were clear. They might be heavy or complex, but when the rules are clear, everybody knows what the rules are, and that is what helps development take place in a given territory.

The other aspect I want to talk about briefly is the fact that this bill was co-developed, as well as co-drafted, I would presume, and that does not happen often enough in this place. I also have experience with the very first federal legislation that was co-drafted with the indigenous people concerned. That is the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act in 1984. That act was negotiated with the Cree and the Naskapi, and co-drafted, with every clause or provision accepted even before the legislation was tabled in this place. That is what nation-to-nation agreements looks like. That is how we should proceed with any given legislation that relates to indigenous peoples, indigenous rights, and indigenous status.

One of the most important aspects of all of this discussion is the notion of free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples in any given project. In fact, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains several provisions articulating the concept of free, prior, and informed consent. The most general is article 19, which obliges states to consult and co-operate in good faith with indigenous peoples in order to obtain free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing measures or legislation that may affect them.

Other provisions of the declaration set out more specific obligations requiring degrees of free, prior, and informed consent in specific contexts. Article 32, for instance, obliges states to consult and co-operate in good faith with indigenous peoples in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, territories, and other resources. That is an important concept that we need to keep in mind every time we discuss legislation in this place, especially with respect to the environment.

Article 28 of the UN declaration establishes a right to redress for indigenous peoples for lands, territories, and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied, or used, which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used, or damaged without their free, prior, and informed consent. It is an important provision in the UN declaration.

Article 29 requires states to take effective measures to avoid storage or disposal of hazardous materials in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior, and informed consent. It is an important concept.

Article 10 protects indigenous peoples from being forcibly removed from their lands and territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior, and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, the option of return.

The declaration provides context to these articles, clarifying that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories, and resources. The intention of the rights in the declaration will enhance harmonious and co-operative relationships between states and indigenous peoples. That was exactly my point a while ago.

Article 1 states that indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Articles 3 and 4, as partner provisions, state that indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination, including to fully determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, and to determine self-government regarding internal or local affairs.

The United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples is an expert in the field of indigenous rights, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to examine obstacles to protecting rights of indigenous peoples, to review alleged violations of indigenous rights, and to make recommendations on appropriate measures to prevent and remedy violations. The special rapporteur has consistently emphasized the importance of good faith dialogue and meaningful consultation in the aim of achieving consent as the primary objective of the principles of free, prior, and informed consent. The purpose is to reverse historical patterns of imposed decisions and conditions of life that have threatened the survival of indigenous peoples, in the way that principles of consultation and consent have the objective of avoiding the imposition of the will of one party.

Those are important principles that we need to apply every time we consider legislation in this place

The Minister of Justice already has the obligation to vet any legislation against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not have the equivalent, as we speak right now, for aboriginal treaty rights under section 35.

I have a bill, by the way, that will be debated this coming September, Bill C-262, that would fix that. I am hoping that I will get the full support of the members of this House.

Under international law, indigenous peoples have the right to exercise self-determination. Indigenous peoples have pre-existing sovereignty, jurisdiction, and rights, and the right to self-determination in regard to their territories. That must be respected, without discrimination or threats of use of force, imposed time limitations, or delegation of authority.

In October 2015, when the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the Little Salmon/ Carmacks First Nation, and the Teslin Tlingit Council took Bill S-6 legislative changes to the Supreme Court of Yukon, their case stated that the changes were inconsistent with the final land claim agreements. Since then, concerned indigenous peoples have been compelled to negotiate under these false premises. As a result, indigenous parties to the negotiations have little or no leverage.

In this context, the special rapporteur has stated that most consultation processes require key elements in order to be considered free, informed, and in good faith.

First, in designing a consultation process, attention must be paid to the implications of power imbalances that may exist between indigenous groups and the governments engaging in consultation, and, if necessary, deliberate steps should be taken to address those.

Second, the indigenous groups affected must have full access to information regarding the project, including technical studies, financial plans, environmental assessments, and other relevant documents that the context demands. Indigenous groups may also be involved in the conduct of those studies, in a language that they may understand. For many years, in the James Bay territory, Hydro Québec provided information only in French to the Cree people, who have English as a second language or Cree as their mother tongue. That was a fundamental problem.

Third, consultations should take place before the government authorizes or a company undertakes or commits to undertake any activity related to the project within indigenous territory or other lands subject to indigenous rights. In practice, consultation may take place at multiple stages of a project, from its initial proposal, through exploration, development, and operation, to its closure. Indigenous groups should be consulted from the earliest stages to build trust and co-operation. Starting the consultation process at later stages often engenders mistrust, making agreement or consent more difficult to achieve.

Fourth, indigenous people should be consulted, through their own representative institutions, leadership, and decision-making structures. This gives recognition to the indigenous peoples' own choices and forms of self-government, thereby affording the consultation process greater legitimacy.

Bill C-17 has significant meaning for Yukon first nations and regional politics in the far north, but sometimes it does not go far enough. That is the party's decision, to go with it.

In November 2015, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, which includes first nations in the Yukon, wrote to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs requesting the immediate suspension of the previous government's fiscal approach, as it was incompatible with their treaties. They requested that the new government develop a proper fiscal approach based on a nation-to-nation relationship.

I am pleased to see the minister responding with the bill, as a first step to rectifying the imposed changes from the Harper government. However, in addition to the provisions in this bill, the Liberal government must reverse the Harper government's unilateral imposition of a new fiscal agreement on all of the first nations in Yukon. Any laws that are attempting to change the implementation of land claims agreements can only be made with the full and active consultation and participation of first nations governments.

I want to close by saying that one of the important roles we have, as legislators, is to keep in mind our responsibility as parliamentarians. One of the highest responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians is to uphold the rule of law, and upholding the rule of law means respecting the Constitution. Respecting the Constitution includes section 35 rights, aboriginal and treaty rights. That is what upholding the rule of law means.

For too many years--in fact, for 150 years--the federal governments, successive Liberal and Conservative governments, have been adversaries to indigenous peoples and their rights and their status. It is the only group in this country that has received that kind of discriminatory approach. For 150 years, Canada has fought against aboriginal rights and aboriginal peoples in this country. We do not know exactly how many hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal governments spends fighting aboriginal rights every year. Some say it is about $300 million, and some say is it up to $1 billion a year, that is spent fighting aboriginals, the first peoples of this country.

Many times, those fights are unnecessary. Even after a first victory, a second victory, a third victory, we are still dragged to the Supreme Court every time, every single time in the last 150 years.

As we start to celebrate the 150 years of this country, maybe we should keep that in mind, and that over the next 150 years, we do not need to do that. If we are truly in an era of reconciliation, if we truly believe what we say when we talk about reconciliation, nation to nation, respect for aboriginal rights, then those kinds of things need to stop. A case in point is the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where the federal government is still against aboriginal children in this country.

I think it is important to remind ourselves that our foremost duty as parliamentarians, as members of Parliament, is to uphold the rule of law. That means respecting the Constitution and respecting the fundamental human rights of the first peoples in this country.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the territories have already become leaders in climate change adaption because of the front-line impact they have already had to experience. It is irresponsible to now ask them to do more when our northern communities are facing many economic and environmental challenges.

According to the Mining Association of Canada, a typical Canadian mine spends about 30% of its annual budget on energy, and thus the impact of the federal carbon price will hit northern mines the hardest. The sole source of power for these northern mines is fossil fuels, and let us not forget as well the thousands of tonnes of resources that must be flown in just to start operations on these mines.

The election of Donald Trump south of the border means that mining operations in places like Alaska and Montana will not be paying an uncompetitive carbon tax but will instead be thriving on a lower tax agenda. How can we expect to help the economy if we bring in an uncompetitive carbon tax that simply encourages mining companies to take investments and jobs outside of Canada?

I should note that we have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. Let us talk about the oil and gas moratorium. Just a number of weeks ago, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, told the Arctic Oil & Gas Symposium that the five-year ban on Arctic drilling in the Beaufort Sea has created a no-win situation for his territory's plan to develop a strong resource economy. The same has happened all across the Canadian north.

For years, our northern territories have negotiated in good faith to have the power to make their own decisions when it comes to their natural resources, and the Prime Minister has failed on his promise to be a partner of our northern communities. Instead, he has forced an agreement upon them that will leave hundreds of billions of dollars of oil and gas in the ground, and thousands of potential good-paying jobs off the table.

The mining industry is at the heart of the economic opportunity for many residents in the north. The majority of project requests will be tied up, slowed down, and ultimately ruined by this legislation, which will impact investments in this industry. The suggestion that such a policy will benefit the Yukon reveals just how out of touch the Liberals are with our northern communities.

Bill C-17 is taking away northern independence. The Liberal promise to simply repeal the controversial sections in Bill S-6is another example of how they made promises without any consideration for the consequences. There could have been an opportunity to find a solution that addressed everyone's concerns while supporting economic development in Yukon, but instead Liberals are using the blunt instrument of repeal.

The people of the Yukon have the right to determine their own policies on natural resource development, rather than having a federal government restrict their opportunities for economic development. The Liberal government is shutting out the potential for many jobs in the natural resource sector that could be created from diverse private investment in the Yukon and all of Canada's northern regions.

Bill C-17 introduces uncertainty into the resource development review process, which will undermine economic opportunities for all Yukoners as well as create uncertainties for the rest of Canada about whether this will form the basis of the Liberal approach in the future.

Bill C-17 is detrimental to the independence of our northern communities, as it takes the devolution of regulatory power away from the territorial government, as was introduced by Bill S-6, and returns it to the hands of the federal minister. The Liberal minister from Toronto cannot know the reality on the ground in the same way as the people who live it every day. The power of Yukoners to decide what is best for their economy is being taken away and dictated by Ottawa.

Canada is a country rich in natural resources, and these resources contribute greatly to the country's economy and the economy of the Yukon, increasing opportunities for all Canadians. Such avenues for development should especially be pursued in the current economy climate, but the Liberals would rather create additional levels of bureaucracy and an uncertain future, to the detriment of all Canadians.

Now we have uncertainty in the review process. By introducing a limitless environmental review process and mandating continued project reassessment, the Liberals are sending a clear message that they will not support resource development in Canada's north.

The removal of time limits and the option for exempting renewal, on the other hand, fits well with the ongoing narrative that the Liberals are introducing unnecessary delays and uncertainty into our regulatory process.

Additionally, we can make the point that this change puts Yukon at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of Canada for attracting private investment. Private companies will take their investments elsewhere and the people of Yukon will not be able to experience the benefits of an expanding economy, while the Liberals continue their spending spree and ignore the ballooning deficit. This problem will only be increased as the Liberals create increasing uncertainty throughout the country with regard to a review process, sending a clear message to industry that Canada is not interested in pursuing natural resource development.

This will have an impact on the economy. The economy in the north is suffering enough as it is. We do not need the Liberals chasing away investments. Jobs are getting harder to come by in the north. Instead of encouraging investment in resource development and creating more jobs, the Liberals are developing a larger bureaucracy and eliminating opportunity. The government is so caught up in its own concerns for expanding the environmental bureaucracy that it has forgotten the people of Yukon who are struggling just to make ends meet because of a bad economy. The Liberals are stacking the deck against hard-working Canadians who are trying to provide for their families.

According to Statistics Canada annual estimate of mineral production, the Yukon territory has seen a decline of the dollar amount from mining activities for all but one of the past six years. Since 2012, the amount of money brought into the territories from mining production has decreased by a staggering 25%. By increasing the barriers of entry, by putting not a firm end date on environmental assessments, and through increasing operation costs with their carbon tax grab scheme, it is clear that the Liberals do not care about the economic future of Yukon.

If the decline in the actual value of minerals does not raise alarms about the negative impacts of these policies, a more staggering fact is the extreme decline in new investments. Since the Liberals took power just two years ago, Stats Canada reported that the actual investment in mining in Yukon had decreased by over 42%, or an equivalent of $80 million.

Bill C-17 is also an example of the Liberals thinking they know best for the territories. The people of Yukon should be the ones to decide whether extra environmental regulations are necessary as it is their economy that is being affected.

In Yukon one of the biggest problems is the fact that so many residents rely on the government to provide employment instead of a strong private sector. The fact that the Liberals are putting up so many barriers for private sector job creation with a bill like Bill C-17 seems like a personal attack on those trying to find jobs in Yukon. The bill, along with the carbon tax scheme the Liberals are forcing on to the provinces and territories, looks as if the government has a vendetta against any economic growth in the north.

I went to Yukon to meet with stakeholders about the bill. They were not impressed. One of the reasons they were not impressed is because the Yukon mining industry was struggling to survive. Although mining has always represented a huge share of the Yukon's economy, in recent years there has been a steep decline in the amount of open mines. This has taken millions out of the economy and thousands of jobs.

As of today, there is only one mine open and producing in Yukon, the Minto copper mine. I visited this mine with my colleague, the MP for Lakeland, to get a tour of the operation and was told that the operation was heavily dependent on the price of copper. With such low prices, the future is always uncertain. Adding more red tape to a struggling operation will not help anyone.

The Conservative Party's position has been to streamline and harmonize regulatory regimes across Canada in order to promote investor confidence, provide consistency and transparency, and increase efficiency in regulatory regimes. The economy of Yukon and all the north needs more development and investment and it needs to be put back in the hands of the people who understand it best. To think otherwise would be ignorant. Canada cannot continue on this uncertain path of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that only serves to turn away private investment and cut jobs.

The north, being so rich in its natural and human resources, has the potential to be a powerhouse of industry in the country, but the Liberals want to keep resources in the ground and deny economic opportunity to millions of Canadians.

Bill C-17 is a knife in the heart of the northern economy and just one example of how the Liberals are taking away any provincial self-determination, creating uncertainty in regulations, and continually desecrating Canada's economic well-being.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.”

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not so much a question as a thanks. It was very distressing to see Bill S-6 pushed through the House. I am glad that the original process is back in place, respecting the long-standing treaty negotiations with indigenous peoples in the territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the member that the projects will go back to the original process, before Bill S-6 was imposed.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be part of the government that put through Bill S-6. It is disappointing to see this new government repealing a lot of those decision that we felt were beneficial to the economical development of Yukon. One of the biggest issues we were able to address was the timelines in terms of approvals, which was stymying economic development, and getting these infrastructure projects moving forward.

It is my understanding that sections of the act relating to timelines and reassessment have been used about 90 times since coming into force in 2015. Would the minister please provide me with a list of decisions and who those proponents were?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

moved that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today, acknowledging we are gathered on traditional Algonquin territory, as we begin the second reading debate on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, or YESAA.

I would like to begin by highlighting the tireless efforts of my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon. Without all of his hard work with and on behalf of his constituents, we would not be where we are today on this critical legislation for Yukon.

The government believes that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the success of the Canadian economy and, if we get this right, will serve as an important foundation for future economic and job growth. However, unlocking this economic potential must be contingent on environmental sustainability and on impacted indigenous communities being engaged as equal partners. This is not only an indigenous issue, but one about which all Yukoners are extremely concerned.

Our government is absolutely committed to renewing the relationship between the crown and indigenous peoples in Canada on a foundation of recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

This not just a moral obligation, but a legal one, particularly in regions like Yukon, which are subject to comprehensive land claim agreements and self-government agreements.

Yukon is an inspiration to the rest of Canada, with so many self-governing nations and with our needing more and more first nations to get out from under the Indian Act and become self-governing. It is very important that the work we do together in partnership is well-communicated to all Canadians as an example of how things can be when we get it right.

The YESAA, as members may know, was passed in 2003 and stems from the umbrella final agreement between Canada, Yukon first nations, and the Government of Yukon. As required under the umbrella final agreement, a five-year review of the YESAA was launched under the previous government, resulting in 76 recommendations, 72 of which were agreed to by all parties. Unfortunately, despite spending years working with Yukon first nations on a comprehensive review of YESAA, the previous government added four further controversial changes at the end and pushed them through, absent meaningful consultation.

That ill-advised approach led to pointless litigation between a number of self-governing first nations and the federal government with respect to the previous bill and compromised the potential development of resources by undermining legal certainty.

By contrast, after months of discussions, Canada, Yukon governments, and Yukon first nations signed an MOU last April that outlined mutually agreed upon steps toward addressing the first nations' concerns with respect to the changes to YESAA made in previous Bill S-6.

Bill C-17 is an example of what can be achieved when government works in partnership with indigenous communities at the very beginning of proposed changes. Yukon first nations were consulted from the very beginning, including on the draft legislative proposal. As a direct result of this bill's collaborative origin, Yukon first nations pursuing related legal action have adjourned their hearing dates while this bill proceeds. This bill would re-establish trust with Yukon first nations and restore legal certainty for responsible resource development, paving the way for increased investment, development and jobs.

The bill introduced in the House of Commons on June 8, 2016, would repeal the four provisions of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act that have caused the most concern: legislated time limits on the review process; exempting a project from reassessment when an authorization is renewed or amended unless there has been a significant change to the project; ability for the federal minister to provide binding policy direction to the board; and ability to delegate the federal minister’s powers, duties, or functions under the act to the territorial government.

With respect to the legislated time limits on the review process, the government believes that the more appropriate and consistent approach is to adhere to the timelines in the board's current rules that have historically matched or exceeded the limits under the Bill S-6 amendments.

The Government of Canada believes that resource industry project proponents, indigenous communities, and other governments should work hard to reach consensus.

Canada, Yukon, self-governing Yukon first nations, and industry have agreed to continue to work in collaboration through the regulatory process to establish practical timelines.

In terms of reassessments, the need to evaluate projects requesting renewals or amendments is best determined on a case-by-case basis as informed by the clear policy guidelines created by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The board is best positioned to work in partnership with industry, first nations, and Yukoners to develop new policies, where required, to address project changes.

Yukon first nations are also strongly opposed to the idea that the minister could give binding policy direction to the board, as they feel this is inconsistent with the umbrella final agreement and jeopardizes the independence of the board. We agree.

Moreover, the current wording of the provision allowing me, as minister, to delegate any or all of my powers, duties, or functions under YESAA to the territorial minister may also be inconsistent with the umbrella final agreement. We do not support the pursuit of a unilateral or bilateral delegating authority, as it is not in accordance with our commitment to building respectful nation-to-nation relationships with first nations based on partnership, collaboration, and trust.

When I was in the Yukon last month and had the opportunity to listen to Yukon first nations and the representatives of the territorial government, I came to understand that this bill truly represents a consensus. I also recently received a joint letter from the Council of Yukon First Nations, Government of Yukon, and the Yukon Chamber of Mines confirming their support for Bill C-17 in its current form.

In that March 13, 2017 joint letter, they state clearly:

The Government of Yukon, self-governing...First Nations, Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon Chamber of Mines look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible.

It goes on to say:

Your support for the passage of Bill C-17 assures us that the Government of Canada is genuinely committed to reset the relationship between Canada, Yukon and Yukon First Nations.

Once ancestral rights and titles are recognized, once lands and waters are protected, and once genuine partnerships exist between local and indigenous communities, responsible resource development projects will proceed, and they will do so faster and with greater legal certainty.

I urge all members to support this bill.

Indigenous Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Bill S-6 was passed in spite of huge objections by Yukoners and Yukon's first nations.

The Yukon land claim and self-government agreements were negotiated in good faith on a government to government to government relationship over 30 years. To then unilaterally foist four major un-negotiated clauses on a process created by the treaty is a total abandonment of the honour of the crown.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs update the House on the government's efforts to renew this critical relationship?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

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—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians may be even more concerned that the total budget for the Senate is more like $90 million. The House of Commons gets to vote on the $57 million in vote 1, which is the appropriation for the Senate, but some of its funding is in fact statutory.

The fact is that Canadians are wondering why they are paying anything for it. Not only has there been a pattern of abuse, but it serves as an undemocratic barrier to the will of the people as expressed by those elected representatives in the House of Commons, time and time again. There are 133 examples that the researchers at the Library of Parliament found for me where bills were vetoed by the Senate which were passed in the House of Commons.

Nobody elected those guys to make legislation. Senators should have no right to interfere with the will of the House of Commons, and they certainly should have no right to generate bills.

More and more bills that we are dealing with in the House of Commons, as members know, are not called Bill C-51, for example, but rather Bill S-6, Bill S-13, or Bill S-33. The bills are originating in the Senate. Here we are dutifully debating bills that are generated in the other chamber. It is completely upside down. It is completely absurd. If Canadians think about it, this is an affront to democracy and everything that is good and decent about our notion of democracy.

When Sir. John A. Macdonald first crafted the Senate, to cut him some slack, he was two years away from the American Civil War. He was looking south of the border thinking that he could not give too much authority without some checks and balances or God knows what could happen. North America was traumatized. However, that happened not in the last century, but the century before that.

We do not need to be bound by the limitations of John A. Macdonald's thinking when he made that terrible quote about how “We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor”.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, continues on its commitment to help out families, not just by lowering the costs they pay for products and services but, most important, by lowering taxes that they are required to pay to the government and providing more money in their pockets to help them make ends meet. We think that is one of the most meaningful things we can do as a government: help Canadians succeed and meet their aspirations and dreams for a brighter future.

This afternoon will be dedicated to today’s NDP’s opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will wrap up the third reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This will be the sixth day of debate for that particular piece of legislation, which would support economic development north of 60 while ensuring the preservation of the environment.

Monday shall be the eighth allotted day when we will debate another NDP opposition day motion. Regrettably, I have noticed that the NDP leader has never taken me up on my suggestion that he allow the House an extended debate on one of their proposals, under Standing Order 81(16)(a). As a result, next week, we will have the 88th time-allocated opposition day of this Parliament.

That evening, as required by the Standing Orders, we will debate the main estimates. Then, we will consider an appropriations bill, the supplementary estimates, followed by a second appropriations bill.

Tuesday morning, we will consider Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at report stage. This legislation will help streamline regulations and ensure that important safety rules keep up with evolving developments and standards.

In the afternoon, we will take up Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015, No. 1, at report stage, in anticipation that it will be reported back to the House tomorrow.

This package of essential measures—such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit, and a reduction to the small business income tax—is an important priority for our Conservative government and I think, more important, a priority for Canadian families.

Since the budget was delivered this spring, however, the Liberal leader has let us and all Canadians in on his economic plans.

First, we learned he thinks that “benefiting every single family is not...fair”.

Then, he topped it off when he told Canadians that the Liberals are looking at a mandatory expansion of the Canada pension plan. That would mean a $1,000 tax hike for a typical earner and for that earner's employer, and that $1,000 tax increase on two sides would be a significant potential impairment and drag on our economy. Certainly, it would be a huge drag on the personal finances of Canadian families.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-59, if additional time is needed.

Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-35, which is the justice for animals in service act, Quanto's law, at report stage and, ideally, third reading.

This is an important bill, which would ensure appropriate criminal penalties for killing or harming police animals and other service animals—dogs, horses, and so on—and speedy consideration of it would be favourable because that would allow it to pass and make it to the Senate for its consideration this spring.

I would remind the House the bill has already received four days of second reading debate and was in the justice committee for over five months.

That afternoon, we will again consider Bill S-2, and I hope it will be at third reading.

Next Friday, we will return to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, at report stage. The House will recall that we are debating the opposition's amendments to gut the bill of its entire contents—contents that demonstrate our Conservative government's commitment to end violence against women and girls.

Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

moved:

That the House call on the government to take immediate action to fix Nutrition North Canada and to improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by: (a) immediately including in the Nutrition North Canada program the 50 isolated Northern communities accessible only by air that are not currently eligible for the full subsidy; (b) initiating a comprehensive review of the Nutrition North program, with Northerners as full partners, to determine ways of directly providing the subsidy to Northern residents and to improve supports for traditional foods; (c) creating equitable program-eligibility criteria for Northern communities based on their real circumstances; (d) providing sufficient funding to meet the needs of all Northern communities; and (e) working with all Northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity.

Mr. Speaker, as member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories for the past 10 years, this is a wonderful opportunity to speak about the people of the north. That includes the northern parts of provinces and the three territories, the hundreds of communities that stretch across Canada's north.

I grew up in an isolated community. We did not have a road until later on in my life, so I know the difference a transportation system delivers. I understand the intrinsic nature of the problems of people who are isolated and remote. These are the communities we are talking about right now. These are Canadian communities that do not have road access or the ability to be served in a fashion that will allow their costs to be even reasonably close to southern Canada's. These communities are suffering. They will continue to suffer until we can come up with answers that work better for them.

In a great and prosperous country like Canada, no one should go hungry. Unfortunately, for many northern Canadians, that is the case. Some people forego eating in the day so that they make sure their children have sufficient food. These are situations that Canadians respond to with emotion and with a desire to change.

Equality of Canadians is an essential in the fabric of our society. Likewise, northerners know they live in a high-cost part of Canada, but to be equal, the government has to come in and be involved. In addition to pure humanitarianism, helping northerners with their high cost of living, particularly for food costs, enhances Arctic sovereignty. More than that, northerners provide a basis for what the government considers to be the new resource sector in our country, whether it is mining, oil, gas, or any of the other natural resources the government covets in the north. Those people provide a workforce and an opportunity to see those resources developed in a good fashion.

Originally, through the past decade up until 2010, we had the food mail program. That program had accelerating costs. In 2011, nutrition north was dreamt up. The criteria for community participation was so flawed that about 50 isolated fly-in communities were left out of that program.

In his report last fall, the Auditor General said:

We found that the Department has not established community eligibility criteria that are fair and accessible. The Department considered communities eligible if they lacked year-round surface transportation and if they had used the Food Mail Program extensively. Communities that had made very little use of the Food Mail Program were determined to be eligible for only a partial subsidy...

This partial subsidy was 5¢ a kilogram. It did not amount to anything. He went on to say:

...while communities that had not used the previous program were determined to be ineligible. Consequently, community eligibility is based on past usage instead of current need. As a result, there may be other isolated northern communities, not benefiting from the subsidy, where access to affordable, nutritious food may be an issue.

The Auditor General went on to say that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was aware of this problem, and it estimated that it would cost $7 million a year to service these 50 communities. My office conducted research and was able to identify 46 of the communities that should be getting the full subsidy. Twenty-seven of these communities are in ridings represented by Conservative members of Parliament. Nineteen communities are in the member for Kenora's riding. Where was the member during his last two-and-a-half years as parliamentary secretary to the minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development? Could he not have spoken to the minister about the need facing these communities in his riding? Then again, there were other members that failed to stand up and speak for their communities.

Because these communities need any help they can get, the first part of the New Democratic motion is, “immediately including in the nutrition north Canada program the 50 isolated northern communities accessible only by air that are not currently eligible for the full subsidy”. However, including these communities is simply an emergency solution. Including these communities would bring them up to the level of the other communities. That is fine. That is a start toward success. It is only the start, but it is a necessary start.

We need to be fair in this country. We need to treat every community the same. We need to understand that every community has similar requirements for these subsidies, regardless of their past history.

Another problem found by the Auditor General is that there is no way for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to determine if the subsidy is being passed on to northerners by retailers. This is a central flaw in the program. While professing to help northerners access affordable and nutritious food, what nutrition north really does is subsidize the selling of food to northerners and to anyone else who goes into their stores.

Rather than providing assistance to businesses, it might be better to look at the systems used in other countries for food subsidies. One possible solution might be to actually subsidize consumers. In the United States, the women, infants, and children program, a very successful program initiated by the federal government, goes across all states. That program is accessible by people through a swipe card.

We are not here today to decide on the long-term solution for this issue. However, we need to establish a process to work with northerners to come up with a long-term solution, and that is part of our resolution as well.

Another part of the motion calls on the government to initiate a comprehensive review of the nutrition north program, with northerners as full partners, to determine ways to provide the subsidy to northern residents and also to support the use of traditional foods. Throughout the small communities, the traditional way of providing sustenance was through hunting, trapping, fishing, and gardening, in many cases. Those were ways communities provided food in days gone by and that need to be supported now to make them more successful.

The nutrition north program was poorly thought out to begin with. For a government that says it supports the north, it fails to work with northerners, or even listen to them. I could be talking about the opposition to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act or to the bill that was passed yesterday, Bill S-6, in which the government simply rode over the valid concerns of many Yukoners.

The same thing could be said about nutrition north. There is a growing groundswell of people speaking up about the program and saying that it is not successful. For instance, the Auditor General found that aboriginal affairs had spoken to Health Canada about what food should go in the subsidy but seemed to have ignored northerners and what food they think should be covered.

When I was in Iqaluit, I met with the people who were engaged in trying to work on this program through raising public awareness about it, and they told me one interesting fact: most of the people in Nunavut, the Inuit people, are lactose intolerant. The fact that the government has made milk a large part of their particular program means that many of them will not pick up on that subsidy, because they cannot use milk the way many southern people or Caucasians use that product. Therefore, that subsidy is not actually as valid as it should be for that particular group of people. That is why we are calling for more support for traditional food. That is part of what has to happen.

As I noted, the current nutrition north criteria exclude a large number of communities that should be receiving the full subsidy. The current criteria seem to be shaped more toward excluding communities than toward ensuring that all northerners have access to affordable nutritious food.

Part of what was going on with the nutrition north program, as the Auditor General pointed out, was that there were to be yearly reviews of eligibility and how the program was working. We have not seen those yearly reviews in the four years the program has been put in place. How was the government to determine that the program was working properly if it did not do the reviews?

It is a very significant and important program dealing with the health of many northerners. The result of not dealing with it correctly means that other costs in the system have gone up. Perhaps they do not mind that the costs for health, education, and the social costs that go with poverty and the failure to have a proper lifestyle are costs that are borne by other governments. Perhaps the current federal government has not been that concerned about them.

We know that many other communities in the country that have year-round road access have very high food costs. If they are hauling food from the southern United States or Mexico to Inuvik, the costs are very high. These costs have to be borne by northerners living in these communities, not all of whom have high-paying jobs.

Because of the poorly thought-out community eligibility criteria, we are calling on the government to create equitable program eligibility criteria for northern communities based upon their real circumstances.

Many of the communities are very small communities. The cost of running retail stores is very high. They cannot avoid that problem. They cannot avoid the problem of the cost of fuel, which has been inflated by almost 400% over the last decade throughout northern Canada. They have to deal with that problem, as well, in a small community.

They cannot expect that using single criteria, the freight rate, and whether they were in the program before is good enough to determine how a community should receive the subsidy.

A comparison of expenditures under the last years of the food mail program with those allocated under nutrition north shows that the Conservatives have been deliberately underfunding the program. In the last two years of the food mail program, the cost was about $59 million. That was up from four years earlier, when the cost was $39 million.

We saw a rapidly accelerating cost for the food mail program. Why was that? It was because all the other costs throughout northern Canada were going up. The Auditor General indicated that the inflationary cost of food in the north was double the rate it was in southern Canada. In the food mail program, where the Conservatives did not really have a hold on the costs, there was an accelerating cost.

However, in the four years of the nutrition north program, the original allocation each year was $53 million. It was topped up, but it never showed much increase over those years in comparison with what was being put into the food mail program.

I think we can safely say that this program has been underfunded since its inception. The indications from the Conservative government were that it would now increase the funding by 5% a year. However, it has not put the money in to catch up to where the program should be. If the program was in place for four years without inflationary figures attached to it, then funding should start at a much higher level before it starts adding the 5% per year.

This shows either poor planning or a deliberate attempt to lowball the program's costs. For that reason, part of this motion is that we call on the government to provide “....sufficient funding to meet the needs of all Northern communities.”

This is what is required. I think back to when I first came to Parliament. I was working on the northern residents' tax deduction, which was a program in 1989. The argument from all northerners was that the program had been in place for many years and they had seen no increase in the amount of the northern residents' tax deduction. Everyone said that inflation should put about 50% into that program. The late minister Jim Flaherty, in his 2007 budget, put in 10%, and there has been nothing since.

What we have seen is that program, which was very important to northerners, which worked very well to encourage people to live and work in the north, and to develop all the things the Conservative government thinks are very important, like mines, oil and gas, and all the rest, has not been allowed to increase, simply to keep up to the rate of inflation.

The rate of inflation in the north is very high. In southern Canada for people heating with natural gas, the cost is pretty well the same as it was a decade ago. In the north, the same people using energy are looking at a 400% increase in their costs. It is a cold place and houses need to be heated. We need an increase in funding to this program, like other programs that are not tied to inflation. People cannot escape those costs. Those costs are part of a system that we live in.

The final point I have is we need to stop supporting a southern Canada-style of food delivery system in the north, and develop a system which is northern-based and sustainable.

We need to do more for ourselves. We need to be encouraged. Northern communities across the country need to be encouraged to look for solutions to this as well. Historically there are many large farms throughout the Northwest Territories. They were run by the missions. They produced the vegetables for all the north in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. That is gone now, but it could come back. There are some northern communities, like Inuvik and Norman Wells, that have created greenhouses. They are very successful with their production of food.

We see many opportunities in the renewable area to improve the situation, whether it is energy, food or housing. All those things come together to reduce costs.

When the efforts are put in from somewhere else, it does not allow for that local involvement. When those from outside the north decide what is good for us, that usually results in failure. Keeping this in mind, we call on the government to work with all northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity.

Nutrition north has many flaws and needs to be reworked with the involvement of northerners. However, until then, it must be expanded to cover all the communities that are now not being covered by that program. That is only fair. We are fair, as Canadians. We believe in equality. We do not stop somebody from applying for a GST rebate because they did not apply for it the year before. Why is that a criteria for northern communities, whether they made use of the food mail system? If they had not made use of the food mail system, they are ineligible for the nutrition north program. That is simply an excuse.

We do not need excuses in the north. We need ways to feed our children, to make our system work, and to have healthy and prosperous communities.

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan to debate the time allocation motion on Bill S-6.

In his answers, the minister just said that he had been in the House of Commons for 20 years. This means that he has been in the opposition and he took offence at the time allocation motions moved by the Liberals at the time. Now he is proud to move one in the House.

My question for the minister is very simple. How has Ottawa changed him so much?

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, whom I want to thank for his strong support, is absolutely right when he said that it is an undeniable fact that no other government in the history of this great country of ours has done as much for northerners as this Conservative government.

Bill S-6 is just the latest example of how we are delivering on our northern strategy. This bill is about enhancing and strengthening the social, economic and environmental assessment process in Yukon, as well as the water licensing process in Nunavut.

The bill builds on two pillars that the parliamentary secretary mentioned and is intended to both protect the environment and promote economic development in these two regions.

It also ensures that northerners are equipped with an effective, timely and predictable regulatory system that is able to contribute to attract investments into their regions for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that no government in Canadian history has done more for Canada's North than this Conservative government.

Certainly, our northern strategy includes four pillars: two of them protecting our environmental heritage, and promoting social and economic development.

Could the minister explain how Bill S-6 promotes the regulatory improvements that we can build on in the North?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have here another member who is getting all worked up about the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which we did not invent. I had the privilege of being an MP over 20 years ago, and the same rules were in place then. Canada is still seen as a vibrant democracy that serves Canadians well.

As my colleague said, there is going to be an election this fall. However, Canadians will have been served by a serious government that is committed to creating jobs in our country, growing our economy and making sure that Canadians' quality of life continues to improve.

Thanks to all of the measures that this government has put in place, Canadians have the lowest tax burden in 50 years. Since the depths of the recession, we have created over 1.2 million good jobs. Were it not for this tool that allows us to close debate when an issue has been debated enough, Canadians would not be reaping all of those benefits.

Bill S-6 is important because the people of the Yukon deserve to be on a level playing field with the other northern regions and the rest of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, mere hours ago, I was in Rideau Hall with the hon. minister for a very moving ceremony for the end of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Certainly, reconciliation requires, at a minimum, respect for first nations and respect for treaties. Bill S-6 does the opposite.

I would plead with the minister not to use time allocation to limit debate. It adds insult to injury, once again, for Canada's first peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question but mostly for his work on behalf of Yukoners. He is always at work to ensure that Yukoners do indeed participate in Canada's prosperity.

As I said, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and this is no different in the north. The reason we must allocate time to pass Bill S-6 as rapidly as possible is that it will establish conditions in both Yukon and Nunavut that will encourage continued investment and ensure that Canada's north remains an attractive place for industry investments in an increasingly competitive global market.

For example, Bill S-6 introduces timelines that will create consistency and predictability in environmental assessments and the issuance of water licences. Another piece of the bill makes sure that once a project has been assessed once, it will not require another assessment unless there has been a significant change to the project, reducing duplication.

Provisions like these will attract investment to Yukon and Nunavut, which will act as a major driver of jobs across the territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, juste en passant, I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that this is not about amendments to just the Yukon process. Important changes to the regulatory system in Nunavut are also contained in Bill S-6, and all Nunavummiut have endorsed these holus-bolus. I would invite the hon. member to consider that aspect of the bill also.

On the issue of consultation, the member is totally wrong. That is the leadership of the Liberal Party. The Liberals follow the crowd. Wherever the wind blows, that is where they go.

We are a principled party and a principled government. This is about job creation. This is about economic growth. This is about protecting the environment. This is about long-term prosperity.

At the moment, there is an imbalance. The government of the Yukon has asked us to pass this bill, because it wants to get to a level playing field with the other territories and with the provinces south of 60. This is about creating certainty. This is about securing investment in the natural resources sector, where first nations, I wish to remind the House, are co-managing the YESA Board with the Government of the Yukon and the Government of Canada.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed today to see that the government is trying to push this bill through the House of Commons and is calling time allocation, not unlike what it has done throughout this whole process on Bill S-6.

This is supposed to be an improvement of the regulatory process for Yukon. While many of the recommendations that were put forward were accepted by first nations and Yukoners, there were four that were not. They were not accepted because they were not in the best interests of the first nations governments, nor were they in the best interests of Yukoners, not did the government consult them in a fair way.

When we went to Yukon and held hearings and heard testimony from the many people who came out, the member of Parliament for Yukon was there. When we came back to Ottawa and sat in committee and made the amendments to this bill that Yukoners and first nations were asking for, their own member was not there to even vote on them or support them, and none of the government members supported them.

There is an injustice being done to the individuals who have protested this bill and have concerns about it. I ask the minister why he is calling time allocation today. Why is he stifling the people who have legitimate concerns regarding Bill S-6, namely the people of Yukon?

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

Mr. Speaker, a serious parliamentarian, a serious party, and a serious government do not inform their agenda by headlines in newspapers. They inform their policy agenda by the needs of Canadians.

This government is creating jobs, creating economic growth, and ensuring the long-term prosperity of not only Canadians south of 60 but of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That includes Yukon, that includes Nunavut, and that includes the Northwest Territories.

The regulatory changes from the action plan this government has put forward are designed to achieve four fundamental and beneficial objectives. The first is making reviews of development projects more predictable and timely. The second is reducing duplication in the review process, something that we know the NDP does not believe in. It strives for duplication. The third is strengthening environmental protection. The fourth is achieving meaningful aboriginal consultations.

This is what Bill S-6 is all about. Throughout this process, we have fully engaged with the first nations, who are our partners under the umbrella agreement. It is with those signed first nations and the Government of Yukon that we will continue to work in partnership to create more wealth, more jobs, and long-term prosperity for all Yukoners.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to mention the 98 times the government has imposed closure and time allocation. It is a record. It is the worst governmental record ever in Canadian history.

It also has the worst record of rejected legislation. The Conservatives bring shoddy legislation into the House, and the courts reject it. A dozen times now the courts have simply thrown out the junk the government has put on the floor of the House and then forced through the House. The government has the worst legislative record in Canadian history.

Now, we are talking about Bill S-6. Here we have a Yukon News editorial from June 13, 2014, which tells us all what people in Yukon think about this bill. It says:

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

That is a voice from Yukon. Those Yukoners should have been listened to by the government. Why did the government not listen? Why is it trying to force a bad bill through the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member betray his lack of understanding and knowledge of what led to Bill S-6. He says there was no consultation. Improvements to the regulatory system have been contemplated since 2007, and they were informed by a review by Neil McCrank, the federal government's special representative for the northern regulatory improvement initiative. In his review of the regulatory systems across the north, he consulted widely with aboriginal groups, governments, and industry. These consultations resulted in his 2008 report, entitled “The Road to Improvement”.

In 2012, the Government of Canada subsequently announced the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, which drew upon recommendations in this 2008 report.

The short answer as to why we have this motion today is that it is to give the northerners the benefit of its impact.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for those who watch the proceedings of the House, I am sure they cannot help but be disappointed in the Conservative-Reform style government. It is a government that since it acquired a majority has had a different attitude in the House of Commons. It is one where it feels it does not need to consult with people, that it can just walk over some very basic democratic principles. It is one that does not understand the need for diligence. It is one that does not understand the need for working with people or working with members of Parliament. In dealing with important legislation like Bill S-6 and the northern regulatory regime, the government has failed on so many counts.

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians. It continues to try to prevent members of Parliament from being engaged and representing their constituents on the floor of the House of Commons.

My question is not for the minister but rather for the government House leader who is the minister responsible for forcing this legislation through, as he has done on so many pieces of legislation. Why does the government need to use time allocation in such a fashion that it has created a record, which cannot even remotely come close to being matched, as the worst government in Canada's history in using time allocation or closure to get its legislative agenda passed?

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing taxes everyone knows these are Conservative ideas and Conservative proposals. In fact, when we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, saving Canadians billions of dollars, the NDP voted against that measure to benefit Canadians. Therefore, we know who is delivering on lower taxes for Canadians.

This afternoon we will start the report stage of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Needless to say, I am disappointed to see on today’s notice paper some 17 report stage amendments, which, all told, would eviscerate the content of the bill. From these proposals, the opposition are clearly signalling that they do not support this Conservative government’s efforts to send a strong message to those in Canada, and those who wish to come to Canada, that we will not tolerate cultural traditions that deprive individuals of their human rights. Early and forced marriages, “honour”-based violence, and polygamy will not be tolerated on Canadian soil, so Conservatives will be voting against all of these opposition amendments.

Tomorrow, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. I am optimistic we can pass the bill soon so the Senate will have adequate time to consider these reductions in red tape, which regular, law-abiding Canadian hunters, farmers and outdoor enthusiasts face.

Monday shall be the sixth allotted day. The New Democrats will provide a motion for the House to debate when we come back from a weekend in our constituencies.

We will complete the report and second reading stages of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, on Tuesday. Earlier today, the House heard my colleague, the Minister of Industry, explain the importance of this key legislation.

Wednesday, we will see the House return to the report stage of Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This legislation is clearly both needed and wanted north of 60. Bill S-6 would modernize regulatory regimes up north and ensure they are consistent with those in the rest of Canada, while protecting the environment and strengthening northern governance.

Next Thursday, June 4, will be the seventh allotted day, when the House will again debate a topic of the New Democrats' choosing.

Finally, for the benefit of those committees studying the supplementary estimates, I am currently eyeing Monday, June 8 as the final allotted day of the supply cycle. I will, however, confirm that designation at this time next week.

Bill S-6—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report and third reading stages of 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.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at a future sitting, motions to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stages of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have no shortage of very important work to attend to.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debating Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1, to implement important measures from the spring's budget, such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit and a reduction to the small business income tax.

The parties across the way have made no secret of their opposition to the excellent tax reduction measures we have proposed, and this week the hon. member for Papineau explained why. As he told the House on Tuesday, “benefiting every single family is not...fair”. Well, that is consistent with his approach to fiscal policy, that budgets balance themselves.

However, our budget implementation bill will deliver those benefits to every family, because that is the fair Canadian thing to do.

After our constituency week, on Monday, May 25, we will debate Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act at report stage. This bill will improve opportunities for economic development north of 60.

After question period that same day, we will take up Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at report stage, and hopefully third reading. Unnecessary, cumbersome red tape facing law-abiding gun owners across Canada will be reduced, thanks to this legislation.

Also, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I am appointing that day, Monday, May 25, as the day for consideration, in a committee of the whole, of all votes in the main estimates, for 2015-16, related to finance.

Tuesday, May 26, will be the fifth allotted day. We will debate a Liberal proposal. I expect the Liberal leader will explain why helping every family is not fair.

We will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, on Wednesday, May 27, when I am hopeful that it will pass.

The following day, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act. In debate last week, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Soon, we will pass this bill”. I look forward to her NDP colleagues proving the hon. member right.

Later that Thursday, we will start the report stage for Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which will re-affirm this Parliament’s ongoing efforts to end violence against women and girls.

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

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

Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, the consultation process has taken place. The provisions of Bill S-6 are clear. They have the total and strong endorsement of the Government of Yukon, which speaks on behalf of Yukoners.

The first nations still voice their opposition to a few amendments, but as I indicated, I am ready to work out with them how we can implement those in a full spirit of co-operation and of respect for the umbrella agreement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, a simple yes or no would have been sufficient for the first nations in the Yukon, but I see we are not getting that. The minister jumped all over the place and ended with some platitude about perhaps meeting with them.

Can the minister just simply say yes or no? Will he meet with the first nations of the Yukon to try to deal with the four outstanding issues under Bill S-6 or will he not?

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho and Sahtu Dene governments have already initiated court action over the Conservatives' creation of the environmental super board to replace regional boards created through the land claim agreements. Yukon first nations say they will do the same as soon as Bill S-6 is passed.

Why does the minister believe that confrontation with aboriginal people in areas where they have a very responsible relationship with their existing governments is better than co-operation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pipeline Safety Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, today, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, in relation to Bill S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

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

Aboriginal Affairs

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, northerners are deeply concerned about the position of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that the three territories are the same and that their environmental laws should be uniform.

In committee, the minister went on and on about how the government's plan is to have the same laws governing the land and water of all three territories. Any northerner would tell us that we cannot treat the territories the same.

This paternalistic approach by the Conservatives is completely wrong. Each territory is unique, with different demographics, different geography, different cultures, and different relationships with aboriginal governments. We have fought for years to create our identities. The minister and his Conservative colleagues instead tell northerners that that their uniqueness, issues, concerns, and political relationships are of no importance to them.

Northerners are fighting back. The NWT' s Tlicho First Nation has won an injunction against the creation of the environmental super-board, and Yukon first nations are already preparing their court case to stop Bill S-6.

Conservative Members from the north, listen up, the opposition will be heard at the ballot box.

Northern Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I missed the question.

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

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

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House this evening to speak in support of one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever come to the House. This is the second time the NDP has brought this bill forward, and I am incredibly proud to support the work of my friend and colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

If the Government of Canada were to implement the principles set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we would see a sea change in the relationship between Canada and the first peoples of this land. We would be living in a new era of respect and dignity for indigenous and non-indigenous peoples alike, as defined by the nation to nation relationship that first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples deserve.

It is shameful and telling that Canada was one of the last state parties to become a signatory to the UNDRIP. It took three years of constant pressure to get Canada to sign. Those who were there have described the tactics that our government used to try and neuter some of the articles in the declaration. In particular, the government attempted to erase article 11, section 2, under which indigenous peoples have the right to free, prior and informed consent in matters which effect their land, well-being and culture. I will return to this point a bit later in my speech because it is so illustrative of exactly why the Conservative government's relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada is so damaged.

The UN declaration is a document of power. In the hands of indigenous peoples, it is a tool and an instrument. Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples are using it to combat the legacy of colonial violence they have inherited.

Across the country, court rulings have reflected the binding nature of Canada's signature on the declaration. They are amassing jurisprudence based upon the rights it provides, and the government has a duty with respect to the document. Beyond jurisprudence, we see indigenous peoples using the UNDRIP to teach their children and broaden their usage of a rights-based framework under which they are dependent upon the goodwill and good faith of Canada, but are the rights holders who are empowered to claim what is owed to them.

I would like to take this time to share the words of some key leaders across Canada who have supported Bill C-641.

This is what Grand Chief Derek Nepinak writes on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs:

“By way of a standing mandate to support UNDRIP, I offer this letter in support of your initiative to have this bill pass and become enshrined in Canadian legislative processes as an important hedge against the derogation or abrogation of Indigenous rights”.

Also from my home province, our NDP minister of aboriginal and northern affairs, Eric Robinson, has written a letter in support of my colleague's bill, which reads in part:

“This will be a major accomplishment in providing clarity and direction for the Federal government and the private sector in recognizing Indigenous rights in this country. As has already been stated by others, Bill C-641 reaffirms Indigenous rights that were taken away by forced assimilation policies like residential schools and the Indian Act. The UN Declaration recognized that Indigenous peoples have the “collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples.” It is time to recognize these rights in Canadian Law”.

Minister Robinson's words are well taken and reflect the fact that provincial governments need not take an adversarial stance against indigenous rights.

Far too often, the Conservative government refers to aboriginal rights as something Canadians cannot afford. The Conservative minister of aboriginal affairs at the time that the UNDRIP was ratified was quoted as saying that the declaration of rights was “unworkable in a Western democracy under a constitutional government...because (native rights) don’t trump all other rights in the country”.

It is shameful. It is as if the inherent rights of some people would come at the cost of the rights of others, as if human rights are not something that can and must be enjoyed by every human being on this planet. Not only is this logic utterly offensive and inherently racist, but it is absolutely incorrect. We can afford Indigenous rights. What we cannot afford is not to enshrine these rights in our country.

Just this afternoon, I met with a delegation of chiefs from the Blueberry River and Doig River First Nations. They travelled from northeast British Columbia to speak to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and members of our opposition. When we met with them, they described a situation we hear more and more often. Their traditional lands are being usurped and destroyed as a result of industrial activity, and for decades, this has happened without their consent.

Neither the federal nor the provincial government has taken their consent into consideration as they rubberstamp successive projects on their lands. They have taken their hunting grounds, pumped chemicals into their waters, and poisoned the animals. Their resource-rich lands, they told me, are now beyond repair. As well, the federal government has stalled in negotiating and resolving their land claims. They have been at the table for over a decade, and the government has shown such disrespect as to completely step away from the negotiations for periods at a time.

These two nations have been left with no choice but to file against their provincial government in court. This ham-fisted way of dealing with first nations will stall economic development and business and will not help this development be sustainable and mutually beneficial.

These two nations do not want resource development completely off their lands, but they do want their government to recognize their inherent right to free, prior, and informed consent, as set out by the UNDRIP.

The fact is, we see the current government's opposition to indigenous rights, both in terms of the UN declaration and in terms of the bill before us today, all too often. Just this week, we saw the government's desire to push forward with Bill S-6, a bill that would attack the kind of legislative framework put in place by first nations in the Yukon and by Yukoners themselves to protect their environment.

The government has attempted to ram through Bill S-6. Industry does not want it rammed through. Industry has made it clear that it wants to respect indigenous rights, because it knows that it is the safest way to do business in Canada.

If the Conservative government were genuinely concerned about sound fiscal management, it would see the UNDRIP as an opportunity to foster better business relations with first nations. The Conservatives would understand that they cannot get away with overriding aboriginal title anymore. The Tsilhqot’in decision this summer proved that very thing.

Today I am proud to say that an NDP government would immediately begin working towards a nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples. We would adopt the UNDRIP and we would enshrine its principles by ensuring that, at the cabinet level, every piece of legislation is reviewed through an indigenous lens and is in line with treaty rights, aboriginal rights, inherent rights, and of course, the UN declaration.

I would like to end by quoting the late hon. Jack Layton, the former leader of the NDP and leader of the official opposition.

In a letter to the UN back in 2006, when they were on the brink of ratifying the declaration, Jack wrote:

I write today to express my Party's support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The New Democratic Party is the social democratic party in Canada's parliament and it is our belief in social justice and equality that leads us to support this declaration.

There are many sound economic, social, and legal reasons to support this bill, but as Jack Layton said, at the heart of the issue is the principle of equality and social justice for all. These are the principles of human rights, and we stand for them.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives shut down debate on Bill S-6, legislation that would gut the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. There was no real consultation with first nations, and nearly all of Yukon's first nations are opposed to Bill S-6. In fact, they are already preparing to fight it in court.

At what point did the Conservatives decide that nation-to-nation consultation with Yukon's first nations did not matter anymore?

Bill S-7—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day again for Canadian Parliament. This is the 91st time the government has used closure, or time allocation, in this Parliament. It goes beyond any previous government in Canadian history. It is twice as bad as what was the previous worst government in terms of open intolerance of democratic debate in this House. The only solace for the Canadian population is that Canadians know that in 200 days, they will be able to vote the current government out of office and bring in a government that actually respects parliamentary traditions.

With the last three closure motions and time allocation, we have seen a real intolerance of debate. We have seen with Bill C-51 that the government is systematically refusing witnesses who could bring a lot to bear on the bill, which is a controversial piece of legislation. Yesterday in the House, the minister might as well have told Yukoners that the government will not accept any amendments to Bill S-6. The Conservatives want to make a show of going up to Whitehorse but have absolutely no intention of actually listening to witnesses and bringing amendments to Bill S-6.

My questions to the minister with respect to Bill S-7 are simple. Will the government hear from witnesses who want to come forward on this bill? Will it actually entertain amendments, or will it show the same disdain it has shown with so many other pieces of legislation by refusing amendments put forth by parliamentarians?

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

Bill S-6--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon this afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-46, the Pipeline Safety Act, at second reading. This bill updates our laws respecting pipelines to make our legislative framework a world leader. The debate will continue—and hopefully conclude—on Monday, March 9.

Tomorrow, before we start our constituency week, we will conclude report stage debate on Bill C-2, the respect for communities act. The bill would enshrine in law the requirement for communities to be consulted when there is an application made to open a drug injection site.

I know the opposition House leader will be very interested in this. Tuesday, March 10 will be an allotted day, and we will have the House debate a New Democratic proposal. I just heard my official opposition counterpart make some comments on time allocation of government bills. Of course, Tuesday will the 79th time allocated opposition day debate of Parliament. That will be the 79th time the NDP has imposed time allocation on a motion it has brought before the House.

Our government allows generous time for debates on bills. We allow considerable time at each stage, yet every time the NDP chooses a subject for debate, it limits the debate to the minimum the rules allow, one day. The rules expressly allow it to allocate a number of its allotted days to a single subject of debate, but on 79 occasions, the NDP has chosen time allocation to the bare minimum of one day. Seventy-nine times it has imposed time allocation on the House to limit debate when it gets to choose the subject. The rules let it choose more days. The rules let it apply more time to those subjects. It chooses not to do that. I invite the hon. member, who seems to have some skepticism, to check out Standing Order 81(16)(b), which gives him that power; so if we want a preview of what could come from the NDP, based on its conduct here, I think we can see it right there.

On that day, March 10, we will finish what I am sure will be the 79th occasion of the NDP imposing time allocation on our ability to debate its ideas. Then, that evening, we will conclude debate on the fourth report of the foreign affairs committee.

On Wednesday, March 11, we will have the third day of second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

Thursday, March 12 will see the House resume consideration at second reading of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This is a bill that would demonstrate that Canada's openness and generosity will not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy, and other similar practices.

We will have third reading of Bill C-2 on Friday, March 13. Finally, for the benefit of committees’ forward planning, I anticipate scheduling Tuesday, March 24, as the last allotted day of this supply period. I will confirm this during next week’s Thursday statement.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-21, an act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. It is a good bumper sticker for Conservative politics later on in this year. It is also a bill that is in some ways very confusing.

If we take the basic premise that we will get rid of a regulation for every regulation we create, that logically says there are quite a number of regulations that do not need to be on the books right now. Why does the government not do some homework and identify the regulations that are not important to the Canadian public, to businesses and to the happiness of the Canadian state and simply eliminate those regulations? Would that not make more sense than tying up the time of the House of Commons with a bill that really does not nail anything down? It simply lays out a pattern that can or cannot be obeyed. It is sort of like the elections limits law earlier in my time in Parliament. People could follow it if they wanted or they did not have to follow it

The President of the Treasury Board may establish policy or issue directives respecting the manner in which the rules can be applied. We have another law that is really for public consumption. It really will not affect too much in the way that business regulations are set or not set in Parliament.

For instance, it says in the preamble of the bill that the one-for-one rule may not compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy. It is in the part of the bill that is not law. It simply talks about the bill. Where Conservatives outline their concerns about where we should not touch regulations on a one-to-one basis, it really is inappropriate, it does not work and it is not part of any requirement of government to follow.

Environment, immigration or human rights are not mentioned. A whole number of things are not mentioned. The Conservatives' thoughts are very different from their thoughts about foreign regulation or how to sell the Canadian public on the idea they are taking care of the economy, the economy being a very complex organism which has social, cultural and environmental aspects to it at all times.

I was a small businessman for many years in the Northwest Territories. I dealt with small businesses in limited markets under very difficult conditions. Regulations set out a pathway for businesses in many cases. They provide, and should provide, a mechanism by which business people can conduct their business in a good and proper fashion. That is the purpose of regulation. Regulations put everyone on a level playing field. Everyone is required to abide by regulations.

Within the economy, there are some rules and conduct that can make business work. Therefore, regulations are very important. To simply deal with regulations in this rather cavalier fashion, saying that for every new regulation we create we are going to take one away, is patently absurd.

Let us go back to the environment. The Conservatives have been changing environmental laws to help large resource developers to effect their businesses better in the three northern territories. That has not worked very well for them. With the changes to the NWT environmental legislation that occurred last year along with devolution, they are now in court with first nations over those changes.

Now we have uncertainty in the Northwest Territories about how development is going to proceed because of those changes. Now the government has decided to do a somewhat similar thing in Yukon with Bill S-6. It would make changes to the Yukon environmental legislation.

The bill has created a firestorm among first nations and ordinary Yukon citizens right across the territory. The people of Yukon understand that the best way for developers to proceed is with the full understanding and co-operation of first nations.

What the government has done in both territories is created this chasm and brought legislation forward which has the exact opposite effect of what it says it is trying to do. I think this bill will probably be similar in some ways.

As I said earlier, if regulations are not appropriate, they should be taken down. We should not wait until another regulation comes along to decide that a regulation is not appropriate anymore. That really is an unbelievably inane way of conducting government.

The NDP has some sensible suggestions for small business. What are we going through right now in Canada? We have a dollar that has dropped by about 20%. What does that do for small businesses that want to innovate and expand their production base, much of which would be imported machinery?

What we need is an innovation tax credit to encourage investments in machinery, especially at this time when we are dealing with 80¢ dollars that have to buy equipment from countries that have a better exchange rate, like the United States.

The NDP tax innovation credit is a good idea. It is an idea for 2015, for the situation in which we exist today. The New Democrats would also extend the accelerated capital cost allowance, which would allow businesses to quickly write off the cost of processing equipment and machinery. This allowance is set to expire this year. At the very time it is needed most, it is going to expire.

Hopefully over the course of this year, as the government changes, we will be able to put some of these things into effect.

As well, cutting the small business tax rate from 11% to 10% and then to 9% is a good solid idea. Small businesses create jobs, they grow communities and they provide services to those who would not have them otherwise.

We do not see multinational corporations investing in small business in my communities in the Northwest Territories. We see the average Joe, the person who has a few dollars and wants to make a difference putting that to work in his community. A lower tax rate for those people ensures that the money will circulate within the economy.

Lowering the tax rate for multinational corporations with multitudinous shareholders all over the world means that the money is dispersed to other sources, dead money in many cases, sitting in banks, good to no one at all. Perhaps we should have a look at other ways to activate that money. That is something the NDP government can look at as it moves into the future.

I have a minute left, and that is probably all the bill deserves. It is really does nothing. The way it is set up it will be meaningless in the future. It is just another wasted effort on the part of the Conservative government to try to show how it can use symbols rather than real work to persuade Canadians that it is on their side.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2. This bill would put into place important support for families, as well as key job-creating measures, which would build on our government's record of over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the economic downturn.

On Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act. By tackling drug use and trafficking in federal penitentiaries, we will make the correctional system safer for staff and inmates, while also increasing the success of rehabilitation.

After question period, we will consider Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, at report stage. I understand that, regrettably, the NDP will be opposing this bill.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill C-43 before it gets its third and final reading.

Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and I hope at third reading. This bill was reported back from the very hard working justice committee yesterday. It was adopted unanimously after a thorough and exhaustive study all autumn. The victims bill of rights act would create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canadian history. This legislation would establish statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights.

The chair of the justice committee implored House leaders yesterday to pass the bill expeditiously. I hope my colleagues will agree.

Next Thursday we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-32, Bill C-12, Bill C-44, and Bill S-6, as well as taking up Bill S-5 at third reading to establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

Next Friday, the House will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, to create Canada's first national urban park.

After that we will have an opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

Northern Development

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, today I was happy to engage in debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act. This bill is designed to help move Yukon along and invest in resource and development projects where they are still safe for the environment and community.

This legislation touches on every piece of a Yukoner's life, from community development, roads, recreational centres, and housing developments to agricultural projects, and small and large-scale development. Not only are these critical community developments important for the fundamental health and well-being of Yukoners, they are also an important source of jobs and income.

Yukon is definitely proud to do its part in the nation by contributing to our development and growth, by supporting our communities and resource projects that protect our environment. This government understands that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

While we move forward studying this important piece of legislation, I look forward to getting support from the opposition to bring this issue right to our territory to hear from the Yukon people on how we could best make this a great piece of legislation for our future.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the comments on our commitment to veterans made by all of my colleagues opposite are completely untrue, our commitment to our veterans in this country in terms of the level of funding we have given them has been unprecedented. Frankly, there has not been one nickel that we have clawed back from veterans. In fact, we have spent over $5 billion more on veterans since taking office than the previous government.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members, once again, on the eve of this year's Grey Cup, that the Saskatchewan Roughriders are the defending Grey Cup champions. They are known not only as Saskatchewan's team but also Canada's team. I ask all members to once again applaud the efforts of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, as they are the backbone of the CFL, our great football institution in this country. I see that my colleagues share my enthusiasm.

It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon on behalf of the government House leader to give the weekly business statement to my colleague opposite. This afternoon, we will continue with the NDP opposition day debate. Tomorrow, we will return to second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law.

On Monday, before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This bill is the final step toward completing the legislative portion of Canada's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. After question period, we will start the report stage of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, which was recently reported back from the public safety committee. This bill will ensure that our communities, and especially parents, will have a say before drug injection sites are opened.

On Tuesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, No. 2, which has been considered by the hard-working finance committee and several other committees this autumn. Bill C-43 would implement measures from this year's federal budget and other newer measures that would support jobs, economic growth, families, and communities, as well as improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system as the government returns to a balanced budget in 2015.

On Wednesday, we will have yet another NDP opposition day, as confirmed yesterday by the government House leader. That will be our last supply day of the autumn, so we will consider the supplementary estimates and an appropriations bill that evening.

Thursday will see us resume debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at third reading. My colleagues from the greater Toronto area will be keen to see progress on this legislation, which would create Canada's first urban national park.

Northern Development

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the actions of the government are so single-minded that people resort to writing books like Party of One. When it comes to northern policy, this really applies.

Last winter, the government wanted to devolve authority over lands and the environment to the Northwest Territories and to make it simpler for developers by doing away with the regional board structures that were negotiated with land claims, against the voices of 90% of northerners, particularly first nations. Now two first nations governments have taken it to court over the change, just as they said they would.

Where is the certainty for development with this kind of action? Now it wants to do the same thing in Yukon through Bill S-6. The Council of Yukon First Nations has already said that if this bill passes, it is going to court.

What is wrong with the government? What is it that makes it so single-minded that it creates these conflicts? Could it be the Prime Minister, the party of one, in all his glory, who listens to only one voice, his own?

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: 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.