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.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill S-6.

The Chair has notice that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will not be present to move Motions Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9.

Motion Nos. 1, 4 to 7, and 10 will be regrouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4 to 7, and 10 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 4

That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 5

That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 6

That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 7

That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 10

That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put forward these amendments to Bill S-6, a bill that has the ability to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. It contains many clauses that cannot be amended. Why? They came out of a five-year review of the Yukon Environmental Assessment Act and were agreed to. Many changes to the Environmental Assessment Act were worked out through a process of collaboration, understanding and collaboration between the government and the people of Yukon.

After that process, four very controversial items were added to this bill and then arbitrarily put to the people of Yukon.

The first would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, to which Yukoners are opposed. They had no chance to work with anyone to mitigate that.

The second would legislate time limits for assessments in the face of the fact that the assessment process was working just fine in Yukon, and that people had learned how to deal with very complex issues in an orderly fashion.

The third would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all responsibilities to the Yukon government without consultation with and approval from the first nations who were party to the whole deal that was set up in the first place.

The fourth would create broad exemptions with respect to the Yukon environmental assessment process for renewals, amendments and permits authorizations, which were in the hands of the boards already.

We can see that the devolution process in the northern territories, which in Yukon started 10 years ago, has been curtailed by this legislation. It has been rolled back in a very significant and deliberate fashion by the government. That is not appropriate.

The other amendments proposed to the act dealt with things that people could see and agree to. They were designed to help move the act forward in a proper fashion so the environmental assessment process could be well-respected and understood.

We have had the same problem in the Northwest Territories. The government agreed to a devolution process and then forced changes to our environmental assessment process. That has now gone to court and there have been injunctions put in place by the court over the actions taken by the government in the Northwest Territories.

We are likely to see the same thing in Yukon, where the first nations will once again have to take the government to court to deal with issues that should have been dealt with in a proper fashion.

Therefore, we have identified four issues and are asking that they be removed from the act through these amendments. It is a request that goes back to the people of Yukon, who have asked for this.

We took the committee to Yukon and had a one-day hearing, which went from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The room was filled with hundreds of people who attended the committee hearing from 8:30 a.m. until it finished in the evening. They were not pleased with the bill.

The support for the bill was almost nil. People were speaking out on it. The Government of Yukon, which will face its own electors over this very shortly, will find out how those people feel about the bill. This will also be the case for the Conservative government very soon.

After the election, which is likely to be in October unless the government decides to try to delay it even more, the new NDP government will be ready to put forward amendments to deal with these contentious issues for the people of the north.

There is no reason at all for this to have happened in the fashion it did. The government has created uncertainty in the environmental assessment process for the companies, people and the first nations of Yukon. It has messed it up.

Let me quote Ms. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice president Lands and Environment, Kaminak Gold Corporation, which has just invested substantial sums of money in the 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 and regulatory process for current and future projects in Yukon.

These are the people who are investing in the Yukon.

This is what Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations, has to say:

CYFN and all 11 self-governing first nations are unanimously opposed to four provisions that are part of Bill S-6.

Here we have it. On the one hand, we have industry saying that it will not work for them, that it does not need it and do not even understand why it is being done. On the other hand, first nations are saying that things are being done against all their agreements and that are really throwing the process, which they worked so hard to set up, off the back of the cart. They want to know why the government has done it and what the purpose is of this kind of action by the government. They want to know if it is simply because the party of one over in the Langevin Block has decided that this is the way it will go, that no one can interfere with that kind of decision making, that no one from the grassroots up can make a difference.

The government is making rules for territories that actually need devolution. They need to control their own affairs. The government has actually thrown that particular process off the back of the cart. It is heading off in a different direction. People in the territories, my territory, Yukon, who have been influenced by these bills, now face the prospect of suing the government, of going forward with litigation in order to get rid of some of these contentious clauses, which nobody really wants, which do not make any sense and which are not part of any reduction of colonialism or changing the way these territories can govern themselves.

We have put forward a number of amendments which deal with the four contentious issues. We would hope that the government, in the end, would come to its senses and would actually listen to the people of Yukon, industry and those who are involved in the actual work of Yukon, rather than sitting over on Langevin Block, and come to an understanding that these need to be removed to make this bill work. Then we could go ahead and all support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the member for Northwest Territories speak. Even if I do not agree with him, we spent that day together in Yukon and certainly survived the charter flight as well.

I want to talk about the difference of philosophy. Our government believes that northerners are best placed to make decisions affecting their legislation and their lands. That is why we propose to devolve powers to the local government, to the government closer to the people, to the territorial government. We did it in the Northwest Territories with Bill C-15. We have proposed that provision in Bill S-6 as well, to allow the federal minister to delegate powers to the territorial minister.

I would like a clear answer from the member as to why he believes power should remain concentrated in Ottawa instead of devolved to the people in the north, closer to where they live.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the simplistic idea that has been proposed by the government is really one that goes against what people have worked very hard on throughout the north, and that is the relationship between aboriginal governments and public governments. This will be the determining factor in our ability to work together.

Northerners have come to the decision that first nations governments have complete relevance in everything that goes on in our territories. In the minds of northerners, we do not separate first nations governance as a lesser force. We accept that these forces have to work together. We accept that the decision making has to involve that kind of jurisdictional sharing.

What the government would do with this amendment is take it away from first nations and impact that kind of delegation of authority. I am sure there would be many things first nations could work very well with the public government in Yukon in this regard, but they need to be there at the table.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling that the Conservative government, with the full support of its members and its senators, did not consult the people of the Yukon and did not strive for social acceptability with these significant changes. However, it had no problem talking to the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, among others.

Does my colleague think that we can improve the situation in the Yukon by showing contempt for aboriginal peoples and by only supporting the big mining companies? I am very concerned about the government's contempt for aboriginal peoples.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a problem with the government. It came up with these four amendments after a complete process of years when it could have introduced them. It could have put them forward over that time. It could have talked about them. It could have tried to find some kind of accommodation within the system. It had the time. It had people dedicated to do that work. These are highly trained individuals. They do not miss these types of items. They do not say that they forgot about these four concerns and that they will throw them into the bill at a later date. This was a fairly carefully crafted little effort to avoid talking about the things that were controversial and then shoving them into the bill later. This is really not the way to do devolution in our territories. It is not the way to come up with agreements that can work for people.

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has been pursuing the most ambitious northern agenda in the history of this country. From promoting prosperity and development through Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, to devolving powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories through Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, to the vision and implementation of the Canadian High Arctic research station, no other government in Canadian history has done more than ours to increase health, prosperity and economic development in the north.

The initiative before the House today, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, or Bill S-6, would represent yet another key deliverable of our government's northern strategy and would be the final legislative step in our government's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

In total, our government has created or amended eight different pieces of legislation in order to ensure that northern regulatory regimes across the north are nimble and responsive to the increased economic activity taking place across the north. This is no small feat. These legislative changes will allow Canada's north to compete for investment in an increasingly global marketplace which, in turn, will lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for northerners. Bill S-6 would continue in this vein.

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

This is an incredibly important aspect of Bill S-6 and one that would act to drive economic development across the territory. Unfortunately, the NDP wants to remove these time limits. I take particular exception to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which would cause the portions of the bill related to time limits to be deleted. This would prevent regulatory predictability and actually hinder growth and prosperity in the Yukon.

Some have argued that the time limits would affect the thoroughness of the assessment process. However, as the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board's own statistics show, the proposed time limits are either consistent with or more favourable than the board's current practice. In addition, Bill S-6 would include provisions to allow for extensions, recognizing that there may be situations when more time is warranted to carry out a function or power.

A different provision in the act, specifically, the proposed amendment to section 49.1 of YESAA, would ensure that, going forward, reassessments would only be required in the event that the project has been significantly changed.

This is another integral piece of Bill S-6 that the opposition would eliminate. That is why I oppose Motion No. 4. The passage of the motion and the elimination of the clause would prevent the elimination of unnecessary delays and red tape in the approval process.

In the past, projects that have already been approved and permitted could be subject to a new environmental assessment simply because of a renewal or a minor change in the project. The amendment would help to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary red tape where it is not warranted.

The amendment would also make it clear that if there is more than one decision body, which could be a federal, territorial or first nations government or agency that regulates and permits the proposed activity, they must consult with one another before determining whether a new assessment is required. Further still, the legislation would specify that in the event of a disagreement, if only one decision body determines that a significant change has occurred, it must be subject to a reassessment. This would also be consistent with the UFA, the Umbrella Final Agreement, which states in section 12.4.1.1 that projects and significant changes to existing projects are subject to the development assessment process.

Another proposed change would be the ability for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

This is another amendment that the opposition would like to remove from the bill. Motion No. 10 would remove the ability of the minister to issue policy direction.

It is important to remember that the ability to provide policy direction is not a heavy-handed attempt by the government to interfere in the assessment process nor does it undermine the neutrality of the board. Quite the contrary, it is intended to ensure a common understanding between the government and the board, helping to reduce uncertainty in environmental assessment decision-making and helping to ensure the proper implementation of the board's powers in fulfilling its role in the assessment process.

Moreover, this power exists in the Northwest Territories where it has only been used four times, and in each case it was used to clearly communicate expectations on how to address first nations' rights or agreements. For example, it was used in order to ensure that notification was provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Deline regarding licences and permits in a given region.

By supporting this motion, the opposition would actually remove a tool that the minister could use to ensure that aboriginal rights are protected. Perhaps not surprisingly, during our committee study when we were in the Yukon, the NDP member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said it was paternalistic for the minister to try to protect aboriginal rights through policy direction. The NDP obviously does not want the minister to exercise the duty he has been given to protect aboriginal rights in Canada, calling that paternalistic. It is completely bizarre.

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

The legislative amendment also makes it clear that policy directions cannot be used to influence a specific project or change the environmental assessment process itself.

It is for these reasons that I oppose the passage of Motion No. 10, and encourage other members to do the same.

Another amendment of concern is the minister's ability to delegate certain powers in the act to a territorial minister. Some have suggested that this amendment is an attempt by this government to shirk its responsibilities to the Yukon first nations and is inconsistent with the tripartite nature of the land claim agreement.

I want to be very clear that these concerns are completely unfounded. First of all, any delegation must be consistent with the UFA. Second, the Umbrella Final Agreement permits delegation. Specifically, the definition of “government” includes both the federal and territorial governments, depending on which government or governments have responsibility from time to time for the matter in question. Section 2.11.8 of the agreement states that “Government may determine, from time to time, how and by whom any power or authority of Government or a Minister set out in a Settlement Agreement...shall be exercised”.

Not least of all, this measure is in keeping with our government's objective of devolving responsibility to the territories and moving decision-making closer to home. That is, away from Ottawa bureaucracy and right into the hands of Yukoners themselves.

This legislation is clearly both needed and wanted north of 60. It satisfies calls to modernize northern regulatory regimes and ensure consistency with other regulatory regimes across the north and in the rest of Canada, while protecting the environment and strengthening northern governance.

For all these reasons, I urge all-party support for this worthy act as it stands, and to reject all of the amendments to Bill S-6 that are before the House today.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who I have spent time with on committee.

When the government put these four amendments in after the fact, after its major consultation process that took place over a considerable period of time, there was such an outcry from first nations. The fact is that first nations have now requested, and have requested over the previous number of months, that the minister sit down with them and see how they can work to come to some kind of agreement on these four amendments. Where has the minister been? Where has the government been in trying to work this out with the first nations?

Why have the Conservatives been so intransigent about these four amendments, which are quite obviously not supported by the first nations who are an important and vital part of any process that takes place in the Yukon?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course the minister takes very seriously his obligation and his duty to consult with first nations. That is why, in the case of the Yukon first nations, there have been dozens of documented meetings where the four contentious amendments, as the member categorizes them, were discussed. In fact, nearly $100,000 was provided to the first nations to help them engage in that consultation process. They submitted receipts to the Government of Canada, which were paid based on their engagement with us on those particular measures.

Obviously, we do not agree with their interpretation of those measures. The minister has met with the first nations and has repeatedly asked them to show him where these amendments contravene the Umbrella Final Agreement. To date, they have not done so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. I do not necessarily agree with them, especially when it comes to trying to give the impression that the current government has been very strong in developing and assisting in setting the social framework up north. To try to give the impression that it is the strongest in the history of Canada is somewhat fictitious at best, I would suggest.

When we look at Bill S-6, we see there has been a great deal of resistance. A lot of that resistance is in the community itself that has raised a number of concerns, and the government has not responded to those concerns. It was not that long ago that I was talking to Larry Bagnell and other members who came to our northwestern caucus, in essence saying that they have strong reservations that the government is not being sensitive to the needs of the north, nor is it listening.

Can the member explain to the constituents up north why the government has obviously not listened to our first nations, people of aboriginal heritage or many of our local communities who are trying to get the government to listen and make amendments that would make it better legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the hon. member brought up Larry Bagnell. When Larry Bagnell was speaking to constituents when he was the member for Yukon, he said he would go to Ottawa and vote against the long gun registry. What did he do? He came into this House and voted to maintain the long gun registry. Talk about not listening to constituents. That is why he is unemployed and why the member for Yukon now is a strong advocate for gun owners right across the north, a strong advocate for the aboriginal people in his community and the strongest representative that Yukon has had in 25 years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time I have been given today as we speak about this very important issue. I am not from the north; I am from Newfoundland and Labrador, but I proudly stand here to discuss this particular bill simply because it is very important to people in a land that is so vast and so rich in natural resources. There is a lot to talk about indeed, and it is a very important part of who we are as Canadians.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

This particular piece of legislation is the third in a suite of bills aimed at improving the regulatory regime in Canada's northern territories. Unfortunately, like most legislation the government introduces, the bill is being rammed through the House with only a limited debate. It was brought in without proper consultation with local communities and first nations, as has been discussed here in the past and certainly since debate started about 35 minutes ago.

There is a growing feeling in the north that the changes being imposed by the Conservatives through Bill S-6 will endanger the independence and effectiveness of environmental assessments and that it will eventually end up before the courts.

The objective of Bill S-6 is to update the regulatory regime in Yukon and Nunavut and align it with other regulatory regimes throughout Canada.

Among other things, this legislation would introduce legislated time limits for environmental assessments. It would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to give binding policy directions to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. It would also allow the delegation of any of the minister's powers, duties, and functions to the territorial minister by way of devolution; enable the government to develop cost-recovery regulatory measures; and reduce regulatory burdens by clarifying that a project need not undergo another assessment when a project authorization is to be renewed or amended, unless there is a significant change in the project. It would also introduce time limits for water licence reviews and allow for life-of-project water licences. It would also require the Nunavut Water Board to take into consideration agreements between Canada, regional Inuit associations, and proponents regarding posting of security to address the issue of over-bonding when more than one regulatory agency requires financial security for the same project.

Unlike Bill C-47 and Bill C-15, the two other bills aimed at improving the regulatory regime in Canada's northern territories, this legislation was introduced in the Senate on June 3, 2014, by Yukon Senator Dan Lang.

Some media reports indicate this particular piece of legislation may become a major issue in the next election, and some pundits question why the member of Parliament for Yukon was not the bill's sponsor. I am sure that over the next four or five months, he will have plenty of opportunity to answer that question and explain why the legislation was not amended when flaws were exposed and why there were no proper consultations with first nations, as many of my colleagues alluded to earlier in this debate.

Unfortunately, one of the strongest criticisms of Bill S-6 was on the absence of any meaningful consultation. For instance, the Council of Yukon First Nations, which represents eleven self-governing first nations, has made it clear that the Conservative government's consultations for the bill were not adequate to merit its support.

That is no surprise, as this particular government has a history of pushing through unwelcome changes in the territories.

For instance, with Bill C-15 the Conservatives passed the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. While devolution was started under a Liberal government, and we strongly supported that process, the much larger second part of the bill included the introduction of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which shortened assessment timelines, reduced the role of first nations, and made it easier to approve projects that lacked local support. That was certainly a shame to many of the stakeholders involved and a shame to us here in this House.

The proposed changes in Bill S-6, which we debate today, follow this path of a top-down, Ottawa-centred approach to dealing with the territories. That is the opposite of how Liberals approach northern development.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes that a sustainably developed resource sector is essential to the success of our economy and, if we get it right, will serve as an important foundation for future economic growth and job creation for middle-class Canadians. Our party supports developing resources in the north in a sustainable manner.

Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize that unlocking this economic engine is contingent on environmental sustainability and on impacted aboriginal communities being treated as equal partners. That approach has not been followed in this case. Many people in Yukon and Nunavut believe that Bill S-6 would have a negative impact on their lives and their communities, and they are upset with what the government is trying to pass off as what it considers to be meaningful consultation.

Here is what Grand Chief Ruth Massie of the Council of Yukon First Nations told the committee when it held hearings on the legislation in the north. She said:

The federal government's approach on Bill S-6 is a roadblock to reconciliation. Participants in mining, tourism, and other industries are concerned about how Bill S-6 might adversely affect the future for resource development in Yukon.

Grand Chief Massie went on to say that all eleven self-governing nations on the council unanimously oppose four provisions in the legislation. She said:

We oppose giving the minister full power to issue binding policy direction to the YESAB as proposed in clause 34 of Bill S-6....

On timelines, we oppose the establishment of beginning-to-end timelines for assessments conducted under YESAA.

On exemption from assessment for project renewals and amendments, we oppose the proposed exemption from assessment for renewals and amendments of licences and permits as proposed in clause 14 of Bill S-6.

Clearly there are issues with this legislation and clearly it is not just first nations communities that are concerned. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice-president of lands and environment at Kaminak Gold Corporation, is worried that Bill S-6 may put a chill on investment in the north. Kaminak, a Canadian exploration company that has owned and explored mineral properties in all three territories, wants an accessible and stable regulatory regime. However, Ms. Rippin Armstrong told the committee that her company is worried that the process through which YESAA would be amended is creating increased distrust and the potential for legal action.

Here is her testimony. She said:

Kaminak is very concerned about this development, because court cases create assessment and regulatory uncertainty in addition to extraordinary delay, all of which erodes investor confidence.

She went on to tell the committee once again that:

Our Coffee gold project has yet to enter the YESAA process. If Bill S-6 is passed and challenged in court, the Coffee gold project and our presence in 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.

That is good advice, but it went unheard. Why is the Conservative government not listening to what it is being told and fixing the flaws in this bill? It is obvious that members on the opposite side believe they can unilaterally impose the government's will on the north.

As my colleague from Labrador said when she spoke on Bill S-6, history has already demonstrated that resource development can be environmentally conscious, while also finding trilateral support among aboriginal governments, territorial and federal governments, and the local communities. This, indeed, is the only way to move forward with resource development. It is not just a moral obligation; it is, truly, a legal one.

The member for Labrador was correct when she said:

Unfortunately, despite spending years of working with Yukon first nations on a comprehensive review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, the federal government blindsided them earlier this year with a number of key changes that are contained in this bill and were not discussed throughout the process.

If the Conservative government persists in ramming these changes through, many observers believe that they will only create more local uncertainty and jeopardize development of the north.

Samson Hartland, the executive director of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, noted his organization enjoys a positive, constructive relationship. He told the committee that the chamber's 400 members want all levels of government to move toward a more respectful dialogue.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member reading his speech which, I am assuming, had some input from the member for Labrador, who was actually at the committee hearings in Yukon.

I am a little perplexed, though. He represented the Liberals' report stage lead speech, and Liberals expressed a number of concerns, but they did not move any amendments at report stage. In fact, amendments were moved by the official opposition and the leader of the Green Party, but those did go forward.

My question is this: why did the Liberals not move any amendments? In committee, they were okay with the ideas of time limits and significant change, two of the four amendments that he referenced.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the irony is that the member asks his question under the assumption that these amendments are normally approved by the current majority government. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We talked about consultation in the committee process that took place and, of course, about the lack of consultation. There is a duty to consult, which has not been sufficient, by any stretch of the imagination, over the past number of years. Since the Conservatives came into power in 2006, we have seen scant evidence that this was actually happening. Here is yet another case.

I quoted several individuals from the private sector who are quite concerned about this in terms of investor confidence. That is in addition to first nations leaders, who also talked about the environmental regulatory regime that is being undermined. It goes on and on.

Again I go back to the point that if we think about this, what ails all of the people involved in the committee process really could have been dealt with up front. It could have been dealt with in a meaningful conversation or, in this case, consultation could have taken place to justify some of the changes that could have been made.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats share the concerns that my friend has raised about consultation or the lack of it, but what is a little surprising to me is that the people of the north were asking for the Senate committee to go there for consultations, but the Liberals in the Senate did not support it. I am wondering if the member could enlighten us as to why.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member will have to ask those particular senators.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has been a very strong advocate for the economic and social development in northern Canada. My question to my colleague is with regard to the importance of having that development, the impact it would have not only on today's generation but on future generations, and how important it is that we not only work with people who live in the community but actually listen to what they are saying, because they have the first-hand experience and are on the ground. If we do the job right the first time, everyone in Canada would win.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the importance of working with people.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some talk lately about devolution, not only in Bill S-6 but also in Bill C-15. We talked about the devolution of powers to communities. In order to truly devolve powers so that it is fundamentally good for the communities, the communities have to be involved and feel that they are part of the process, whether it is government to government or trilaterally, as the member for Labrador pointed out.

Finally, I would like to point out a statement from Mr. Hartland, of whom I spoke earlier and who is with the Yukon Chamber of Mines. He said:

...as an industry organization we would be remiss if we did not articulate a concern from industry that the erosion of intergovernmental relations among parties...over Bill S-6 is creating a level of uncertainty that affects the attractiveness of Yukon as a jurisdiction to invest in.

This particular individual is on the ground. He is in the chamber in Yukon and knows whereof he speaks.

Therefore, as my colleague points out, if we are devolving powers to a group of people, we should probably do it in a manner that suits the people receiving the devolution.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this legislation. After years of review and consultation with first nations and other northerners, with the legislation proposed in Bill S-6 we can now move forward with improvements to northern regulatory regimes. These improvements will yield long-term benefits for individuals and businesses in Yukon and Nunavut.

I am a strong believer that northerners should benefit from the tremendous natural resources found in their region. Bill S-6 contains critical amendments to northern regulatory regimes that would ensure that northerners benefit from their resources. These amendments would bring both Yukon and Nunavut's regulatory systems in line with that of the Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada. This would ensure that the territories remained a competitive and attractive place to work, live, and invest for generations to come and that northern families had opportunities to grow and prosper.

I want to focus on several changes in Bill S-6 that would modernize the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, called YESAA for short, which would enable us to make progress on both fronts.

The goal of the proposed legislation is to consider the potential effects that proposed development could have on Yukon's environment, people, communities, and economy.

The Honourable Darrell Pasloski, Premier of Yukon, said:

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

This work is overseen by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, whose mission is to protect the environmental and social integrity of Yukon while fostering responsible development in the territory, responsible development that reflects the values of Yukoners and respects the contributions of first nations.

I would like to focus my remarks today on one portion of the bill. It is the provision that would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to issue policy direction to the YESAA board.

The proposed legislation would enable the minister, following consultation with the board, to provide binding policy direction with respect to the exercise or performance of its powers, duties, or functions. This has raised concerns in some quarters that it would give the federal government authority to impose its own policies on projects on first nation settlement land. I can assure members that this is not the intention of the amendment nor the way it has been used in practice. In reality, policy directions have been used to add clarity and to ensure that all parties are on the same page with respect to existing laws.

The reason the change is being proposed is to ensure a common understanding between the Government of Canada and the board. For example, the minister could use policy direction to communicate expectations regarding the use of new technologies to mitigate environmental impacts or expectations regarding roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation. This clarification would reduce uncertainty and delays in environmental assessment decision-making.

In recognition of the board's independence, there would be strict limits on the minister's ability to provide policy direction. To be precise, policy direction would have to be consistent with YESAA and with the Umbrella Final Agreement. In fact, YESAA states that first nations' final agreements will prevail in the event of an inconsistency or conflict. Furthermore, policy direction could not interfere with active or completed reviews, again because the board operates at arm's length from government.

To be clear, policy direction could not change the environmental assessment process itself. In fact, Bill S-6 explicitly states that policy directions do not apply to project proposals that have already been submitted to the board.

It is also important to note that the ability to issue policy direction is not without precedent. In fact, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development already holds the ability to issue policy direction to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board in the Northwest Territories. With respect to this board, policy direction has only ever been used four times, and each time it was to ensure that the board respected and upheld interim agreements the Government of Canada held with aboriginal groups.

In short, policy direction has only been used to provide additional protection for aboriginals.

Clearly, this is an important amendment to Bill S-6. The ability to ensure a common understanding by the government and the YESAA board, particularly with respect to aboriginal rights, is essential. Unfortunately, the opposition would remove this power from the bill.

This government understands the importance of protecting aboriginal rights, which is why I strongly oppose Motion No. 10, and I would encourage the rest of the House to join me in rejecting it.

A second, related feature of this proposed legislation I want to comment on is the delegation of federal powers to the Government of Yukon. The Umbrella Final Agreement defines government as:

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

The delegation of federal powers to the Government of Yukon is consistent with the final agreements and with the governance regime in Yukon post-devolution. In fact, section 2.11.8 of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement states:

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

Moreover, the principle behind this delegation, that decisions about northern governance are best made in the north, is consistent with our government's northern strategy. In fact, just last year, our government brought into force Bill C-15, which devolved all responsibility for lands and resources out of Ottawa and back to the territorial governments.

This, in short, is why I believe that the ability to delegate authority to the Government of Yukon is an integral component of Bill S-6 and why I am so disappointed to see the Green Party oppose this clause. I strongly oppose the passage of that motion, and I hope that all members of the House join me in voting against it.

The opposition actually supported that initiative when it was before the House, but now they are opposing the very same principle when implemented in the Yukon.

I remind my hon. colleagues that the amendments to YESAA proposed in Bill S-6 address agreed upon recommendations from the five-year review or have been directly requested by the Government of Yukon so that the act can better serve all residents of Yukon, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. As well, the proposed amendments incorporate suggestions made during the various rounds of review and consultation.

I also want to underline that all parties have improved the legislation before us during the years of consultation and I want to reinforce that the legislation in no way compromises the integrity of YESAA or conflicts with the provisions or nature of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

For these reasons, government members are confident that Bill S-6, including the carefully constructed amendments to introduce policy direction and delegation in YESAA, fully considers the needs and interests of all northerners.

I strongly believe that the ability of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to issue policy direction to YESAB and to delegate authority to the Government of Yukon is an essential portion of this bill. Unfortunately, the opposition would like to see both clauses removed. I am asking all hon. colleagues to join me in defeating the motions and moving Bill S-6 forward as it stands.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Red Deer for his speech, for everything he is doing on aboriginal affairs, and for how he is moving this file forward.

I wonder if the member could explain to the House how this will improve economic development in Yukon as this bill moves through the House.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity a number of years ago, when I was first on the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, to go to the north. We were in Iqaluit, Yellowknife, and Whitehorse. I had a chance to speak to different groups and different organizations.

The study was on barriers to development in the north. While we were there, this was one of the key, important features people were talking about. They said to give them that opportunity. They said that they had great entrepreneurs there and did not want to be held back. They wanted to be able to have the same advantages as the people south of 60. It was so important for them to be able to do that to help their families.

When we were talking to folks about what these barriers were, these were some of the key components that were being brought forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of economic development. I have made reference to that in previous questions. It is something we want to see. However, we also recognize the important role the community itself plays.

Can the member provide some thoughts on the importance of trying to build consensus and whether he genuinely believes that consensus was achieved, given the amount of resistance coming from the community, from what I understand, at the ground level and the many stakeholders being somewhat critical? The aboriginal people and other communities have been very vocal about a number of concerns in regard to the legislation. To what degree does the member believe that the government was able to achieve an actual consensus?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, as the member knows, the consultations were all consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement, so all of the discussions were taking place within that framework.

I remember earlier that the parliamentary secretary was speaking of the $100,000 that was there to help the consultations take place. Critical to this, as well, is recognizing that the Government of Canada, as far as policy directives are concerned, has been in support of our aboriginal groups in the north. That is a critical component. Sometimes we hear that we are giving this opportunity for other things and for negative things to occur, because it is easier to talk that way. However, when we look at the practicality and the actual things the government has been doing with the northerners, it has been to protect. Whether it has been environmental issues or aboriginal wishes and concerns to help their communities, there has been great support from our government.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and a certain amount of emotion that I speak to Bill S-6. My heart has a soft spot for Yukon and its people.

In 1976, I first went to Yukon to undertake a study on the feasibility of expanding youth hostels. For those of us who remember the late 1970s, it was a time of youth migration across this great country. My task was to see if we could set up a network of centres or hostels to accommodate these young people. That was my first opportunity to visit this magnificent area of Canada. I went for a few months and stayed for five years, perhaps the happiest and most rewarding of my life.

My next job involved working with the Yukon recreation branch, which at that time came under the Department of Education. The minister at the time, a current senator for Yukon, was Senator Dan Lang. I fondly remember spending time in his office trying to get support for various initiatives that our branch was working on. Now we see each other occasionally on flights to and from Ottawa. However, unfortunately we do not agree on Bill S-6.

One of the initiatives that I had the pleasure of working on, an idea that came from the director of recreation at that time, Barry Robb, was that of implementing a network of territory-wide recreation and advisory boards that would be all inclusive. We tried and were successful in involving all communities, with first nation participation as equals, helping to break down some of the barriers that existed at that time.

What is puzzling is that this type of consultation process has apparently been lacking in regard to the bill before us. As I read my notes, I find it very troubling that the Conservative government is once again attempting to ram its ideologically driven agenda through without taking into account the needs of all citizens of Yukon.

Yukon is a majestic area with an extraordinary landscape, wide open spaces unequalled anywhere in the world, and with a dynamic proud people. While there, I spent many hours visiting various communities, from Dawson City to Watson Lake. I even had the pleasure of flying into Old Crow in the Arctic Circle. At that time, we had functioning mines in Elsa and Faro. I even spent a few months working as recreation direction in Elsa.

Bill S-6 would unilaterally rework Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system, a system which is a product of the Umbrella Final Agreement, which settled most of the first nations land claims in the territory. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA, is a made-in-Yukon solution to the unique environmental and social circumstances of the territory.

It is clear to see that the changes proposed in Bill S-6 are being driven by what I would call the corporate agenda of southern resource development companies. The bill would dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process developed in Yukon, by Yukoners for Yukon.

In my opinion, it is part of the Conservative ideologically driven agenda to systematically weaken environmental protection legislation, with no public consultation, little or no parliamentary security, and often being buried in omnibus budget legislation. Some examples of weakened environmental laws include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, navigable waters protection act, and Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

It is interesting to note that four former fisheries ministers, three of them Conservative, have been highly critical of the gutting of the Fisheries Act by the current Conservative government. I would like to recognize one of these individuals, the hon. Tom Siddon, who continues to serve his constituents as a director with the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen.

As I mentioned earlier, there was incomplete consultation with Yukon first nations before these amendments were made. I find it hard to believe that there was no public process while developing these amendments. At the same time, non-Yukon stakeholders, including the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, Mining Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association were allowed input.

It appears as if the Yukon government, with support from the Conservative MP and senator, pushed this deal through in spite of considerable opposition to the changes from Yukoners and the Council of Yukon First Nations. In other words, these amendments favour the Yukon government over the Yukon first nations, the other partner in the YESAA process.

There should not be this kind of division. What is more, the Council of Yukon First Nations has threatened legal action should the bill become law. Ironically, instead of favouring development, Bill S-6 could wind up slowing it down.

Let us listen to what Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice-president of lands and environment at Kaminak Gold Corporation has to say:

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

Specifically, the YESAA five-year review resulted in a number of recommendations, most of which were supported by the parties involved in the review, including Yukon first nations. We understand that some of the proposed amendments do not accurately reflect comments and recommendations raised during the five-year review, and as a result, instead of celebrating a historic alignment between the governments and the Yukon first nations on most of the proposed amendments to YESAA, Yukon first nations have expressed a common position that they intend to take the federal government to court, if Bill S-6 is passed as proposed.

Kaminak is very concerned about this development, because court cases create assessments and regulatory uncertainty in addition to extraordinary delay, all of which erodes investor confidence.

In these difficult economic times, why would any government even consider implementing measures that would encourage economic uncertainty? It would seem to me that a stable environment supported by first nations should be a necessary prerequisite to any shift in policy.

Former Yukon MP Larry Bagnell spoke in the House to the original bill creating YESAA on October 21, 2002. He said:

Much of that time has been spent in consultation with stakeholder groups and, as a result, we have a much better bill and much better process than might otherwise be the case. First nations in particular will have a more meaningful role in assessments in Yukon.

It is safe to say that virtually everyone in Yukon had an opportunity to comment on the bill and many did.

Larry talked about how the department released drafts of the legislation in 1998 and 2001 for public review and undertook two separate tours to meet with first nations and other residents to review and discuss these drafts. He went on to say:

This took time, but it was time well spent. Those in Yukon who participated believe the process was inclusive, transparent and worthwhile.

Why is it that a former Liberal majority government made an effort to adequately consult prior to introducing legislation where our current conservative regime has chosen to disregard the democratic process?

Speaking of the lack of respect for democracy, one only has to look at how the Canadian Wheat Board was gutted in spite of support for the single desk by over 60% of farmers, or the complete rejection of over 20 amendments proposed by the NDP and Liberals to strengthen the food safety act, Bill S-11, or most recently the way that Bill C-51 was rammed through, in spite of the fact that knowledgeable witnesses spoke out against these draconian measures. Clearly Canadians are asking for a change. This will happen in October, but sorry for that digression.

Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations said this when appearing before the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources:

Pursuant to the UFA, the CYFN, including Yukon First Nations, Canada and Yukon undertook a comprehensive review of YESAA. Initially, CYFN, Yukon First Nations, Canada and Yukon worked collaboratively to prepare the interim YESAA review report. In the end, Canada unilaterally finalized the report and systematically rejected the input from the CYFN and Yukon First Nations.

The proposed amendments in front of the Senate today were not discussed in the five-year review process with Canada and the Yukon government.

Mary Jane Jim, councillor, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, said:

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

Let me close by saying that I believe this is not a good precedent in these difficult times. I urge all members of the House to reject this flawed piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree in this House about the beauty of the Yukon and the potential opportunity for the people who live there, and for economic development, if it is done the right way. What we are proposing in the bill are ways to make that happen.

One of the issues that the member mentioned was policy direction, and I want to hone in on that specifically. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has the right to set binding policy direction in the Northwest Territories. This minister has never used it; previous ministers have used it to protect aboriginal rights.

When we were in Yukon, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said protecting aboriginal rights, though the minister did it through binding policy direction, was actually “paternalistic”.

Does the member agree that protecting aboriginal rights is paternalistic? Why does he want to take away the minister's ability to protect aboriginal rights by supporting Motion No. 10, which would take away policy direction?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a logical question. However, if we look at the process and see that one group of people, namely the first nations in Yukon, do not agree with that, then in my mind that should trigger that there is something wrong. It then becomes another top-heavy federal government decision that people are not supporting. There is something wrong with it.

Obviously the protection should be there, but it should be worked out and agreed upon by all stakeholders. In reading my notes and discussing the bill, my conclusion is that has not happened, and that is one of the flaws of the amendments on this piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member's assessment that it has not happened is quite correct. I posed a question to the former Conservative speaker in terms of whether he felt that the government was successful at achieving a consensus, and he did not indicate that the government had achieved that consensus.

Given the importance of the legislation we are debating here today, would he not agree—and in listening to his comments, I am sure he would, so it would allow him to embellish on some of his earlier comments—on how important this is when we are dealing with regional economic type of bills that would affect the lives of all northerners, and the environment, economic development, and so forth? Has the government missed an opportunity to bring forward legislation in which there could have been a much broader consensus so that everyone would be feeling part of something, as opposed to it coming down from Ottawa?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for his excellent question. I have notes here that I have not had a chance to talk about, such as various stakeholders who believe that this consensus, this consultation, did not take place. One of them is Mr. Felix Geithner, director, Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon. He said:

The most pertinent question isn't why Bill S-6 should be prevented from being passed but why was it ever put forward in the first place, in its current form?

He goes on to say:

The reason he provided for introducing a bill that proposes sweeping changes to a fundamental part of this regulatory regime was the need to involve and maintain a competitive and predictable regulatory system.

However, this is not what is taking place. In fact, it is just the opposite.

We have already heard what Ms. Allison Rippin Armstrong of Kaminak Gold Corporation said. I did not have a chance to talk about Chief Steve Smith of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, or Ms. Wendy Randall, chair and executive committee member of the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment Board, or Chief Angela Demit, and we could go on and on.

There is a groundswell of opposition to these amendments and this bill, so why on earth would the current government even consider putting this legislation forward?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. As chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, it is particularly important for me to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-6 today at report stage.

As chair of the committee, I had the privilege of travelling to Whitehorse with the committee to hear directly from Yukoners about the legislation. From this experience, it is clear to me that Bill S-6 certainly has the potential to have a profound impact on the economic development in Yukon and Nunavut. I am proud to have a chance to explain to the House why I believe this to be the case.

Our Conservative government takes great pride in our commitment to Canada's north. In fact, our northern strategy has increased funding for infrastructure, protected Canada's Arctic sovereignty and had ensured that we remain a world leader in northern science and technology. A large part of this strategy involves our work to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Improving the regulatory process in the north is something that our government has been working on and accomplishing since we came into office. Improvements began through the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, continued in the Northwest Territories through the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, and will be completed by strengthening regulatory regimes in Yukon and Nunavut.

Bill S-6 would strengthen these regimes by making effected regulatory frameworks strong, effective, efficient and predictable.

Let me quote the Hon. Darrell Pasloski, the Premier of Yukon, who said:

The amended legislation will be more consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions and will put Yukon in a stronger competitive position to achieve more economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Yukoners.

That is a clear statement.

The changes proposed in this bill will encourage resource development and ensure sound environmental stewardship. In the case of Yukon, Bill S-6 would make a number of improvements to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, commonly referred to as YESAA.

The first of these changes I will discuss is the implementation of the principle of “one project, one assessment”. If passed, Bill S-6 will ensure that a new assessment of an existing project will only be required if there has been a significant modification to the project as it was originally assessed. This will certainly reduce duplication of work for proponents and evaluators, while retaining the integrity of the environmental assessment. This is the sort of practical approach that demonstrates our government is protecting Canada's environmental heritage.

It is for this reason that I strongly oppose Motion No. 4. I encourage other members to do the same. The member for the Northwest Territories who proposes to remove this principle from Bill S-6 only provides further proof that a New Democratic government would hinder future economic development in Yukon and all across the North. .

In addition to the introduction of the “one project, one assessment” principle, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss how the bill would further improve the regulatory system and drive economic development in Yukon.

Bill S-6 would introduce to YESAA beginning-to-end legislative timelines for environmental assessments. This would align the territory's regime with other federal environmental assessment laws across the north and in the rest of Canada.

Regulations under YESAA already set out certain time limits for decision time making, and Bill S-6 would enshrine these in legislation. These legislated time limits are an effective way to provide predictability and certainty for proponents, regulators, governments and first nations, without sacrificing the integrity of the evaluation process and safeguarding environmental protection.

I believe the motions regarding the removal of timelines in Bill S-6, specifically Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 proposed by the member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, would actually hinder economic development and growth in Yukon. Passing these motions and removing the associated clauses will prevent important regulatory improvements from coming into force.

Our government understands that timelines will improve proponent and investor confidence, provide certainty and consistency to the regulatory process and will ensure efficiency at all stages.

The time limits introduced in Bill S-6 would improve proponent and investor confidence, provide consistency and transparency to the process and gain efficiency at all stages of the process. We know from other jurisdictions that these are all vital pieces of an effective regulatory regime and that they will help to drive economic development in Yukon. Ensuring timely decision making can have a significant impact on the well-being of northern communities.

In a highly competitive global marketplace, businesses need assurance of when their projects will move from approvals to the construction phase, and not be delayed unnecessarily by the duplication of regulatory processes. Too many delays may make a proponent look elsewhere, which means a community or first nation could see an opportunity pass by.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard these same arguments last fall from industry and territorial government witnesses commenting on Bill S-6. For example, Samson Hartland, executive director of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, described the introduction of time limits as:

—probably the most important aspect of this bill to our membership. The definitive beginning-to-end timelines create certainty and allow for consistency from coast to coast to coast for proponents, regardless of where they are doing business — in the Yukon or N.W.T. It is so important for proponents to have consistency and regularity when dealing with and preparing for their project activities.

The time limits contained in Bill S-6 would provide proponents with that consistency, which would lay the ground work for economic growth and development in Yukon. This is why I strongly oppose the passage of Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8. Despite being well aware that this legislation would benefit Yukon, the opposition continues to ignore residents in Canada's westernmost territory. Fortunately, the member of Parliament for Yukon is working hard to provide Yukoners with the best representation they have had in years.

While I object to all of the motions that the opposition has brought forward today, I take particular exception to Motion No. 5, which would remove time limits for designated office assessments. Moreover, it would also prevent the inclusion of the concept of reasonably foreseeable activities in the scope of cumulative effects of projects. While this may appear to be a very technical point, it is important to remember that this concept was actually a recommendation from the YESAA five-year review that was agreed to by Canada, the Government of Yukon and Yukon first nations. Removing provisions of the bill that have been jointly agreed to by all three parties to the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement represents a step backward in Canada's relationship with the first nations of Yukon.

These regulatory improvements would create the certainty and predictability needed for responsible resource development projects to proceed. Our government is committed to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in the north. The legislation before the House today would play a large role in achieving these outcomes by simultaneously driving economic development and protecting Canada's environmental heritage.

I urge members from all parties to support Bill S-6 as it stands now, and to reject Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about support from the people of Yukon, but the director of the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon is on record objecting to this legislation, saying that the existing rules have been a model for the country and now we have something going on, which would change the arrangements that have existed for some time. He says:

From TIA Yukon's perspective, Bill S-6 is a shoddy piece of legislation that sows discord rather than the certainty it sets out to create. More than this, the proponents of this bill have set an adversarial tone in Yukon with Yukon first nations and a number of key organizations and businesses through their attempt to ram it through without adequate consultation. Consultation requires twoway communication. If one party doesn't believe that there was adequate consultation, then there was not adequate consultation.

I could read other quotes from industry players from mining operations, people who are quite dissatisfied with this process, that the certainty the bill claims will not arrive and will, in fact, make things worse and not better. What does the member have to say to that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the best response I could provide the member would certainly be to ask him the question. What do he and his party have against the idea of greater powers and certainty in the processes and devolution of the ability to make these decisions at the local level? I cannot possibly imagine what opposition they would have to that. Certainly, in my mind, creating better predictability, better certainty and proper timelines around this would give proper confidence to industry and also to Yukoners and first nations alike, an opportunity to make the decisions about what should move forward in their territory at the local level.

Since he wants to throw quotes around, I want to remind him of a quote I have already read in the House, a very important one in my mind, by the premier of Yukon, who was very clear when he stated:

The amended legislation will be more consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions and will put Yukon in a stronger competitive position to achieve more economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Yukoners

It is a very clear statement and I cannot imagine what the NDP could possibly have against the idea of more economic growth, more jobs and more prosperity for Yukoners.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting comments from the member. He tried to turn the question around. If he wants to talk about the issue of devolution, Jean Chrétien did far more in working with the different stakeholders in trying to build consensus toward devolution.

My question for the member is the one that was just posed for the member with regard to consensus. In fact, the government has been unable to achieve a consensus within the community, which would have enabled better legislation. Why has the government been unable to achieve the consensus?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I will give a two-part response to that, Mr. Speaker.

First, the member made some assertion about the previous Liberal government and what it had done for the north. I know all northerners are quite well aware of the fact that no government in Canadian history has done more for the north than this government under our Prime Minister. This legislation is further proof of that. We are talking about creating conditions that would encourage investment, that would lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Yukoners, those in Nunavut, and northerners alike.

I find it really troublesome to hear those kinds of claims from the other side, that they oppose the ability for northerners to see that kind of certainty, predictability, and the opportunities for jobs and growth. It obviously concerns me that all opposition parties would oppose something that would do so much for the north. It is further proof that this government will do what is necessary to ensure the north has the opportunity to have jobs, growth and prosperity.

The member attempted to cast some kind of doubt on the fact that a lot of consultation took place. As the chair of the committee, a considerable amount of time was spent by the committee hearing from witnesses and people through Yukon, a large number of witnesses, and had all kinds of opportunities to consult. A lot of consultation took place prior to that. Therefore, to indicate there was no consultation is an absolute farce.

Our government will continue to work to ensure jobs, growth and economic prosperity for all Yukoners and all across the north.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, which is before this House at report stage.

It is a bill that arises out of fulfilment of the obligation of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement on the one hand and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement on the other hand, because two acts are amended in this legislation. The Nunavut one is less controversial. In fact, there is no serious objection to it, but the Yukon one is quite different.

Let me say first, there is a bad history of the Government of Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, in dealing with agreements that had been signed with aboriginal peoples in the Northwest Territories, in the north in general. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was signed in 1993 by the Liberal government. In very short order, a failure to actually carry out the terms of the agreement ultimately led to a court case that went on for years and years and was only settled in the last month or two by the present government, which had resisted settling that since it has been around in 2006.

We have a history of not honouring the agreements that have been signed. In this case, the Yukon umbrella agreement was signed and part of it was put into place under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The five-year review was scheduled to be held, initiated in 2007 and completed in 2012. The agreement was never made public because of a disagreement. The final consultations took place on this, but the amendments that are put forth to establish an assessment process were never discussed with the people of the Yukon.

We now have what is being called by Yukoners an imposed agreement dismantling the environment and socio-economic assessment process, which was developed in the Yukon by Yukoners for the Yukon. The message we are getting from the people of the Yukon is that the Conservative government, with the full assistance of the Yukon MP and the senator for Yukon, is forcing a pro-southern resource company agenda unilaterally down the throats of Yukoners.

That is the assessment that we have, based on what we are hearing from the people of the Yukon in terms of the level of consultation, the failure to listen to what they were told, the failure to actually consult them and actually running roughshod over the arrangements that had been made between the aboriginal peoples of the Yukon and the Government of Canada in the establishment of this process.

There are significant concerns about the following amendments that are being imposed here, one which would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This is a supposedly independent board that came about as a result of discussions and negotiations out of the land claims agreement and the Final Umbrella Agreement, and now we would have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development make binding policy directives.

How does that maintain the relationship between the aboriginal people, the Yukon government and the Government of Canada in this particular process?

It has been said here that it is only to ensure that the aboriginal rights are being protected, but that is not what the legislation says. It says that the minister is given this unilateral power to make this decision.

There is also a provision to introduce legislative time limits for assessments. There is no real necessity for that. In fact, as has been expressed by people who are very familiar with the process, that kind of approach of applying a beginning-to-end timeline was objected to, which is interesting, because we would think that a timeline would actually speed up the consultation and assessment process.

For example, Millie Olsen, Deputy Chief of First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, said:

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

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

That is how the distortion and arguments occur, where the proponents of Bill S-6 say there will be timelines for certainty but the timelines actually serve to choke off public consultation and prevent the actual meat of the review process, which is consultation with the aboriginal people. That is obviously nefarious. In fact, Mr. Felix Geithner, Director of the Tourism Industry Association of Yukon, called Bill S-6 “a shoddy piece of legislation”. He said it:

...sows discord rather than the certainty it sets out to create. More than this, the proponents of this bill have set an adversarial tone in Yukon with Yukon first nations and a number of key organizations and businesses....

Therefore, when we are talking about legislation that is supposed to be designed to improve things, actually going the other way, which comes from Ottawa, not from Yukoners themselves, then we know there is a problem with Bill S-6.

Why is it called Bill S-6? It is because it originated in the other place. I do not know why the legislation is coming here from the Senate. Why is it not coming from the House of Commons? It is appalling that we have a system where the Senate of Canada is initiating legislation and we get it afterward. It has done the sober second thought first. I am not sure how that works. What are we doing? We are doing the sober second thought on the Senate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Who elected them?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Who elected them, Mr. Speaker? That is a very good question. I think one person elected all of them, or 59 of them anyway. There were various other people who elected the others.

I will not dwell on that, but I just wanted to point out that what we are dealing with here is Senate legislation.

We have heard objections. We had this from Chief Angela Demit, chief of the White River First Nation, who said:

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

These are the kinds of comments we are getting.

Chief Doris Bill, chief of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation said:

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

Why is this being done? It is obviously being done to control the board and the process, not to ensure that the agreement has been fulfilled. It would create broad exemptions from YESAA for renewals and amendments of permits of authorizations. Once a permit exemption is granted it cannot be amended, fixed or changed. That is tying people's hands and not giving them the authority they have.

I note that my time is quickly up, but I am prepared to entertain any questions.

If those four provisions were removed from the bill I am told by the critic responsible we would pass the bill. Therefore, it can be fixed. Why do we not just fix it here and pass the bill with the amendments?

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are interested in economic development and certainly the Yukon has vast mineral resources. We saw a report that came out this year that Yukon has slipped in terms of its competitiveness among the worldwide mining attractiveness jurisdictions. It was first when devolution occurred and is down to ninth now. The report cited that because of an unpredictable regulatory regime, it had fallen behind the rest of Canada even, in terms of competitiveness.

Is that something that concerns the member and if so would he not agree that this bill addresses that and we should pass it as soon as possible?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, of course we agree with having a proper process, but one that allows for development and proper assessment. The problem we have here is that the Government of Canada is taking an approach that overrides the participation of the aboriginal people in this process over their objections, creating uncertainty. It does not solve the problem because it creates further uncertainty. We have representatives of the Yukon industry and communities in general saying that this would create more uncertainty and in fact would hurt what is happening.

The proper solution here is to have adequate consultation to ensure that the process is fixed. If the Conservatives are not willing to do that, then they should not be imposing this against the rights of the aboriginal people who participated in the process to create this board in the first place.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose raised the issue about the significance of any adverse community, environmental or socio-economic effects that have occurred or might occur in conjunction with the project, and that this section was removed by our amendments. However, that is actually clause 9 in the bill and it still remains.

Could my colleague comment on why the Conservative government might be trying to create some kind of doubt about the nature of our amendments at this time and trying to mislead the House about what we have taken out in these amendments?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, obviously that is a common tactic that we hear, one of creating confusion about what is going on. However, we need to know that the common thread of argument in the Yukon is best expressed by Ms. Allison Armstrong who is vice-president of lands and environment for the Kaminak Gold Corporation. She said:

We believe the bill should be held back until there is agreement. We would like to see the federal government come back to the table, talk to the first nations, and resolve these four outstanding contentious amendments.... Our position is that if the government isn't going to come back to the table to address the four contentious amendments with the first nations, they should be removed from the bill.

That answers what the concern is. That is a very clear position. That is the position that we support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch briefly on one of the quotes that the member has used throughout the debate this morning. I do not remember the gentleman's name from the tourism association. He said that if one party says the consultation has not been adequate, then adequate consultation has not occurred.

In the absence of considering the evidence, perhaps that sounds okay. However, when we consider that there were dozens of meetings and $100,000 provided to first nations to participate in the consultation process, I am wondering this. Is the NDP position that there should be a veto given to anyone, any group and any legislative process that says consultation has not been adequate, and that would throw a wrench into it indefinitely? That is what that stakeholder, that witness, said. The member has positively quoted it today.

Does the member really believe that we should examine the evidence of what consultation has occurred, or simply allow one group to say that consultation has not been adequate? Canadians deserve that answer.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think these amendments were a part of that consultation. The consultation was about the five-year review. These were not part of that. Mr. Geithner is the name of the director of the Tourism Industry Association. He started off in his remarks talking about the praise that Senator Lang had given for the assessment process, saying that it was a model for certainty, implementing responsible environmental and social balance while providing certainty to investors. If that was already there, why did it need to be changed?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6 today because we are dealing with a process, and this is extremely important, no matter what members on the other side are saying. In this case, the people who will be affected by these decisions have not been adequately consulted. The government unfortunately has a habit of not consulting people on a number of issues.

It is even more troubling in the case of the Yukon, which we are discussing today. Not too long ago, Bill C-15, if I am not mistaken, gave more powers to the territories, which was in line with what was done in the Northwest Territories a few years ago. We recently adopted the same type of approach with the Yukon.

It appears as though the pendulum is swinging the other way now. The government is bringing the power back to Ottawa and is giving itself more discretionary powers. This bill is a way to push through some natural resource development projects and to once again gut our environmental protection laws, which is another worrisome trend from this government.

Since we started the debate this afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has been telling us that everyone in the Yukon agrees that the existing rules only delay the process, since it is unpredictable. However, as my colleague from St. John's East just pointed out, the rules proposed by the Conservatives make the situation even more unpredictable, since they simply say that if any communities in the Yukon are unhappy with the result they will have to go to court.

Speaking of trends, that is another one we are seeing more and more of all the time. Instead of being proactive and proposing legislation and an approach to governance that does not require legal proceedings, the government seems to be saying that this is not so bad because these people can turn to the courts. The focus is on the cure instead of prevention. If the government wants to have a real dialogue, then it has to prevent these conflicts where people, particularly first nations, feel that their rights are being trampled. Dragging things through the courts prolongs and encumbers the process, which makes the situation even harder for businesses that want to propose a project.

The interesting thing in the debates on the environment and the economy is the matter of environmental assessments. That came up again today, through this bill. If we took this responsibility seriously, we would not be obstructing those who advocate sustainable and responsible development. However, the government seems to believe that such legislation always gets in the way of development. Instead of trying to come up with better assessments, the government simply wants to get rid of them all. Words like social acceptability often come up when we talk about natural resource development projects.

It is clear that Bill S-6 has failed when it comes to social acceptability. The federal government might say that the territories are different from the provinces, but we must not play political games with the rights of the people of the Yukon and of the Yukon's first nations.

The parliamentary secretary talked about funding that was offered to the first nations, but that is not enough. The dialogue cannot be driven by money alone. There has to be a proactive attitude, a willingness to reach out and some openness.

We can have all the tools and resources in the world, but if we do not believe that they will be useful and that this dialogue will improve things, then it is hard to bring two or more partners to the table.

The parliamentary secretary also said there were many meetings, but that is precisely one of the things that people, including first nations, are upset about. Closed-door meetings do not count as public consultation. It is pretty easy to sit down with select stakeholders, then say that consultations were held and people should be satisfied with that. The problem, once again, is what people are feeling. I want to respond again to the parliamentary secretary's remarks. He just asked if the NDP will be challenging all of the legislation about which witnesses say they were not adequately consulted.

We all know that in politics it is impossible to please everyone, but when it comes to Bill S-6, everything we heard in committee and in the Yukon points to agreement among members of the public and first nations: the consultations were inadequate. That is why the Yukon NDP moved a motion in the legislature there to condemn this bill. Sure, they can pull out quotes here and there to support the argument that this is a step forward, but I am not talking about an exception; I am saying that most people think this.

Consequently, I believe that it is important to recognize that the government's approach is problematic. All too often, people condemn its bills and its approach and the government views them as exceptions. Very often these people are voicing the concerns of the majority, and therefore it is all the more important for the government to listen.

In matters affecting first nations especially, this is happening more and more frequently. One of my colleagues spoke about the government's paternalistic approach in its relations with first nations. That is the problem, more than the bill's outcome. When the government is considering making such a fundamental change to the way a territory is managed—a change that could call into question some rights enjoyed by first nations—telling them to just go to court reflects a paternalistic approach. There is no doubt about that, and we see it all too often with this government.

I made a mistake at the beginning of my speech. I said Bill C-6, but I meant Bill S-6. There again, Senate bills are increasingly common, and that is a problem. This is not a Senate bill, but a government bill that is proposing to make a very important, even draconian change to how the Yukon conducts its environmental assessments. The bill would also give discretionary powers to the minister.

The fact that the Senate passed such a bill and sent us such a fundamental change is very problematic in terms of how our two chambers operate, and it is especially problematic when we consider how long it takes for the Senate to pass private members' bills originating in the House of Commons. Consider, for example, the bill introduced by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on the rights of transgendered people. The Senate is dragging its feet on passing it. Unfortunately, at this rate, it will not even pass before the election is called. I am using this as an example because Bill S-6 is a government bill, and we know how quickly senators pass government bills and how long it takes them to pass private members' bills. I think this clearly illustrates the problems that arise as a result of how the system works, and this only adds to public cynicism.

I touched on this earlier, but the issue of ministers' discretionary powers is becoming more and more common in government-sponsored bills. This government likes to govern in such a way that ministers are too often allowed to use discretionary powers to adopt certain policies. This is extremely troubling and worrisome when it comes to environmental assessments.

The government prides itself on having a system of checks and balances in place, but those checks and balances are the courts. Everyone knows that the courts are a good tool for protecting fundamental rights, but at the same time, a good government should not settle for getting to that point. I realize I am repeating myself, but this is really what stands out the most on this particular issue.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that we are prepared to work with the people of Yukon. The Yukon NDP is doing a terrific job. The member for the Northwest Territories knows what managing a territory actually involves and how to work with the federal government. We can do this job properly.

Unfortunately, all too often, the federal government is content to just centralize and impose its way of doing things on others. That is not how we believe that things should be done. There must be an open dialogue among the various nations, particularly the first nations. That is the approach that we advocate and this would be an opportunity to implement that approach. That is why we are opposed to this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

That concludes the debate for now. The member for Chambly—Borduas will have five minutes for questions and comments when we resume debate.

The House resumed from May 25 consideration 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to the motions put forward to the House on Bill S-6. I am going to get to the contents of the bill shortly and in direct respect to the motions that have been tabled here in the House.

Before I do that, I want to quickly express my thanks to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I was present in the House today listening to many of the speeches and the questions and answers that followed. It was appreciated that he recognized that our government has tremendous commitment to continued trilateral partnerships with both our public governments in the Yukon and with our first nations leadership in our territory.

From that point of view, I am optimistic and confident that the piece of legislation that we have before us, subject of course to continued dialogue and discussion, will be one that will indeed be in the best interests of all Yukoners.

I want to point out a couple of things before I get to the direct pieces of this legislation that are clearly worth highlighting. Some of that came in discussion today, some of it has been in prolonged discussion over the course of the bill, but it is absolutely worthwhile for us drilling right down to these very key pieces so that we can boil away some of the political rhetoric that has been generated by the opposition side.

I do take some offence to the opposition's positions where members have clearly feigned concern for the wants, needs and expectations of the Yukon people broadly and specifically for the Yukon first nations community. I say that, not tongue in cheek, with clear-cut examples that I will give now.

I put forward a study at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans some time ago where we would travel north and see what was going on with the challenging state of Yukon River salmon in a transboundary relationship with Alaska and those waters. There are some issues that we really needed to seize as parliamentarians in undertaking that study.

However, guess who blocked travel for that study? Guess who voted that it was not important? The NDP. This is a social, ceremonial and traditional way of life for Yukon first nations, with Yukon River salmon of critical importance, and the NDP would not support that travel.

Then I had a study and a bill before the House for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder which is a topic seized by all Yukoners, an important issue to Yukon people and northern Canadians in particular and we wanted to travel for that. Guess who blocked that? The NDP. The members are continuing to block all these things, yet at the same time, they say they have care and concern for Yukon people and northern people. Their record is clear. They really do not.

In this case, I was proud to ensure that as we undertook the study for Bill S-6, I made it clear that we needed to bring the committee to the Yukon to hear directly from Yukon people to allow a balanced story, a balanced perspective and a balanced input, so we could seize ourselves with the concerns of Yukoners, understand them and hear that directly from them in testimony in our territory.

Of course, the NDP members agreed to travel for that, but only for the fact that they thought they might have some political advantage on this. It is a shameful use of Yukon people and northern people for their own political purposes. There is not true care and concern and that point needs to be made crystal clear.

I witnessed that before noon on the first day of committee study on Bill S-6, a member from the Liberal Party and a member from the NDP had clearly chosen a side and it is on record when we were interviewed by the CBC. They said their minds were made up and this was done at noon, before we had even heard from half of the people prepared to testify. Before we had heard a full and balanced perspective from Yukoners on this topic, the NDP members had their minds made up about the direction they were going to go. They said as much on CBC.

The Liberals had their minds made up long before. They say they came to hear from all the Yukoners, but their minds were made up before they arrived in my territory and they tried to drive their political agenda. It is important to me to communicate that very effectively here today; everything to this point from their side of the House has been nothing but politics. There has been no care and concern for the people of the north.

We are trying to bring balance and parity in our territory so that Yukoners have equal opportunities for jobs, growth, and economic prosperity like the rest of Canada, so they have equal opportunities like those shared in the Northwest Territories under its devolution agreements and resource development agreements, which, interestingly enough, the member for Northwest Territories was standing behind. However, when it comes to bringing parity to the Yukon, somehow he is objecting to that.

As we tasked ourselves with the bill and understood the evolution and the process, it has been clear that there are concerns, and our government has seized itself with those concerns. We have heard them clearly, and today we heard the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs say clearly that he fully understands that a trilateral relationship is important with the federal government in the Yukon, the Yukon territorial government, and Yukon first nation peoples. I applaud him and thank him for that, because that will ensure effective implementation of the bill. It will ensure that we honour the spirit and intention of the modern treaties that we have in our territory, those modern treaties that we are very proud of and that will continue to bring prosperity to our territory, prosperity that New Democrats really know nothing about.

People are going to ask if I can prove that statement. Sure I can. On the record, in the Yukon legislature, the leader of the territorial opposition had this to say about mining development in the Yukon:

...once the mine is in operation—has been for some time—but the actual procurement of everything from, I would say, toilet paper to lettuce to whatever comes in on big trucks, on pallets, from Outside, and nothing is sourced locally.

That is what was said by Liz Hanson, the leader of the NDP in the Yukon. She was specifically referencing one mine. That mine spent $78.1 million in the Yukon Territory in 2013 and $58.2 million in 2014 on goods and services, and that was before wages were paid out to Yukon first nation people and non-Yukon first nation people. Then those employees in turn spent that money in their communities, their homes, on goods and services, so the dollars continued to rotate around that community to the benefit and prosperity of all Yukoners.

My point is that if one starts with a fundamental misunderstanding of how mining and resource development actually contribute to our economy, then I guess it makes perfect sense that one would not want development to carry forward. However, the facts are clear. One mine alone contributed $78.1 million in one year to Yukon's GDP, to Yukon's economy, to the socio-economic fabric of our territory.

It was done so, I might add, in an environmentally responsible manner to protect and preserve the environmental heritage of our territory. Why is that? It is because these companies participate in environmental reviews. They have care and concern about reclamation and development. They engage with their first nation communities, and they do not always do that out of a legislative requirement. They do it because they form a social relationship and an important working relationship through IBAs, through direct community engagement and participation in the Yukon with first nation communities, who do indeed invite them in.

The NDP, the no development party, has no fundamental understanding at all of the direct value that resource development brings to our territory, to the north, and to our country, so from that point of view it makes sense that it would want to obstruct these things.

We have heard the concerns of Yukon first nations. Our minister is committed to continuing to work with them in a trilateral relationship to make sure we engage in productive and co-operative implementation to honour the spirit and intention of those modern treaties. The motions I see being put forward would actually do the reverse to many of the things that Yukon first nations, the Yukon government, and Canada have already agreed to in the five-year review of YESSA.

I look forward to any questions and I look forward to the passage of the Bill S-6 and our continued relationship-building with all partners in the Yukon on a very important message and bill.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interpretation of history. I always find it humourous when people want to interpret history in a way that ignores the facts of the matter. Every politician sometimes falls into that habit.

In this case, he was talking about issues that Yukoners are very well apprised of. I was amazed at the depth of knowledge and the engagement that Yukoners had on these issues when we conducted committee meetings in Whitehorse and 150 people filled the room from morning until night.

My colleague was there to hear Yukoners, but I want to ask him if he was there to listen to Yukoners and understand what they were saying about the nature of the relationship between Yukoners, first nations, and the environment?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I was, and I was very proud of all of the Yukoners who participated in that hearing, from our first nations right through to our industry. Indeed, it was my intervention that ensured that Yukon first nations were strong participants in that committee.

If the member for Northwest Territories wants to talk about whether I was there to hear them, indeed I was, and I did. I acknowledged that in my speech. I heard their concerns.

However, guess who did not hear them. Guess who was not prepared to hear them. It was the member for Northwest Territories, who by noon that day had said publicly on CBC that his mind was made up. He said that he knew what he was going to do. He knew where his decisions lay, and that was before he had heard from even half of the people invited to testify.

Yes, I was there to hear them, but clearly the member for Northwest Territories was not. That is stamped on the record of that interview on CBC's noon show. He can stand by that deplorable record when it comes to standing up and listening to the Yukon people and the people of the north.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that if you want to hear political platitudes, you will hear it today.

I make no apologies for any remarks that I made on CBC up there, but the member for Yukon should be making a lot of apologies, starting with some to his constituents for, first of all, not even showing up at committee to support the recommendations that they basically drafted and asked members of the House of Commons to put forward on their behalf. They are his own constituents, yet the member for Yukon never showed up to vote on these amendments and his colleagues did not support them either.

If we want to talk about who made up their mind on this bill, it was the government opposite when it went through the Senate with the support of all of the Conservative senators and was forced into the House of Commons without consultation from members in the Yukon and from first nations governments.

I would like to ask the member opposite why he did not support the amendments that his own constituents asked for at the committee stage of the bill if he was so committed to listening to them and doing what they felt was just and right.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, while I would have loved to be there, I am not going to apologize for being in Washington, DC, to represent my constituents when it comes to important issues like the Arctic Council.

The previous member was talking about hearing and listening. Interestingly enough, I acknowledged in my speech the four areas of concern that Yukon first nations have. We heard those loud and clear. I acknowledged that the minister is committed to working in a trilateral relationship with them to ensure that the implementation meets their needs and meets the spirit and intention of their agreements, and this government is very much committed to that. I look forward to that continued dialogue.

However, it is interesting that of the four points of concern, at report stage the Liberal member did not address two of the most significant ones at all. She did not even put those amendments forward. She either did not hear or did not listen. It must be one of the two, but why did she not do that?

Furthermore, it was the Liberal senators who passed this bill out of the Senate and into the House of Commons absolutely unamended and with unanimous consent. She is going to have to square that circle, quit playing politics with this issue, and start listening to northern Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Labrador on a point of order.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there are no Liberal senators. I wanted to clarify that for the record—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I am not sure that that is a point of order. It is an interesting point.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Labrador.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak with regard to the third reading of the bill before the House. It is certainly a bill that has received a tremendous amount of debate in the House of Commons.

Unfortuantely, the debate has been an exercise that has not really reaped the rewards we wanted to see, nor has it seen the real changes the people of the Yukon and the territorial governments wanted to see. In fact, the whole debate itself has hinged on a tremendous amount of misinterpretation.

I heard the member for Yukon say of New Democrats that they are against mining development and do not support these industries and do not see them bringing benefit into regions like Yukon, but I also want to talk about his government and what it has done in working with aboriginal and first nations groups.

In fact, it was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development who first indicated that these particular self-government groups in the Yukon were not necessarily governments at all and then had to backtrack and clarify his statement.

If we want to talk about misinterpreting and misunderstanding, first, the minister was not even identifying in a factual way the groups he was dealing with and identifying the fact that this was a government-to-government-to-government relationship of 11 different groups and entities in Yukon and that only one of those governments was entirely supportive of the changes that were happening. In fact, it was the first nations governments that were not. In my recollection, that was the first error.

In addition to that, there were 76 recommendations that came forward in this report. Of those 76 recommendations, 72 were decided upon through a process of discussion, consultation, and consensus. That is a fantastic way to do business. It really is, so why did the same pattern not apply to the other four recommendations within the report that were debatable, recommendations on which people had serious issues and that people in the Yukon wanted to see changed? Why were those four not dealt with in the same way?

When we went to Yukon for public hearings, I sat in that room, as did a number of other colleagues in the House of Commons that day, and we heard speaker after speaker present to our committee. They presented serious, legitimate concerns to us about how the bill was drafted and how those particular clauses were being implemented by the Government of Canada. They had very serious concerns over what these measures would mean to aboriginal self-governance and what it would mean in terms of eroding the powers they have within their own lands and their own governance.

They were very legitimate concerns, and we heard speaker after speaker point them out. The committee asked question after question and received very good and very clear answers.

I came out of that hearing with no doubt in my mind that very legitimate concerns were being presented. I could certainly see the perspective from which aboriginal governments were coming and I could see their need to have these changes implemented.

In a very respectful way, they asked the Government of Canada to come to the table and reconcile with them on those recommendations, which I thought was very reasonable. Speaker after speaker also said that they did not want to fight the government on this and did not want to have to go to the courts to make changes. They wanted to reconcile their differences. They wanted a table to sit at. They wanted a fair hearing at which they could make the changes that were required.

In fact, they did not get that, and they never did.

Unfortunately, none of the changes they proposed to the bill that were taken to committee and that were presented by different members of committee, a number of motions, were accepted by the government members sitting at that committee, the colleagues of the member for Yukon. That is what I found so disappointing in all of this. People bought into a process in which they believed they would present recommendations for change and the government would listen. In fact, the government never did listen. It never acted on any of the amendments that were put forward by the constituents in Yukon. The member for Yukon did not support those amendments. Nor did his colleagues who represented the governing party at that table.

What was the exercise all about? Was it an opportunity for aboriginal first nations and others in the Yukon territory to come out and vent? Is that what we spent all the money on, to go there and hold these hearings so people had a room to go into and vent their frustrations? I can guarantee members that if that was what we advertised, people would not have gone to the hearings. They came because they were sincere. They really feel that this is a violation of their government-to-government agreements with the Government of Canada. They feet it is a violation of their treaty rights. They feel it is eroding their powers.

In fact, they also spoke about when land claims and land jurisdiction were being settled and how many of the aboriginal governments in Yukon gave up certain areas of land and control over that land. They believed that they had a fairer process with a seat at the table, as a government with the Yukon and as a government with the Government of Canada. Because of that, they gave up certain provisions that they did not negotiate because they trusted the process. However, aboriginal governments today in our country do not have trust in the government opposite.

We are here today talking about truth and reconciliation for survivors of residential schools, truth and reconciliation for our first nations, Métis and Inuit. What are we doing on the very day that we are saying there is going to be truth and reconciliation for our indigenous people? We are forcing a bill through the House of Commons that would erode the powers of aboriginal and indigenous governance in our country.

It is unbelievable that the government, or the member for Yukon, could sit there today and get on with such foolishness about who said something on the radio or who made what amendment. The member did not even show up at committee nor even support the motion, yet he is allowing his government to ram a bill through the House of Commons that would impact his constituents and erode the rights of self-governance. That is wrong.

I believe the Conservatives should have to answer to the indigenous people and the aboriginal governments of Yukon as to why they feel the need to rush through the bill and not listen to the very recommendations they have put forward.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague if she heard the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development indicate that he understood a trilateral process, a trilateral relationship between public governments and Yukon first nations, was very much the centrepiece of his understanding and his intentions with this legislation, and indeed all legislation. I wonder if she would set aside all the rhetoric again about who is absent and where. It is pretty clear that I was in Washington, D.C., and would have loved to participate but I had other important business on behalf of my constituents to conduct.

Nonetheless, my question is fairly simple. Would she not at least be encouraged by the minister's comments earlier today where committed to the trilateral relationship, which he knows is so important to honour the spirit and the intention of the modern treaties we have in the Yukon? That was clearly said today. I am encouraged by it and I am supportive of it. I thanked him for that earlier in my address. Would the member acknowledge that and understand that he is committed to do more, not just on this legislation but on all our relationship-building with first nations?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, trilateral means three. It does not mean one. It is not just the Government of Canada. It is not just the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It means that there has to be real decision making and consensus building around how governance is going to occur by all parties. When the treaty agreements and trilateral agreements were signed, that was done by three governments. Why can it now be changed by one government without having consensus and without having the support of the aboriginal entities?

The other thing is that for all modern treaties that exist in Canada today, there should not have to be a statement by the minister that he will uphold those. They are legal documents; they are signed. They are a part of the governance process of our country, and any minister who fills those shoes should honour those treaties if they are in place.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who, regardless of whatever occurred before, during the time of the hearings in Yukon listened very carefully to what Yukoners said, and I appreciate that. As a northerner, I appreciate that people have the opportunity to say their piece, and certainly that did happen in Yukon.

I would like my colleague to comment on this industry and the mining company that just invested heavily in Yukon. Its representative spoke at the hearings and said that the relationship between first nations and the company was based on the existing legislation, so why should they look for this change, which no one really supports in Yukon other than those who are heavily on the side of the industry.

Did the member not feel that this industry's uncertainty about the legislation should have influenced the Conservatives, who have held this up as something that would benefit industry?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Northwest Territories was part of the hearings in Yukon as well. He heard the messaging, as I did, the very desperate and justified pleas of many Yukoners on the changes they wanted to see made. The member also brought a number of amendments to committee to be looked at, but unfortunately they did not passed.

On his question with regard to the influence of the governing party and what should have happened, one would have automatically thought that when there was a trilateral agreement or any kind of self-governance treaty that was signed by the Government of Canada, that it would be upheld first and foremost. I believe the Government of Canada has a responsibility to adhere to all treaties and agreements that it signs with aboriginal first nations, Inuit and Métis in our country. We expect no less, no matter what government is in power.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 7 and Motion No. 10.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #418

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 to 7 and 10 defeated.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #419

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.