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.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Yes, fair enough, and that's a good point. I'm sorry. I probably wasn't very clear, but that's a good point you're making in terms of the legislative review process. Parliament can seize itself with reviewing legislation when it's deemed appropriate.

I was talking more about how the executive committee and the YESA board itself have guaranteed numbers of Yukon first nation representation, and with that executive committee and the board, they can also in this legislation trigger reviews. For the adequacy review and serious harm piece that they've raised concerns about, they can trigger reviews under this legislation where they deem it necessary. Despite any provision in Bill S-6 that allows serious harm to not be reflected on, reviews can still be triggered under this legislation.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Minister.

The fourth and final point—I think I've touched on the other three areas of concern—is around serious harm and adequacy reviews. I'm just wondering if you can touch on how Bill S-6, or at least the makeup of the YESAB executive committee and the board structure, will allow Yukon first nations to trigger reviews or assessments on their traditional territory and in areas of their jurisdiction and concern when they feel it necessary.

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

You raise a valid point that seems often to be forgotten. The Umbrella Final Agreement is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act. This is a constitutionally protected document. That's why I say the Umbrella Final Agreement is the law of the land in the Yukon. Furthermore, when you look at each final agreement with these first nations, again, they are protected by the Umbrella Final Agreement. The legislation also says that this is protected. In the act itself, YESAA, if you look at section 4, as I just mentioned, nothing in this bill can derogate from the rights of first nations, or anybody, that are guaranteed under the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I think that the protection is there. I'm trying to find out why a government would try to derogate from these rights. This is enabling legislation. It enables the environmental assessment of projects in the Yukon in full respect of the obligations we owe, that we have, towards first nations. Just as a last point, I make sure before introducing a bill that it is fully in compliance with our legal obligations and the honour of the crown. That's what we owe to first nations in this country, and it has been done for Bill S-6.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On that government-to-government question, I should congratulate you and Canada for a government-to-government conclusion of the the Carcross/Tagish First Nation FTA most recently, which brought a significant conclusion to an outstanding issue for them that was clearly negotiated government to government and was clearly beneficial to the Carcross/Tagish First Nation. Of course, we should reflect back on the conclusion of more significant modern treaties under our government than any other past government. That relates to your point that you recognize clearly that first nations not only in Yukon but in Canada do have excellent government-to-government relations, Minister.

We've danced around this topic a little bit, but it is a point of concern for Yukon first nations. You have touched on it a bit. I'd like you to maybe go into just a little bit more depth on how Bill S-6 speaks clearly to the UFA prevailing should any conflict arise. Perhaps you could touch on any additional constitutional agreements that continue to protect the modern treaties of Yukon first nations under any conflicts of Bill S-6.

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

Absolutely not. It is clear in Bill S-6 that in regard to policy direction, any policy direction first would have to be consistent with the land claims agreement and legislation, in this case the Umbrella Final Agreement and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

The Umbrella Final Agreement does not prohibit policy direction and does not require consultation with first nations or consent from them prior to the provision of policy direction to YESAB. It's not there. Quite to the contrary, if you look again at the Umbrella Final Agreement, it provides a blanket authority, in paragraph 12.19.2.15, for development assessment legislation to provide for “any other matter required to implement the development assessment process”, and this authority would include policy direction.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I want to note that it's actually “Grand Chief” Ruth Massie, and she speaks out on behalf of Yukon first nations. We certainly look forward to hearing from her next week, because I think we'd hear a story from her directly that is different from the one we have heard in your response.

Mr. Minister, what has come up time and time again is that yes, a number of the proposals in Bill S-6 emanate from the five-year review of YESAA, but we know that there are four amendments here that were not mentioned in the five-year review. They have come as a surprise to many Yukoners.

Could you expand for the committee upon the source of these four amendments that did not appear in the YESAA five-year review? Who identified these amendments?

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

From the get-go, I will tell you that if Bill S-6 did what you allege, or what Chief Ruth Massie alleges, it would not be before the House, because it is important that we abide by the law of the land in the area in question, and this does.

The interpretation given to this bill by Chief Massie is not in line at all with the articles of the umbrella agreement. On each and every count where it is alleged that this violates the umbrella agreement—and I've met personally with the chief—she could not show me one single concrete example of how Bill S-6 violates the umbrella agreement.

I urge you to look at the umbrella agreement, the provisions of the bill, and you will see that they are perfectly consistent.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for joining us today.

My first question concerns the opposition we're hearing from Yukon first nations. It's been made clear that they are opposed to the amendments made by Bill S-6 to YESAA because, in their own words, they say that they undermine their aboriginal rights, titles, and interests.

I'd like to quote the Grand Chief Ruth Massie, who said, “This whole process attacks the integrity of our constitutionally protected agreements and Yukon First Nations will stand by their agreements even if it means going to court, they give us no choice. We did not sign our agreements to implement them in the courts but we will protect them.”

Mr. Minister, how is it that you are prepared to push forward a bill that does not have the consent of Yukon first nations? Passing the bill violates their final agreement. Why is this government willing to pass legislation that undermines a constitutionally protected agreement, and send Canada into litigation against first nations?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to stick to the 10 minutes as much as possible.

I want to first congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your new role in this committee.

Just to remind members, one of the first things our Conservative government did after coming into power in 2006 was to put in place a comprehensive northern strategy. We have been delivering on that strategy ever since.

Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act, is just the latest example. This is about improving and enhancing social, economic, and environmental procedures in Yukon, and the water licensing procedures in Nunavut. The bill is the last and final legislative step of our government's regulatory improvement agenda in the north. Many of you will already be familiar with our government's efforts to modernize and strengthen regulatory systems in the north.

As you may remember, the first of these legislative initiatives was the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, which received royal assent in June 2013. The second was the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which received royal assent a year ago tomorrow, on March 25.

The regulatory changes proposed in bill S-6 would build on this progress and ensure that development assessment legislation in the Yukon and Nunavut will remain strong and more effective and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the land claim agreements—which I remind members will remain the law of the land in these regions.

Allow me to take a moment to briefly describe the evolution of the development assessment legislation in Yukon, which has been the subject of most of the debate as this bill has moved through Parliament.

When negotiating the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, signed in 1993 by the Government of Canada, the Yukon government, and Yukon first nations, a whole chapter—chapter 12—was dedicated to the establishment of a development assessment process. This chapter outlines the objectives of this process, describes how the government should bring about legislation consistent with the chapter, and sets out the parameters of what should be contained in this legislation.

This legislation, called the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA, was developed in accordance with the agreement and was passed into law in 2003. The agreement also called for a five-year review of the act, and that was provided by paragraph 12.19.3 of the umbrella agreement. That started in 2008.

The review itself was extensive and examined all aspects of the Yukon development assessment process, from YESAA and its regulations to implementation, assessment, and the decision-making process, as well as process documents such as rules, guidelines, and forms. It was completed in March 2012. At the end of the review the parties jointly agreed to 72 out of 76 recommendations, many of which could be addressed through administrative changes. A few, however, required legislative amendments, which are included in Bill S-6.

In December 2012, following the completion of the five-year review, the passage of amendments to CEAA—the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, and our government's announcement of the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, we contemplated further changes to YESAA to ensure consistency across regimes, including

legislated “beginning to end” timelines.

There is also the ability to give policy direction to the assessment board, to create cost recovery regulations and to delegate certain powers of the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to a Yukon minister, as well as the possibility of allowing projects seeking renewal or an amendment to be exempt from a subsequent assessment if, in the opinion of a decision body for the project, there is no significant change to the original project.

While these amendments were not discussed as part of the five-year review, my department did consult with Yukon first nations on them throughout 2013 and 2014. Critics of the bill have argued that the consultation process and the amendments are inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the agreement.

I want to be very clear that all of the amendments in bill S-6 keep in mind the objectives of chapter 12 of the agreement, which includes the concepts of timeliness, avoiding duplication and providing certainty.

Not only are these changes consistent with the spirit and intent of the agreement but paragraph 12.19.4 of the agreement also states that:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent government from acting to improve or enhance socio-economic or environmental procedures in the Yukon in the absence of any approved detailed design of the development assessment process.

The fact of the matter is that Yukon first nations were consulted at every stage in the development of this bill from 2008 onwards.

While we know that not everyone agreed completely with each amendment, it does not mean that the consultation was inadequate. It is our view that we met our duty to consult and that this does not require consent, for if the umbrella agreement required consent, it would say so.

More importantly, this bill not only continues to protect the interests of Yukon first nations as set out in the umbrella agreement, it provides for greater protection of those rights. For example, clause 9 of the bill specifically amends the legislation to ensure that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board takes into account the interests of first nations, including Yukon first nations without settled land claims, in conducting its review.

Another important fact, which we must all keep in mind, is that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act doesn't only impact Yukon first nations; it impacts all Yukoners. This legislation requires every project, including municipal projects that are not exempt under YESAA's regulations, to go through a full environmental assessment before it receives the green light to proceed or be renewed, regardless of whether or not any changes to the original project were made. This may include everything from culverts and hydro poles to a winter road or a subdivision, or larger projects like a placer mining project or a copper ore mine.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources completed a review of this legislation last fall, and at the end of their review they endorsed the bill unanimously. They correctly recognized, I submit, that the passage of this bill will improve and enhance the development process in the Yukon, help foster economic development in the region, and create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity in an increasingly global marketplace. Once passed, it will ensure that Yukon and Nunavut remain competitive and attractive places in which to live, work, and invest for years to come.

Mr. Chair and members, I urge this committee to do the same and vote this bill into law.

Thank you.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

Bill S-7—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

As you know, it looks like this committee is going to end up having to study Bill S-6. We have only 10 weeks until the end of this Parliament, and then there will be an election.

How important would you say these amendments are? Do you see something our committee could do to help get that going, in terms of all-party support? Is it in the form of a free-standing bill that could be expedited in some way? Is it something that could be included in a budget implementation act? How important is it that these amendments come forward in a timely fashion?

I don't know, Mr. Chair, whether we could do an interim report. I don't know when the report of this study will be done, but this seems urgent. I just want to know if you've been doing some thinking about this. It sounds as though the amendments are pretty well drafted. How ready are you to get on with this?

Manny, are all people who would be affected by this legislation in favour of it? I think that as parliamentarians, the committee would want to know if there is anybody who would object to our just getting on with this.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me tonight.

No government in Canada's history has done as much for the north as ours. From regulatory improvement to safeguarding Arctic sovereignty, our Conservative government has stood by northerners. Bill S-6 is just the latest measure we have taken to ensure the true north remains strong and free. By driving economic development and encouraging jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, Bill S-6 would make sure that Yukon and Nunavut remain attractive places to live, work and invest long term.

Bill S-6 is only the most recent endeavour in our government's plan to improve the northern regulatory regimes. Like all the legislation passed to date under the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, Bill S-6 is designed to increase efficiency, clarity and certainty respecting the regulatory processes. At the same time, the act would strengthen environmental protection and enhance consultations with aboriginal people, reaffirming them in their role in this regulatory process.

Let me cite just a few examples to illustrate how Bill S-6 would achieve these objectives. I will start by noting that the act would implement the principle of one project, one assessment. Under the current version of the YESEAA all kinds of small, routine modifications to projects get caught up in time-consuming and costly reassessment processes.

During meetings held this fall by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, senators heard complaints about this from numerous companies and industry associations. I would like to quote David Morrison, president and CEO of Yukon Energy Corporation from September 25, 2014. He said:

You might get a two-month delay in an assessment process that costs you a year from a construction point of view, because you have missed the construction window. Those things really add up. They add up significantly.

For years there have been calls for a less duplicative and cumbersome review process to evaluate these projects, one that encourages development while also ensuring sound environmental stewardship. This is exactly what Bill S-6 would do.

Consistent with other northern environmental legislation, the act would lead to more predictable and timely reviews, in part due to less duplication and reduce regulatory burden. Going forward, there would be no need for a reassessment, for renewal or modification to a project unless the decision body, or bodies, determine the project has undergone significant change from what was originally assessed.

By retaining the integrity of the initial environmental assessment, but reducing unnecessary duplication, we are protecting the northern environment without resorting to drastic measures, like the job-killing carbon tax the Liberals and NDP favour.

Another example is, Clynton Nauman, president and CEO, Alexco Resource Corp. also told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, on September 30, 2014, that work was needed to ensure Yukon remains competitive with respect to investment in resource development. He said:

The current uncertainty has had a negative impact on our ability to efficiently plan and operate our business, and by extension, it impairs the competitiveness of Yukon as a jurisdiction to assert certainty in the mine development and production process.

The Fraser Institute's 2014 survey of mining companies confirms this. Since 2011-12, Yukon has fallen from being ranked as the most desirable jurisdiction in the world for mining corporations to invest in, to the ninth. Our government and Yukoners like Clynton Nauman know it is important for Yukon to return to this impressive standing. The measures contained in Bill S-6 would help Yukon regain its previous success.

These measures are essential for the people of Yukon to realize the territory's full potential. It would also meet the needs of investors, developers and employers by providing a clear and predictable assessment process that would allow Yukon to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

As I mentioned earlier, to avoid duplication with respect to environmental assessments in the Yukon, Bill S6 would eliminate the need to reapply for water licences in Nunavut, unless there is a substantive change in the nature of the project. Substantive changes are modifications like diverting the course of a stream, increasing the size or changing the location of a tailings pond, or a large increase in the use of water. Again, similar to the YESEAA amendments found in Bill S-6, this provision would protect the environment without implementing a costly job-killing carbon tax.

Another way Bill S-6 would address the regulatory burden is by providing an extension to the terms of board members under YESAA. This was one of the jointly agreed upon recommendations in a five-year review of YESAA by the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, the Government of Yukon, and the Government of Canada. This will increase predictability and certainty by ensuring that the assessment continues to function smoothly, even as its members transition onto the board.

A further example of how Bill S-6 would reduce duplication is evident in Nunavut. I am referring to amendments related to security arrangements to rectify the situation known as over bonding. Let me first explain briefly what this means and how it relates to posting securities. Securities are monies companies set aside to ensure that at the end of a development project, there are adequate funds to remediate the impact of any project on the surrounding environment. Under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, securities for future remediation of resource development projects that use or impact the water in any way are paid or posted by companies. This money is held in trust by the federal government until the end of that project.

Where a project is wholly or partially on Inuit-owned land, the regional Inuit association can request that additional security be posted for the part of the development on its lands. In some cases, this has resulted in over bonding, meaning that a company is required to provide more security than would be required to remediate a project at its completion. This is a significant disincentive to development and places an undue burden on proponents.

Proposed amendments in Bill S-6 would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to enter into agreements with Inuit landowners and proponents. These agreements would recommend the amount of security to be posted on a project situated partially or wholly on lnuit-owned land. When the Nunavut Water Board determined the amount of security required to be furnished by the proponent, it would have to take these agreements into consideration. The introduction of security arrangements to address over bonding would help unlock the economic potential of Nunavut by removing a disincentive to investment while ensuring sound environmental stewardship.

Because Bill S-6 would reduce regulatory duplication and the burden on Yukon and Nunavut, it is little wonder that Bill S-6 has earned widespread support among industry groups and northern governments. From the Yukon Chamber of Mines in the west to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines in the east, from the Government of Nunavut to the Government of Yukon, we have heard both praise and calls to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

We want northerners to have the ability to drive economic development in the north. Passing this bill would create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for the north. This is why I strongly urge all parties to heed this advice and vote with us to move this legislation forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 completely respects the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The decision should be made by Yukoners, and that is what we are trying to do with this bill, and what the NDP is opposing.

The NDP members oppose the delegation of authority from Ottawa to Yukon. They are standing in opposition to that, because they believe Ottawa knows best, that we should keep the power away from northerners and not give them the same powers that other jurisdictions in Canada have.

This bill was developed in consultation with Yukoners and first nations. In fact, just on the few amendments that the member mentioned, the Government of Canada has reimbursed those first nations up to $98,695 for those consultations that took place. Therefore, for the member to suggest that has not taken place, that we have not consulted with Yukoners, is patently false.