Bill C-17 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, in particular by repealing the provisions
(a) that authorize the federal minister to delegate any of his or her powers, duties and functions under that Act to the territorial minister;
(b) that exempt projects and existing projects from the requirement of a new assessment when an authorization is renewed or amended and there are no significant changes to the original project as previously assessed;
(c) that establish time limits for assessments; and
(d) that authorize the federal minister to issue binding policy directions to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.
The enactment also amends the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act by repealing the transitional provision relating to the application of time limit provisions enacted by that Act to projects in respect of which the evaluation, screening or review had begun before that Act came into force but for which no decision had yet been made.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on to say:

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

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

I urge all members to support this bill.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order, and I am asking for your patience here.

This is regarding what transpired on Friday. I stayed here this weekend, and what transpired on Friday really caught my attention. I am a relatively new member of Parliament. I have been been here for almost three years, but still one learns something every day. I had the opportunity to see some things on Friday that concerned me as a relative newcomer. I spent the weekend going through some of the things that I thought we needed to address.

I am asking for the patience of the House and my hon. members' patience. I would like to go over some things that I think are worthwhile, additional submissions to the question of privilege that were brought up by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

I want to go back—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I thank the hon. member for his comments on the matter. It is apparent to me, in looking at the circumstances that unfolded on Friday, that the hon. assistant deputy speaker made a decision at that time that was very clear, in the sense that sufficient commentary had been provided.

There were many constructive comments on the topic that was before the House and that had been raised by hon. members. However, at the conclusion of debate that day, the assistant deputy speaker made a decision that sufficient information had been heard, which would allow the Speaker to render his decision on the question. At this point, we are not going to take further commentary on the matter. The Speaker is seized with the question and will be deliberating it in the short time ahead. He will get back to the House in due course.

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

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

Mr. Speaker, once the Yukon government, the federal government, and the first nations have concluded their agreement on a new process for reassessment and timelines, how will it integrate into the new YESAA? Does it require amendments to the act? What is the process for such, and how long will it take?

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the bill would reverse the irritants that were present in the previous bill, and that it will be able to be implemented right away, as Yukoners have asked.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

It is always better to work in partnership with first nations, and this bill is a perfect example. My question for the minister is simple.

Would the minister consider working with other parties in this chamber to get this legislation passed sooner rather than later?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is exactly what Yukoners want. They want this done as quickly as possible. I think there is unbelievable consensus. This is what can happen when we start at the beginning, co-developing legislation, and then having the buy-in, as we have now, even with the chamber of mines. There is no reason to hold this back. I would entertain any collaboration that we could have, from all parties, to move this through as quickly as possible with the consensus of the House.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would tend to disagree. Although the previous Yukon government and the previous federal government thought these amendments were a good thing, they were totally against what had been suggested and agreed upon by first nations in Yukon. That really hindered the approach that was working well with YESAA and with the regulations that are now being worked on regarding timelines. I would be more than happy to get the details that the member has asked for.

However, I think that it is exactly why the previous government was on a wrong path. We cannot do this top-down approach, with a government deciding what it thinks is best for the economy or for first nations, when we have people on the ground, including the chamber of mines, the territorial government, and the federal government, respecting a process that allows those decisions to be made by the board with everyone there, rather than being interfered with by a federal minister.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the two questions from the Conservatives.

The first question was very good, regarding when the three governments come to an agreement on what it should be and how it should be implemented. There are just four items that need to be changed, of the 72 agreed to, and this act would change those four items. Therefore, as soon it is given royal assent, those changes that the three governments agreed to would be established.

On the other question related to timelines, there are two points. First, all of the proposed timelines are already being met. YESAB has a very good record on timelines. Second, through the changes that were agreed to, there are now timelines in the YESAB rules. They have been gazetted. Therefore, through regulations, there are a set of timelines already.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his encyclopedic understanding of the importance of getting this bill through as quickly as possible.

Previously, Yukon had a very good record in terms of certainty for projects. This is what businesses need. They need to know what the rules are and to see that the track record of this arm's-length process will not be interfered with politically. That gives certainty, and allows companies to know that the environment will be diligently assessed. Then, companies can feel confident that they want to invest in a region.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Bill C-17 would do is to repeal some disturbing provisions that were in a previous bill, one of them being the time limits that were imposed. I would like the minister to comment. One needs to not only consider the fact that the previous bill would have unilaterally changed the umbrella agreement, which in itself is unconstitutional, in my view, but imposing time limits on constitutional rights is problematic as well. I would like the minister to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada believes that resource industry proponents, indigenous communities, and governments should all strive toward consensus. It is important to note that the consensus among the Yukon government, Yukon first nations, and the Yukon Chamber of Mines is that this bill should be passed without change as soon as possible. This is exactly as the member suggested, so that self-governing Yukon first nations and industry will continue to work in collaboration through the regulatory process to establish practical guidelines.

It should also be noted that the project approvals, through the board, before these legislated time limits were imposed through legislation, were already proceeding within these timelines. It is always better to do these things with consensus.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the four sections of the act are repealed, what happens to applications that have been based on reassessment or timelines that are presently before the board? Will there be a transition period, or is it going to be tossed out and the application will have to begin with a new environmental assessment application?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her thanks, her ongoing work, and understanding the balance that is required to go forward, in terms of not only the environment and the economy, but the rights of indigenous people in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government made the north a priority by launching a comprehensive northern strategy focused on sovereignty, the environment, the economy, and governance. Our introduction of Bill S-6 was just one of the major pieces of legislation we put forward in order to empower the territories in all four areas.

Despite devolution of resource management to Yukon in 2003, the federal government remained responsible for environmental regulations in the region under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. Under the act, 11 of the 14 Yukon first nations have negotiated individual land claims and self-governing arrangements.

After the legislated five-year review, it was clear that we could improve the legislation for the benefit of Yukon. The legislation introduced legislated time limits for assessment that were consistent with other federal environmental assessment legislation in order to not stall economic growth with unnecessary red tape and regulations. It also provided 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, and it equipped the Government of Canada to communicate expectations on matters such as board conduct, the use of new technology, and fulfillment of roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation.

To ensure both quorum and continuity, it allowed for a board member's term to be extended for the purpose of completing a screening or review. It enabled the Government of Canada to develop cost recovery regulations so that the costs incurred for public reviews would be borne by the proponents of development projects and not the taxpayer. It reduced the regulatory burdens by clarifying that a project need not undergo another assessment when a project authorization is to be renewed or amended, unless, in the opinion of the decision body or bodies, there is a significant change to the project.

When the previous premier of Yukon, Darrell Pasloski, spoke in front of the committee about the bill, he mentioned that this was about evening the playing field. Yukon had a different, less competitive regulatory regime, and that was costing Yukoners desperately needed jobs. The lack of development was also stopping Yukon from developing its untapped potential and offering jobs to those who need an opportunity.

The largest provider of jobs in Yukon right now is the territorial government. The second is the resource industry, which provides good-paying jobs to Yukoners from across the territory. Thousands of these employees are indigenous people. The Liberals talk a big game when it comes to supporting Canada's indigenous people, but how does the government expect to provide economic opportunity for these communities to grow when it continually puts up barriers instead of opening up opportunities as it promised it would do?

For example, mining in particular is the key to wealth for many first nation groups, whether it is gold, copper, or some other mineral. Mining does not happen unless a company can negotiate an agreement with first nations that have treaty rights to the land.

Bill C-17 is just another example of the difference between the previous Conservative government, which empowered northerners, and the current Liberal government, which is obsessed with taking power away from the territories and bringing in countless regulations to stifle economic opportunity and growth.

Bill C-17 is a step back in the progress that has been made for resource development in Yukon. It seeks to expand governmental regulations and stifle growth. These unnecessary regulations would impede private sector investment and pose further threats to jobs and economic development in the region.

The initial goal of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act was to establish a single development assessment process for projects on all federal, territorial, and first nations land in Yukon. We did that, and improved upon it. The Liberal government seems intent on undoing all the good work we did. Bill C-17 flies in the face of economic development and diversification by generating more government red tape and extra regulations that deter private investment.

In a time of global economic uncertainty, the Liberal government continues to increase deficits and give money to everyone who has their hand out, rather than eliminating barriers to investment to improve the economy. Bill C-17 puts the people of Yukon at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of Canada for private investment, as industry is dissuaded from resource exploration in the region by an uncertain review process and a seemingly endless amount of bureaucratic reassessment.

This unlimited environmental review process and perpetual reassessment calls into question the Liberals' plan for a larger pan-Canadian environmental process review. Do the Liberals want to remove timelines in the rest of Canada too? Did they even consider regulatory consistency across the country when writing this bill? At a time when the government should be focusing on stabilizing the economy, the Liberals continue to dole out money in their sunny ways delirium, and feverishly build barriers to private investment in Canada, particularly in our northern regions.

Let us look at some of those barriers.

One is the carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on everything. The Trudeau government does not seem to understand that the northern economy relies on—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. This is a brief reminder to the hon. member. I did not stop him in the first instance, but he will recall that we do not use the names of other hon. members in the House. We can refer to them by title or by riding name, but we cannot use the names of individuals or members in the House in that manner.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move:

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is admissible.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, a number of the things the member said are incorrect and do not support his amendment.

A number of times the member, importantly, said that the people of Yukon should decide. This bill is exactly about that. When the previous government imposed four major conditions without consulting the people of Yukon and without allowing them to negotiate, the economic development people in Yukon and the first nations held two huge gatherings of the public in contravention so they could make their own decisions.

I am glad the member talked about northern strategy because the government is in the process of developing one from the bottom up, an Arctic policy framework, working with leaders in the north.

The member mentioned a few things that were agreed to in the bill, and there were 72 things. Some the things he mentioned as being problems are not problems because they already are agreed to and we are not touching them.

The member made a comment about reassessments. There have been changes to the regulations that now allow that in certain conditions and under appropriate conditions reassessments will not have to be done.

He talked about mining being at the heart of northern economic development and that there were barriers. That is another very important point. This bill would remove the uncertainty. It would take away the barriers.

He talked about Investment being down. That is exactly why we want to change it so investment goes up. Although, he also made a good point that it was partly because of world metal prices.

Finally, the member talked about mining. I do not have time to talk about them all, I have two letters from mining companies and a letter from the Yukon Chamber of Mines, which says:

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

Therefore, regarding the member's references to mining and wanting it to go ahead, Bill C-17 being passed is exactly what the mining industry wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a really big challenge out there when it comes to investment in our resource industry. As we add more regulations, more red tape, there is a challenge.

When industry wants to invest, it is looking at a lot of things. It looks at the tax load, whether it is federal or territorial. That is a huge factor. Adding on a carbon tax, and we have the uncertainty of the reassessment and taking out time limits, is pushing it to the edge where investment is not worth it.

How long will the environmental review take? Will it be one year or five years? We do not know. That is why timelines are important. It instills confidence within the industry, confidence that it will take a certain time to do and that a certain amount of dollars will be invested for an assessment.

After that, if there is approval and the operation is started, there is the challenge of what the reassessment will look like. For example, a $100 million investment has been made in this operation and now a reassessment comes up. What if it does not meet the targets put out before them. That will be a lost investment, because the reassessment said that it was because of climate change or whatever the reason may be. Now there is that huge factor that maybe it will not be operational in five years because of the reassessment. It is really sad.

If there are no changes to the operation, I do not believe it is helpful to do a reassessment again on an operation that is exactly the same. Now, with Bill C-17, the possibility of reassessment after reassessment will have a negative impact for people who want to invest in the resource industry in the north.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of intrigued by the presentation.

I come from a region where there is an environmental assessment and review process that is pretty complex under the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. A lot of people have argued in the past that this process is an impediment to development in the territory.

After 40 years with that process in place, if there is one place in our country where development is going well, it is in the James Bay northern Quebec area. That is the objective of an environmental assessment process. When developers arrive in a territory and they know the rules of the game, they know the rules under legislation in environmental assessment, that is what helps development in any given territory. That is what forges partnerships with indigenous peoples.

I wonder if my friend could comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former businessman, I always look for certainty. If I am to invest somewhere, I always ask where the best place to invest is. I ask about the risks. Rules are very important. For example, the Liberals like to have time allocations to limit debate. However, when it comes to the YESA board, they want to remove all limits. The Liberals are not really following their own advice. If they want to take away time limits, we should be able to speak as long as we want. The Liberals should lead by example. Rules are very important. I agree that we all need to know what the rules are.

What I am fearful of is that this will not create investment in the north, because of not knowing how long the assessment process will take, or when reassessments will happen. These things are factors. If we can eliminate that, we will have more investment in the north, and we need that investment there.

I know when I was visiting Yukon with my colleague, we saw a lot of unemployment. The best social program is a job. We need to get jobs in Yukon and the north. Job creation is the number one priority in my mind.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake understands the types of concerns we have when we have an investment climate that is unsure and regulations that are certainly putting lots of jobs and investments in jeopardy.

I had the opportunity a number of years ago to be on the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee and to be in the territories. We talked about certain barriers to investment. Again, the key is certainty. That was a critical part.

I asked the minister a short time ago about the four sections of the act, once they are repealed, what is going to happen to the reassessment and timelines if these things are in front of the board for consideration. If I understood her correctly, it would go back to square one. That is where it would be.

I wonder is the member could talk a bit about how many more hits he feels that western Canada and the north can take from the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the impacts to the economy, for example in my riding of Fort McMurray, with the provincial government putting all of these new regulations in place, creating bureaucracy, and over-managing the resource industry, we have seen investment leave Alberta in droves. We see it going to Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions in Canada and outside of Canada, because regulations and uncertainty in the market cause industry to move.

As I said earlier, we are at a point now where the resource industry is going to look at it twice, because the risks are too high. What is next? Regulation after regulation, delay after delay will hurt our economy. Alberta is suffering immensely because of the new provincial regulations and the carbon tax. These all add up, and we will see less investment in these regions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, those comments allow me to repeat some of the important points that need to be understood here. As I said, I live in the agreement area of James Bay up in northern Quebec. The environmental assessment and review process that was in place there allowed, for many years, many companies in forestry, mining, and even hydroelectric development, to partner with indigenous peoples. Although the environmental assessment process that is provided for under chapter 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement may seem complex or complicated for many, that is what helped the region. Many times over the last 40 years, when the economy was going bad in other parts of the province, it was still very good in northern Quebec. That is because of these rules that are in place.

An environmental assessment and review is good for the environment, of course, but it is also good for the economy of any given region. These rules are necessary. It is how sustainable development should happen, and northern Quebec is a good demonstration of that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Indigenous and Northern Affairs critic for the NDP, for his excellent speech, and for connecting the dots between Bill C-17 in Yukon and what is being achieved, and what 40 years of experience with the Cree–Naskapi and the northern Quebec agreement has achieved in terms of certainty there. I was intrigued by the connection that was made and the lessons that have been learned, which the hon. member emphasized.

What I would like to ask the member specifically is in relation to his Bill C-262, which, of course, would address the need to enshrine a review under section 35 of the Constitution for indigenous rights, just as we routinely do for our charter rights. I would like to ask about the notion of free, prior, and informed consent. Would this bill, which includes the three governments, federal, provincial, and Yukon first nations, on the board of the YESAA statute, achieve the free, prior, and informed consent that is required, since they co-drafted the bill and are on the actual board, for example, in respect of a specific project? In other words, does that pass muster? Would the kind of bill that we have before us today be consistent with the principles of the hon. member's bill on free, prior, and informed consent that will soon be before Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start with Bill C-262.

Members may recall that last year the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its report, and 94 calls to action. There are two fundamental calls to action that are important in that report, which are calls to action 43 and 44. Both relate to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as do some 14 other calls to action.

Call to action 43 calls upon the Government of Canada, the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities to fully adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation in this country. That is why I say that those are the two fundamental and key calls to action. We cannot implement the rest of the 94, if we do not implement call to action 43, because that is the fundamental one.

I overheard the Liberals during the last campaign promising to adopt and implement the UN declaration. Bill C-262 does exactly that. It will implement the promise of the Liberals. I am just trying to help here.

With respect to free, prior and informed consent, I think it is an important concept that is already in our constitutional law. It is already in Canadian law. For many years, many rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada have spoken of the need to obtain consent from indigenous peoples before development takes place. The latest one was the ruling on the Tsilhqot'in case, in which the Supreme Court referred to the concept of consent of indigenous peoples in some 11 paragraphs and referred to the concept of control of lands, territories, and resources in some nine paragraphs. Therefore, the concept of consent is already in Canadian law. My bill, Bill C-262, will just confirm that is already law in this country.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I see is that this attitude that the government got it right this time needs to be spread across the board, not just on single, isolated issues. It needs to happen across the board. Do I need to remind the parliamentary secretary that her government is still before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal fighting indigenous kids in this country, the first peoples in this country? That is not in keeping with reconciliation. That is not in keeping with a nation-to-nation relationship. I think that attitude needs to spread across the board and needs to happen everywhere in this country, not just in isolated cases like this one.

Yes, this is a good bill. This is a bill that Yukoners want. I think the approach that was used in this case by the government should also be used with all first nations in this country.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to rise today to talk about Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there has been some confusion. When you read out the name, you said the member for Yukon, but I believe there was a speech started by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Therefore, I move:

That the member for Mégantic—L'Érable be now heard.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy 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 the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #252

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

To this end, we encourage Canada, Yukon, and Yukon First Nation governments to engage, work collaboratively and find a solution to address the outstanding issues within Bill S-6.

That is exactly what Bill C-17 does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe we have quorum in the House at the moment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We do now have quorum. I thank the member for pointing that out.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to belabour the point, but we have fallen below quorum again in this House. We are having a debate. It is interesting that—I will not comment on the presence or absence of members, Mr. Speaker, but you can do the count.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, in the last number of years, the member knows full well that when the point of order is called there is a quick canvass of the House. I am not sure if the member is just wanting to try to get a delay. We do have members who are here who are accessible. I do not think we are necessarily supposed to be reflecting on those who are present and those who are not present. I can assure the member there are more Liberal members of Parliament in the House, currently, than there are Conservatives who are in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

This is turning into a debate, and I do not want it turned into a debate. I just want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that we are not to refer to the presence of members, either personally or as a group, in the House. I believe we have quorum in the House.

We will return to the hon. member for Yukon.

[An hon. member]

Can I respond to that point?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

No, I am afraid not. That would be debate. We already have one debate going on, thank you.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker. I hope the member will be sensitive to the limited audience for this particular bill because it is mostly administrative for this riding.

However, the member made a good point related to the Peel case. I think the parallel is the obligation in the treaty, taking the honour of the crown and living up to the treaties. The treaty in the Peel case, which is just before the Supreme Court now, is that there is a process let out for land use planning, for the land use planning in the Peel area. The claim in the court, and I cannot really comment on the courts, is that the process of the land claim was not followed with the honour of the crown.

As I said, it is timely that I mention that the crown does apply for the territorial government, that it has that responsibility as well.

I think the member's colleague mentioned a good case when he talked about section 35 again; that is the Little Salmon Carmacks trapping case. I do not know if the member remembers that one. Once again, the crown had an obligation to protect the rights of the first nations, and this was not on their settlement land, but because it would affect their settlement land. That was very important.

The point I tried to make in my debate is that it does not really matter what those four clauses are because they are there illegally; they are there improperly, so however good they are, they just have to go for that reason, and for the same reason as the Peel controversy over the fair implementation of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs' speech, she said that Canada, Yukon, self-government of Yukon first nations, and industry have agreed to continue to work in collaboration through the regulatory process to establish practical timelines.

I ask if, once the Yukon government, the federal government, and the first nations have concluded their agreements on a new process for reassessment and timelines, how it will integrate into YESAB. Does it require amendments to the act, what is the process for such, and how long will it take?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. That process is in place through the rules of the board. There are three levels of timelines. There are timelines for the local offices, the district offices, for the smaller projects; then there are timelines for the ones that get bumped up to the executive board; and then the very highest level is a panel. We have never actually had a panel yet. I think there should be one coming shortly, but we have never had a panel yet. Therefore, for those three, the rules of the board determine that. That is already established through the regulations. They have to be gazetted. Therefore, the system the member is asking about is now in place so that the local people, the local governments, in consultation with the mining industry, the environmental industry, and every one the three levels of government talked to, will have those timelines to work under.

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on the past; I want to go into the future. We have a lot of new members in the House, people who are being sensitized to this bill. I know the minister, who made a promise a couple of years ago, and the parliamentary secretary, who spoke so passionately about this in Whitehorse, understand. I think that other members in the House are now getting a sense of the importance of this bill for developing the relationship. Only when the three governments are on side can development go ahead.

I can say that the people who were outraged were so excited and asking constantly for this bill to go forward. Gone is the unilateral imposition of those four clauses by Ottawa at the eleventh hour which took away their confidence that it was their YESA legislation, their environmental assessment act. It gives the first nations the confidence that they are being treated as equal partners and have an equal say in the assessments. The changes to the regime that were guaranteed were developed through their umbrella final agreement, through their modern treaty that is recognized around the world and across Canada and is constitutionally protected so we cannot really change it. They are very proud of their agreement. It is a unique assessment procedure that only Yukon handles.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect to my colleagues, there is clarity in the rules that there needs to be a quorum of 20 members in the House of Commons. I ask again for a count to be taken, because there are fewer than 20 members in the House of Commons during this debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I count as a member as well, so we have our 20 members.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have the House falling below the quorum repeatedly because members have left. Then we have members flooding into the chamber in the middle of your conducting a count and members know this is happening—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid this is turning into a debate. I am going to have to shut the member down. We did conduct a count and we are now at 20 members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the people I am meeting with outside can also be counted as quorum in here. It is an important meeting that a lot of us are having outside .

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid that sounds more like debate than anything else. I am going to let that drop. One of the things the rules state is that we cannot mention or allude to another member not being in the House, but if there is a lack of quorum, we have to take a count. I believe there are 20 members now. We can continue.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her constant support for this and for talking about the importance of it.

The minister is right here, and she made this very important point, that we would rather negotiate than litigate with first nations. I did not want to bring up the litigation, but the member did, and that's exactly what adds to the uncertainty that the Conservatives would like to get away from. Nothing would be going ahead. This would still be in the courts.

However, the Teslin Tlingit Council, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation have put their case and held it off because this is going forward to fix this grievous situation that both the parliamentary secretary and the minister have guaranteed we would fix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I have been wrestling with myself on this point of order, but now that there are just five minutes remaining I wonder if the member plans to address the bill we are debating today, Bill C-17, the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act. As nostalgic as we all are for the destruction of environmental laws under Bill C-38 back in 2012, I really wonder if the member has some views on the current bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will let the hon. member finish. I just want to remind the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that I have seen a lot of debates happen in the House where we are really questioning where it is going and then suddenly it gets wrapped around. I have to give the hon. member that freedom to make his point

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands gets all harried when we talk about math and numbers and so on. This is what is really important.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have another point of order, and I think it is quite right. I am not sure that accusing someone of being harried is—

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I asked the hon. member, on a point of order that was reasonable, what was the relevance. His response, which is an attack on something that is most outrageous, was the assumption that I did not understand numbers and that I was harried. I am sorry, I want to hear speeches that are relevant to the subject we are debating today, and to attack me personally is completely unacceptable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

On the relevancy, again, I cannot rule on that one, but the hon. member does owe the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Island an apology for referring to the numbers issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

The relevance is that the investment climate in our country is critical and the environmental processes that govern the development and implementation of projects are very important. That is why we made changes to the act via Bill S-6. We put time limits on the review process. I know the environmental industry wants no time limits on the review process. I made the point. It is absolutely true that all projects these days are built with the finest environmental technology in place right now. Therefore, to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing what we already knew was what our government changed in the act.

Regarding this act, we exempted a project from reassessment when an authorization was renewed or amended unless there had been a significant change to the project. Changes always are being made to resource projects. Plants are sometimes refurbished, boilers are changed, and these can be considered as routine maintenance or modifications. If these are subject to endless litigation or process, just when a company is modifying a plant in a manner that is not significant in terms of its environmental performance, that modification should be exempt from a review process. The federal minister still had a role to provide binding policy direction to the board, so the federal government was involved.

The last thing we did under Bill S-6, which was very important, was we gained the ability to delegate the federal minister's powers, duties, or functions under the act to the territorial government.

I spoke earlier, as a person who had actually worked in industry, how the investment climate could be negatively affected by different levels of government coming in and out of the process. We know there is a separation of powers in the environment. Migratory birds, for example, are clearly within the purview of the federal government. Wildlife is provincial, and so on. However, there is a very strong overlap between those, and often a proponent has to repeat exactly the same environmental assessment for two levels of government. That costs money, time, and that kind of regulatory uncertainty has the potential to thwart investment. Make no mistake, capital, in the modern world, is very mobile. Capital looks where it can best be spent, and investors look for regulatory certainty.

I am very pleased that in my home province of Manitoba we finally have a business-friendly, aggressive, Conservative government. The mining industry views Manitoba now as the place in North America to develop mines. Not only do we have high environmental standards, we have a business-friendly government. We have rich mineral resources. Unlike the Liberal government of Ontario and other governments across the country, Manitoba has some of the lowest hydro rates in North America. That is a recipe for success.

Going back to Bill C-17, what it would do is reverse the good work that was done under our government. I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than June 19, 2017”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, again the member's arguments, as well as other Conservatives' arguments, have, to a large extent, supported the bill.

First, he talked about there sometimes being assessments for two levels of government, which creates regulatory uncertainty. Of course we do not want that, but that is exactly what the YESA Act does. It has three levels of government that are all brought into one so that there is only one assessment, which avoids the duplications that might occur in other parts of the country. Kudos to the member for this act.

There are treaty duties delegated to the territory. The treaty does not allow that, and the treaty is constitutionally protected. Obviously, as legislators, we do not have the ability to change that. As for binding policy, maybe the member could give us an example of which independent boards get binding direction from the federal minister. I am sure members would be the first to complain if the minister started imposing policy on an independent board.

Another point the member brought up was that wetlands are important and have no protection. The YESA board, right now, is considering some cases related to wetlands, so once agin this act is working very well. Many projects have gone through successfully and smoothly and would be slowed down by these amendments.

Once again, the problem in the Mackenzie Valley was that the proponents did not get the first nations on side at the time, in the first case, and that is what YESAA has now. It has the first nation governments on side, and that is why so many projects go through.

I appreciate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands courageously arguing for this bill, even though it is not in her riding. She made the good point that this would have national ramifications. We have abrogated treaties, on occasion, since before Confederation, and when there is a treaty, it is the honour of the crown to negotiate in good faith and live up to what the treaty says. On many occasions that has not happened. That is the national significance, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, of this particular case, because it has the ramification of not living up to treaties that Canada has signed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question.

Again, I am still firmly convinced that it would introduce uncertainty into the resource development review process. If I look at provinces like Manitoba, where the mining engine is starting to get revved up, I see that Manitoba has a very good regulatory process. We will see what happens in the Yukon, because the proof is in the pudding.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I take issue very strongly with the member's view that there was no consultation on the changes Conservatives made. Very conveniently, the NDP always forgets about farmers, municipalities, and rural communities. There were extensive consultations with farm communities and rural municipalities on the Fisheries Act. To a person and to an organization, all of those groups very strongly supported the changes Conservatives made to that particular act, and similarly with the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In terms of whether an individual was not happy with the consultation process, I would like to see any consultation process in which 100% of the groups and people were happy with the process or the outcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by accepting the gracious apology from my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and move to some of the topics that were a focus of his speech.

The member suggested that Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill of spring 2012, merely amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It actually repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as crafted and passed under the previous administration of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and replaced it with an entirely new act, and that act did include timelines.

I am wondering if the member has read the recent expert assessment of the new act, which found that it completely failed to meet the objectives. The review committee was chaired by the former commissioner of the environment, Johanne Gélinas. The report was released last week, and tellingly, it said that Enbridge found that under the new act, the Harper-era environmental assessment act with timelines, the timelines worked against it and the process took longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in this speech and many other speeches, the critics of what we did as a government never talk about the environment. The environment improved under our Conservative government. The map shows that sulphur dioxide went down and nitrous oxide went down. Canada was considered as having the second-best water quality in the world in 2010 by the United Nations. The sockeye salmon run in 2014 in the Fraser River was a record in history. Even I am not crass enough to take credit for that, but it happened.

During the review of the Fisheries Act, we asked witnesses who were dead set against what we did with the Fisheries Act what changes in the fish population they could see as a result of the changes we made and whether they could give us some specific examples. They could not.

Focusing on process often takes away from real environmental improvements, such as putting waste water treatment plants near paper mills. That is what real environmentalism is and that is what environmental debates should be about. They should be about creating a clean and healthy environment.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always like it when a member speaks from the perspective of technical understanding. My colleague is a biologist and a returning member to the House who has quite a bit of experience both in the field and in this place.

Perhaps the member could elaborate a bit on the principles of conservative environmentalism. It is a principle that he has spoken of a lot in the House, and he has had speaking engagements on it. I think it goes to the very heart of the bill, which is that we can be good stewards of the environment as well as good stewards of the economy. The Minister of Environment is always making the case that the two go hand in hand, but the Liberals ignore the economy. It is the side of the coin that never gets looked at. It is the side of the coin the government continues to ignore. I would really appreciate it if the member could elaborate on the principles of conservative environmentalism.

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

I agree that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, but it is actually an inverse relationship. Wealthier and richer countries have better environments, and a country gets richer and wealthier by adopting conservative economic principles. We believe in free trade. We believe in open markets. We believe in property rights. We have all of the factors in place to create wealth, and once wealth is created, we can then implement the technology to improve the environment.

I will give the House a specific example.

In 1989, the Brian Mulroney government implemented pulp and paper effluent regulations that mandated all pulp and paper plants in this country to install $25-million waste water treatment plants. This was the average cost. I had the honour of running one of those plants after it was built. Does the member think a poor country, such as the socialistic Venezuela that so many left-wing Canadians praise, would ever put in a waste water treatment plant? Has anybody ever been to China to look at the environmental quality there?

The sulphur dioxide case is another one. An economist named Kuznets established a relationship between a country's income and its environmental quality. When the United States, for example, was getting richer in the early 1970s, an inflection point was reached. The country kept getting richer and sulphur dioxide emissions kept going down.

Let us all get rich and save the environment.

[Le vice-président adjoint, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will finish by mentioning those people who were for Bill S-6 at the time. Samson Hartland, executive director of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, described the introduction of time limits as “probably the most important aspect of this bill to our membership.”

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

Having screening processes that don't have defined timelines, and strictly defined timelines, makes it very difficult for people who are investing millions and hundreds of millions of dollars.

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

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

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

I move:

Motion

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #253

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there were several members who came in late. I noticed the member for Brampton North came in late and she also voted.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond on the point of order. I did come in late, so I will withdraw my vote. I was with members from my community because today we are celebrating Vaisakhi on the Hill.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

This should prove a good reminder, I hope, to members. If they are going to come in late, they should not be voting, because it is important to hear the question on which the members are voting.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Yukon for the presentation of Bill C-17. Coming from the second-prettiest riding in Canada, it is good that there is some inspired legislation coming forward.

I have a question for my friend about this notion of time limits. In my riding of Skeena, an idea was brought forward, not only by the Harper Conservatives, but also by the B.C. provincial Liberals, that if these time limits were brought in that forced regulatory decisions, it would make for greater certainty for companies and investors in particular. However, New Democrats noticed that the effect was in fact the opposite, particularly for the 48 or 49 first nations communities that I represent in my riding. When the time limit was brought in, oftentimes there were one or two full-time staffers working on seven or eight major mining proposals, three or four gas line proposals; there were warehouses full of scientific documentation.

The first nations would go to the federal government for support to try to get through the review and gain an understanding so that they could present it back to the first nations with some coherence, and they would get a $5,000 or $8,000 grant from the federal government to review nine mines. Each mining application could be 8,000 pages, 9,000 pages each.

My question for my friend is this. Imposing time limits without the resources to be able to comprehend the specificity of the project and the impact it might have for decades and decades to come seems to be a square peg in a round hole. Is that not something that would have been better off fixed?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada does reimburse first nations for consultation, just like the Government of Alberta does. In the House of Commons debate, page 11997, on March 11, 2015, a Conservative member at the time said, “the Government of Canada has reimbursed those first nations up to $98,695 for those consultations that took place”. The issue he is speaking of is a staffing issue; it is not a legislative regulatory issue. That is always the problem with all forms of government, whether provincial, territorial, municipal, or federal. They make legislative and regulatory changes without providing the sufficient financial resources to ensure that the persons in the departments responsible for the regulations are able to deliver on the regulatory and legislative changes. That is important to remember as well. It is a staffing issue that he speaks of.

I remember, from my experience working for the Alberta government, the lands, fisheries, and forestry departments did a lot of aboriginal consultation. In that situation, the staffing issues were resources. The right rules and regulations were in place, just not always the right people in the correct numbers to do all of the work. There is nothing wrong with time limits, as long as they are resourced correctly. That would be my answer.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, during the member's speech, he talked about the uncertainty that Bill C-17 would add to the natural resource sector in Yukon. My colleague from Yukon mentioned the mining exploration tax credit, which the Conservative government also put in place. However, he talked about it being a great advancement. The Liberals took away the Canada exploration expense, which eliminated tax credits for new exploratory oil and gas wells, and that has had an impact on the energy sector in Alberta. We have seen Statoil, Shell, and ConocoPhillips pull investment out of Alberta.

I am wondering if the member can talk about the impact that this could have in Yukon as well, as it loses investment because of these new regulations and policies.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. In my riding, I have heard from many smaller junior oil and gas companies, and even those technical services companies that provide assistance to the major companies say that this will have an immense impact. They are not going to be sending as many drills out into the field, and a good deal of this is the fault of the New Democratic provincial government.

However, this compounds the problem even further. I talked about it in my remarks. We always talk about the cumulative impacts on the environment, but we rarely, if ever, talk about the cumulative impacts on industry and on companies.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on Bill C-17.

Listening to the debate thus far today, I am reminded of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who certainly had a love of the north. He also had a love of this place, a love of Parliament. I am reminded of one of his more famous quotations, in which he said, “Parliament is more than procedure--it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”

I am reminded of this now more than ever. Last Friday, I raised an important question of privilege about two members who were denied their right to vote, and then the Liberal government shutting down the vote on a question of privilege, never allowing that question of privilege to come to a vote in this House.

As well, I think of the Standing Orders standoff that the Liberals have orchestrated in the procedure and House affairs committee. It is, unfortunately with a heavy heart, that we have to stand in here and debate, not the important rights of our members, as we ought to.

Therefore, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #254

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

Bill C-17--Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. There are 10 minutes remaining in the questions and comments from the speech of the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, although we are about three minutes from the end of government orders.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on three things that the member mentioned.

First, the delegation of authority is in the treaty and the treaty is constitutionally protected, the UFA, the umbrella final agreement, and of course we, as legislators, cannot change something that is constitutionally protected.

Second, as I have outlined a number of times, the reassessments do not necessarily have to hurry. The policy has been changed so that the initial assessment can go longer in the life of the project so reassessments may not be necessary and only done when necessary.

Finally, once again, the timelines are just as certain. They are done by regulations and gazetted. Therefore, the question of uncertainty is not valid.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Yukon is very proud of Yukon and proud of his riding and I thank him for his comments.

However, I want to comment on what we just saw from the government House leader. After only one day of debate on this bill, she has given notice of time allocation. She has given notice of time allocation at the same time on Bill C-25 after very little debate.

She said that an agreement could not be reached through the usual channels. Well, it is tough to reach agreement when the government is ramming changes to the Standing Orders down the throats of the opposition.

She said that she wants us to have a conversation on the Standing Orders, yet there is a motion before the procedure and House affairs committee to have the guillotine at the end. It is a forced change.

Our party believes that to have a real discussion we need consensus from all parties in this House, as has been the tradition in this House. I think it is unfortunate that she has given notice of time allocation on two bills which have had one day of debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have a little over seven and a half minutes for questions and comments the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington has about eight minutes left for questions. Does he want to take them?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

That is fine. We will resume debate.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Chief Ruth Massie stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her very eloquent defence of YESAA. I cannot fault anything she said on YESAA, so I will not ask a question but allow her to wax more eloquent on the bill.

I just want to say something for opposition members, just in case they try to say that we are rolling back everything they did and nothing was accomplished with that five years of review. There were 72 recommendations that were actually negotiated, the parties agreed to, and were implemented, either legislatively or some as policy recommendations. That was achieved, but what the member spoke so eloquently about was the four major things that were thrown in at the last moment, on which Yukoners and first nations were not consulted. They were in contravention of the spirit and probably the law of their treaty.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the comment and for his hard work on this file.

One of the things we saw clearly here was a model of how we can move forward in creating a true nation-to-nation relationship, and how harmful it is when areas and communities work together to create a solution that will work, where we can really track how things are interconnected and how important it is that it be supported, but what we did see, unfortunately, was a total lack of consultation from the previous government, something that tore things apart but could have been so much more positive.

I am very happy we are doing this work in this House. I hope to see the next steps continue, and I do have to say that I hope the commitment for a nation-to-nation relationship that the current government has made begins to flourish more. I would like to see some glowing examples of that in the near future.

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

Madam Speaker, we tried every way we could in debate to stop the erosion of the negotiated agreements for protections in Yukon.

I also want to pay tribute to former member of Parliament Dennis Bevington, who is no longer in this House. He was the NDP member for Western Arctic. In the absence of the government member at the time, the member for Yukon, who was a Conservative, we did not have a spirited defence from someone from the north other than Dennis Bevington. I wanted to thank him for his work on it.

I want to pick up on some of the other examples my colleague from North Island—Powell River used of environmental laws being dismantled and devastated by the Harper administration. I may have misunderstood something she said, so I want to follow up on it.

My colleague mentioned that she thought it was important for the National Energy Board review process to be reformed. We now have two expert panels, one on the National Energy Board and one on environmental assessment, both of which were commissioned by the current Liberal administration. Both of them recommend what I forcefully recommend, which is that the National Energy Board should never again be entrusted with any review processes. The environmental assessment process does not belong before the National Energy Board.

I would like the member to clarify if she agrees that we should never again see a project put before the National Energy Board for an environmental review.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember knocking on the door of an elderly man who lives in Campbell River in my riding, overlooking the beautiful ocean and mountains. What he said had a profound impact on me.

He told me he had been living in the same house for 60 years and had seen, over 20 and 40 and 60 years, tremendous changes to the environment, and that these changes scared him. He has children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He said the environment we live in has to be at the very foundation of every decision we make, because it is changing so quickly.

I agree with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that we cannot ever underestimate the power of what is happening to our environment. I hope all of these processes are reviewed and renewed in a new way that means we move forward toward providing a future for our children and our grandchildren. We in the House can do nothing less.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling a supplementary response to Question No. 1025 and the government response to Question No. 1027.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the previous speaker's vigorous defence. As I know he has more to say, I will not ask a question so he can finish his defence of the bill. However, I did want to make a comment on timelines from the previous debate.

First, the timelines that were in this bill actually were not really necessary, in the sense that the vast majority, if not all, of the projects were meeting and exceeding those timelines anyway.

Some who do not understand the process would suggest there are no timelines. There are timelines. They are the policy of the board. They have been gazetted. It is just that those timelines are made in Yukon. The Conservatives have spoken before about letting local people make the decisions. The present system allows the local people, the policy of the board, to make these timelines that exist today.

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

Madam Speaker, New Democrats are very happy that the bill would roll back changes, so we can continue to move forward with the agreements that will be set up in Yukon, the long-term agreements that everyone worked very hard to accomplish.

I think this is a first step in avoiding litigation in court with indigenous peoples. I would like Liberals to take this approach with the people in my riding, the Nuu-chah-nulth, the Huu-ay-aht, and other indigenous people in this country, go to the table, stop fighting indigenous people in court, and create a real nation-to-nation dialogue that is based on a foundation of consultation, accommodation, and supporting UNDRIP.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a specific point. He asked why we would want timelines for projects, because, after all, the projects are important. That is an interesting question, but the answer is also fairly obvious, which is that any time decisions need to be made, there should be a fair process for evaluating the decision by looking at the evidence. If there is an infinite process with no timeline to it, then, effectively, the decision will always be no. If there is no mechanism for saying the adjudication has happened and it is now time to make a decision, effectively, that is an anti-development decision and it will go on infinitely. I suspect that may explain why some parties in the House are opposed to timelines, because they always want the decision to be no when it comes to development.

What does the member think about my reasoning, that if we are going to have a fair process that involves a decision, sometimes yes, sometimes no, then we have to a time limit to that adjudication process and it cannot go on forever?

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

Madam Speaker, we all want certainty when it comes to economic development. We want to find the balance to move forward so that we can find ways to grow our economy, protect the environment, and make sure there is a socio-economic benefit to communities where development takes place. That does not mean we have to rush decisions, especially if they are decisions that are not in the best interests of people locally. When it comes to economic development with indigenous people, they should not pressured to make a decision on land or territory that they have governed or taken care of for thousands of years. They should not be rushed or forced to make a decision when it might have an impact on future generations. They have an important responsibility to generations from the past, the present, and the future.

New Democrats have a different opinion than the Conservatives on how to work with indigenous people. We seek consent. Consent is the foundation of economic development as we move forward and if we have not achieved consent and indigenous people need more time, they should be able to have more time. We should not be pressuring or forcing local communities to move forward with economic development on a timeline that is set by people from outside their communities, or without having conducted the consultation and accommodation that they so desire.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand this evening to talk to Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

I want to note that I have only had the privilege once in my life of going to the Yukon, and what an incredibly beautiful part of our country. As we celebrate Canada's 150th, I encourage anyone who has the opportunity to go up there, to paddle the rivers, or just enjoy the beautiful history and scenery. It truly is a unique and wonderful part of our country.

I also want to note that as a British Columbian, when I went up there I really did appreciate how the Yukon seemed to have a very good, collaborative process in terms of having solved many of its outstanding land claims issues, having a comprehensive process in place. Contrast that to British Columbia, where we still have a lot of work to do to get to the same place.

It is interesting. I am hearing about four amendments, and I am hearing a lot of process concerns. We did not talk about it quite long enough. However, I am not really hearing good arguments about those four elements.

First, I want to make a special note. This was legislation that was enacted in the last Parliament. It has been in place for a couple of years now. I have not heard of any difficult stories coming out of the Yukon in terms of the way the legislation has been established. There has been unhappiness with elements of it, but I have not heard of any challenges in terms of what it has done to move projects forward.

I have heard of a lot of challenges with the uncertainty of the time frames and the fact that people do not know what the government is going to do. It is important to note that the government actually introduced this piece of legislation over a year ago. I think it was in June 2016. If we look at how much of a priority it is for the government, the legislation was introduced well over a year ago and here we are, in the final stages of 2017, before we rise for the summer, and all of a sudden there is now some kind of urgency to it.

We did not have the first debate in the House on this legislation until April. Again, what the government is trying to do in the final days of Parliament is to get legislation through the House, and through committee with hardly any witnesses and hardly any time. There is not really the opportunity for the due diligence that we are responsible for as parliamentarians.

The government is trying to move it through quickly. In terms of the time management and of its record for moving legislation through Parliament, the government has a strong majority and has moved fewer pieces of legislation forward than Conservatives did in a minority government.

I forgot to note at the start that I will be sharing my time with the member for Foothills. Although I would love to speak for 20 minutes, he has a lot of good things that he would like to say as well.

We have a government that is trying to rush things through at the end of Parliament, because it has actually had a bad time management, parliamentary management system in place. It is spending lots of time debating motions that could have been done through ministerial statements. It has been ineffective in terms of what the government says are priority pieces of legislation with important time frames.

The bill before us is going to do four things in terms of the environmental assessment process. I am going to talk a little about each one. I know there was a discussion for five years around the review of ESA. There was an agreement on 72 elements, and there were four elements that perhaps there was not consensus on. I think having consensus on 72 out of 76 elements is pretty darn good. Any municipal government would be pleased to have kind of consensus, in terms of moving forward.

If we had, in this House, agreement on 72 pieces of legislation out of 76, we would have a pretty darn good record. The fact that perhaps there was not as extensive a discussion as some groups might have wanted on these few elements, I do not think necessarily means that there has not been an important process and good rationale.

First, with respect to time limits on the review process, I heard my colleague from the NDP say time limits do not matter. Time limits do matter because companies and capital investments travel, and they go where they are wanted. If there is uncertainty, or if they know they are going to have to potentially wait 20 or 30 years before getting a yes or a no on moving a project forward, they are going to take their capital and spend it in other places. Therefore, having certainty around time limits is an important and logical step. It has been done, and has been well received in most of the provinces in the rest of the country.

It is interesting that they are complaining about the time limits, but they say we are meeting those time limits anyway, so we do not need it in the legislation. However, in challenging projects, perhaps people might need a little push in terms of having a time limit. As with many people, when they know a paper is due and they have a time limit, it is easier for them to get the work done than when it is open ended and they can turn in the paper whenever they want.

On the concerns about the time limits, especially when they are meeting them anyway, especially when it is consistent across the country, I will use British Columbia again as an example. There is a start process. They might say it is 18 months, but lots of times they put a halt to the process because there is something they need to deal with. I know that even a process that might have an 18-month time frame from submission to when they are supposed to get an answer can often take three or four years because there are certain elements that can trigger a halt in the process. Therefore, it is really not a good argument to suggest that time limits would be inappropriate in this piece of legislation.

Second, on exemptions from reassessment when an authorization is renewed, unless there is significant change, there can be a very minor change in a project. To suggest that they have to go through a extensive, robust environmental assessment process is simply red tape, time consuming, and inefficient in terms of dollars. I would suggest a very appropriate insertion that says when there are minor changes they do not have to do a major review. It is not an area that is particularly troublesome, nor do I think in general people should be troubled by that.

Third, regarding the ability for the federal minister to provide binding policy direction, I agree we could have some debate on that. Perhaps that is one area where I could argue on both sides. I will concede that although one and two are perfectly appropriate, perhaps we could have a discussion on three.

The fourth one is the ability of the federal minister to delegate powers and duties. That is what we are doing across the country. In the provinces, they are saying, “Get out of our business. You live a long way away. Let us take over. Let us be responsible for making our own decisions in our own communities.”

It is unfortunate that I had the one-minute warning, because I have lots more to say. On the process, we had full consensus on 72 out of 76 recommendations. We have three that are very rational and reasonable, and one on which perhaps there could have been different decisions. I look forward to any questions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make before I ask my question.

Something has happened since the last debate on this.

On May 17, Motion No. 23 was passed unanimously in the Yukon legislature. The motion reads, “supports the efforts of the Government of Canada to restore confidence in Yukon’s environmental and socio-economic assessment process through amendments contained in Bill C-17...” The Yukon Conservative Party was also party to that unanimous motion. Therefore, I am not sure why anyone in the House would want to go against the unanimous view of Yukoners.

The member said the timeline was a little rich. If members remember the day the chiefs were here, expecting this relatively routine bill to go through, the Conservatives, through mischief motions, delayed it until we got to this time.

On recommendation 72, the member made a very good point, but a few things were not agreed to at that time. The problem is that four major items were thrown in at the last moment and they were not part of those five years of review.

There is no shame in this, but the member probably did not know that timelines are in place now. As I mentioned previously this afternoon, it is the policy of the board and they have been gazetted, so there is no need to usurp those timelines by Ottawa when it is already put in place locally in the system in place at the moment.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has said that timelines are in place locally and he does not have an issue with it. Why then is he concerned about having it in the actual legislation? That just makes no sense. To enshrine it in legislation is perfectly appropriate.

Again, what I am hearing is a lot of argument against process. The essence of the bill is to remove four items. In fact, we should leave three items in it because it would be better for Yukon. The arguments I am hearing have not convinced me otherwise, that this is an argument about people being unhappy with the process, but not about the implications of the legislation.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused about the conviction we are hearing. With respect to what we have heard from the Conservatives so far, I am trying to understand how we are helping people if we are encouraging using a court system for a challenge. The status quo is not healthy if we encourage someone to prove us wrong by going to court. Maybe the member can help us understand a bit more some of the objections to what is a healthy process in honouring the real intent through YESAA.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have already complimented the very important YESAA process in Yukon. It has done an admirable job and I know it took it a long time to get there. My point is simply that in the House we would never have consensus on 76 recommendations. We have 72 of 76, and that is a very strong method forward, and it is doing excellent work.

As I indicated earlier, what we have here is one area where there might be legitimate concerns and three areas where the concern is that it was in the legislation, but it is not actually what it is stated.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about supporting development in Yukon, and that is exactly what the bill would do.

I want to make a small technical correction for the record to make sure people understand something I did not say very well before. More than 76 items were discussed. Let us put them into part 1 and part 2. In part 2, there were 72 agreed to and implemented, but there were a few more the parties could not agree to, so they were left off the table. Over and above those, four serious things were put in at the last moment, without negotiation, and that was the problem.

I will go back to time limits, and I hope I do not have to say this again. The member spoke very well about wanting to put power in the hands of Yukon. The system has now been set up that way. Very competitive timelines are there, but they are determined locally by the board by what makes sense. They are gazetted. They are in place. I hope if any more Conservative members plan to speak to this, they will correct their speaking notes so I do not have to say it another time.

The member mentioned mining. Let me quote:

The Government of Yukon, self-governing Yukon First Nations, Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon Chamber of Mines look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible. Your support for the passage of Bill C-17 assures us that the Government of Canada is genuinely committed to reset the relationship between Canada, Yukon and Yukon First Nations.

The member talked about local support and about mining. There is local mining support. A unanimous decision was reached in the Yukon legislature by all parties, including the conservative members.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was actually a question there, but the member made some good comments. I appreciate my hon. colleague's work on the same question he asks over and over again.

The key is that there was consultation. Our committee went to Yukon. We met with industry, stakeholders, and indigenous communities, not only when it came to the initial 76 elements but also to the four the member referred to. I keep hearing that there was no consultation, that these things were just added and were magically there. That is simply not the case. There was consultation. We had the support of industry.

We are looking at the policies the Liberals are putting in place. It is about adding red tape and adding bureaucracy. I see them going down a road that will ensure that there is no more resource development in Canada, especially in northern and remote communities. We are seeing it in Alberta and the impact it has.

A report came out today that indicated that downtown Calgary now has a vacancy rate of 40%. That would not happen if the federal government was a partner when it came to supporting economic development, and that includes natural resources.

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

Madam Speaker, I parenthetically note the economic literature about the situation in Alberta, which is very much a concern to everyone in this place. We want people working. We want all parts of Canada engaged in a healthy economy. The current price of WTI crude oil is 44.74¢. That is not due to government regulations but rather is due to a global oil supply glut. It has nothing to do with climate policies.

I want to direct my colleague to something the member for Yukon just mentioned. I will quote specifically from the letter sent to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and signed by the Premier of the Government of Yukon, Grand Chief Peter Johnston of the Council of Yukon First Nations, and Mike Burke, president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, in which they urge the House to pass the bill. I will read what they say.

“Our governments and organizations confirm our support for the repeal of these amendments. It is our understanding that Bill C-17 will be brought forward in the House for second reading on March 22, 2017.” Here we are, still debating second reading now. They “look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible.”

These are the people who are doing industrial resource development in the Yukon Chamber of Mines.

My colleague's concerns about this legislation and resource development are ill-founded.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot let it go by when the member says that what is going on in Alberta has to do with low oil prices. That is certainly part of it, but to say that it is all of it is simply not the case.

Alberta is my home. I have lived there for most of my life. My friends and neighbours have been impacted by what is going on. Fifty billion dollars in capital does not leave a province because of oil priced at $45 a barrel. We went through oil at $20 a barrel and were able to pay off a deficit and the debt.

They are leaving Alberta right now because of federal and provincial government regulations that have made it simply unfriendly and impossible to do business in Alberta. That is what is happening in Alberta.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate tonight on this piece of legislation. We are discussing Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. It raises a variety of questions more broadly in our discussion of natural resource development. I will speak about the bill and the different provisions in it as well as about some of the underlying questions and the relationship between those questions and broader issues of resource development.

We have already had some discussion tonight about my province, Alberta, and some of the resource development questions there. A lot of the questions are the same in terms of how we view the kinds of processes that need to be in place when it comes to economic development, where we think the decision-making power should be situated, and how we think these things should unfold.

To start with, in terms of the particulars of the legislation, the bill seeks to repeal a number of sections of the act that deal with time limits for project assessment, the ability of the federal minister to delegate certain powers to the territorial minister, the ability of the federal minister to set binding policy regulations, and an exemption to allow for project renewal if there is clearly no significant change to the project. These provisions of YESAA help to facilitate orderly, relatively efficient discussions, evaluations, and conclusions in terms of the assessment of projects. They reflect the belief of the previous government that we should trust local governments, provincial governments, and territorial governments as much as possible to make decisions that fall within, generally speaking, their own competencies and areas of authority.

These are some of the existing provisions of the legislation the government is seeking to repeal. We oppose this legislation. We think the provisions the government is seeking to repeal actually make good logical sense, and I want to go a little bit into the reasons why.

I will start with the issue of time limits. The bill would repeal sections that provide for legislated time limits for project assessment. There are a range of perspectives in this House on this question. We had a member of the NDP wonder why we would have time limits for project assessment. How does it even, from his perspective, make sense to have those time limits. That is one perspective in the House. We then had a member of the government say that maybe there should be some degree of time limitation, but it should not be defined from the outset. It should be something that can be determined or shifted on a case-by-case basis.

Our view, in this party, is that constructive deliberation requires there to be clear opportunities for the evidence to be presented, then coming out of that process, an opportunity for a determination to be made that reflects that evidence. I think that is intuitively reasonable. Thinking through and coming to a conclusion requires some degree of certainty that at some point, that decision-making process will end and there will be a conclusion, either yes or no. It is not about saying that every project should go ahead. It is about saying that there should be a process by which that decision is made.

For members who maybe are not convinced of this idea that we should have some degree of time limits for energy projects in terms of the adjudication of them, I can maybe make an analogy to our use of House time. This is something we have debated quite a bit in terms of the Standing Orders. We provide for the fact that there are a large number of bills we want to have discussed in this place, and we cannot spend the entire life of a Parliament debating the same bill, because it will make it harder to pass other bills. We have to make difficult decisions about how we use the time in this House. Hopefully, most of the time that happens through agreement among House leaders. If we think about it, we debate substantial, very difficult issues, and we allocate, either by agreement or by the government imposing the allocation. It is quite short compared to the time windows that exist for many of these energy projects.

We spent two or three days discussing the government's euthanasia legislation at second reading. Recently we had the imposition of time allocation on the government's marijuana legislation to send it through to committee. After very little debate, we had the imposition of time allocation on a very expansive transportation regulation bill. These are cases where we had debate in the House of Commons limited to a number of days, even a number of hours.

Conservatives used time allocation occasionally when we were in government. The Liberals use time allocation. The NDP has voted on a number of occasions for time allocation. If members think energy projects should have no time limits, I would ask them to reconcile that contention with what seems to be the accepted view of all major parties in this House that there needs to be some limitation on debate that happens in this place. If members cannot go on to debate questions, broader legislative questions, infinitely, then how does it make sense that we can have an infinite assessment process for energy projects?

Let us be clear, there are individuals, interests, and groups, some of whom may not have a direct connection with the specific projects in place, that have a desire to filibuster energy projects. Any time there is a proposed project, they want to be able to insert themselves in the process and drag that process out as long as possible to prevent that project from moving forward.

In the House of Commons, there are only 338 of us, and in this chamber, we are subject to, generally speaking, certain time limits. There are other mechanisms of limiting debate. However, when we look at project assessments that happen outside this place, there are many different groups or individuals who could come forward and make presentations. There is always the worry that for these projects the assessment could be dragged out so long that effectively it would be a filibuster. Effectively, there would be no opportunity to make an adjudication on the basis of the information and the evidence, because the discussion would just keep going on and on.

I am of the view that there are some projects that should go ahead. If people think that there are projects that should go ahead, then we have to accept that there has to be some mechanism for setting time limits, for having an identification of a process in advance that allows that determination to be made.

I would take the view that the existing provisions of this legislation prescribe time limits, legislated time limits, clear time limits, so that everyone knows what the process is and everyone can have confidence and certainty in that process. There is predictability from the outset, and people can submit the opinions they want to submit. We make sure through that process that everyone has an opportunity to get their opinions on the record but also that a decision will be made at the end of that process. I think having that clarity, that certainty, from the outset is a reasonable way to proceed and to ensure that ultimately, the best decision is made.

I am going to switch to discussing some of the other provisions of this legislation. The existing act talks about the fact that there should not be a repetition of the assessment process if an evaluation has already taken place and the project has not substantially changed. Along a similar line, this is about saying that there should be an assessment. There should be a process by which a decision is made, but a decision should then be made. It does not make a lot of sense to say that we have to repeat the whole assessment process if what we are actually looking at is a project renewal and there is no significant change to the project. If there is not a substantial change to the project, then why would there be a need to evaluate it again? That is fairly obvious.

From the perspective of fairness in decision-making, a decision is made, and then we proceed with it once all the evidence is gathered and put together.

It is interesting, listening to the other debate in this House, that there are very few politicians who are prepared to say, “We are just against all energy projects.” However, we start to wonder, when we look at the accumulation of objections and excuses, if there is actually something else going on. What we hear more and more from those in certain quarters politically is an unwillingness to admit to being, generally speaking, anti-development, but they object to pipelines and to the transportation of energy resources. They want to impose new taxes and tighter regulations on it. They want to avoid having fixed benchmarks in place. They are concerned about defined time limits. They want these assessment processes to be able to go on forever.

As much as those who raise all of these objections may say they are pro-development, when we actually add up the pieces we can identify so many different ways in which these advocacy groups or these political interests are effectively putting up barriers to development without admitting that all they are trying to do is put up barriers to development. However, when they are consistently opposing new requirements that do not really make sense outside of an anti-development framework, then we start to wonder why we cannot just have an honest conversation about whether economic and resource development is going to be beneficial for the regions that we are talking about.

It is clear to me that there should not be repetition of assessment when it is not needed, that project assessment should have a reasonable and clearly defined timeline. For those who say that should not be the case, we have to ask the question, what really is the motivation for that argument? Not, perhaps, for everyone, but if they are opposed to pipelines, they want new taxes for energy resources and they want to make the process more complicated, less predictable, and longer, then they cannot really say at the end of it that they are pro-development because it becomes clear that they are not.

Economic development is so important for job creation in the north and in western Canada, but all across the country we should recognize that there are spinoff economic benefits associated with economic development that benefit the entire country. There are jobs in every province and every region that relate directly or indirectly to energy development. Therefore, all members, regardless of what region of the country they come from, should understand that they have a direct stake as part of one whole Canadian family, but also, given the direct tie-in to every region, they have a stake in supporting policies that are responsive to economic development.

One of the other provisions in this legislation that is repealed is powers around delegating authority. I am very proud of the fact that under the previous Conservative government, we took the position that territories deserved to be able to increase their power and control over their own territory, that territorial governments elected by their people, as the level of government that is closest to the people who are electing it, should be able to make more decisions over the direction and future of what happens in those areas.

Just as we have a federation that is well served by strong provincial governments that can be more responsive in many cases to what is happening in terms of local circumstances than the federal government, we have strong municipalities that can, in many cases, be closer and more responsive to the immediate needs of their communities than other orders of government. We recognize that principle in southern Canada and we should apply it in the same sense in the north.

That was our approach, and it was coming out of a broader philosophical commitment to the principle of subsidiarity. The emphasis on subsidiarity has been a part of the Conservative tradition for as long as I can remember. Decisions that can be made closer to the local level can likely harness the creativity and the connectedness to those issues of more people than if decisions are made far away, where they have people who are not actually directly involved in the circumstances on the ground. When they have decisions that are made by a smaller number of people that are applied across the board, even in cases where they may not apply, they are less likely to have positive outcomes.

If we delegate that authority, if we have as much of that authority expressed at the local level, and responsibility as well, and the power to make decisions and to see the consequences of those decisions, and then have local people respond in local or provincial or territorial elections, we get a more responsive decision-making process, we get more responsive outcomes as that process unfolds.

That is the emphasis on subsidiarity, that kind of philosophical framework that we brought to the discussion of this, and it is one that I think the Liberal government is less interested in. It is trying to impose specific policy direction on provinces, even outside of what is supposed to be federal jurisdiction. I think it is very relevant to our discussion that here we see the government proceeding in that way, with respect to the carbon tax. I think this is the first time we have ever seen a federal government say to the provinces, “You must impose a tax in an area of your jurisdiction and if you don't, we will impose a province-specific tax on you and then basically the voters in your province will be completely without recourse if they perhaps want to go in a different direction than the rest of the country is going.”

It is unheard that we have a federal government say, “We're going to have a special tax for Saskatchewan that we're going to collect in Saskatchewan and not elsewhere.” This has very concerning implications from a federalism perspective. I am sure it would be challenged legally. However, underlying all this is a lack of respect for the particular competencies of provincial governments—provincial governments that may have different priorities, which reflect the different priorities expressed by the voters in their areas, provincial governments which may have different visions of how to realize the broader policy direction that may be set out.

It is, of course, important that provinces work together, that they have discussions on how to do things that are in our collective interest. I think that voters in every province and every territory are going to push for those kinds of outcomes, those kinds of approaches. However, when the federal government comes in and tries to dictate to provinces, that is where we get into problems.

Again, we took the position, with respect to the approach that the previous Conservative government took to the territories, in general, that strengthening the powers the territories had to make decisions that reflected what the electorate in those territories were looking for, was a better way of proceeding, rather than having the power in the hands of the federal government.

The provisions that we had in place in YESAA gave the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs the ability to delegate certain powers that were provided to them under the act to the territorial minister. This legislation completely takes that power away, and that, of course, raises some questions.

I will now proceed to my next point, which is the changes that the legislation makes with respect to the ability to issue binding policy direction.

YESAA currently provides the ability for them to set policy direction to the board.

Again, I think the board has the responsibility of making determinations based on the immediate evidence but it makes sense that the broad policy would be set at the ministerial level. There is a distinction between assessment and policy. That, I think, respects the proper democratic function of ministers, which is to exercise authority on behalf of the people, and of the board to make independent evidence-based decisions as well. We think that properly reflects the balance that should exist in that case.

Overall, it is evident, if we look at this legislation, there is a broader objection in many quarters of this House to development projects. That is something that we are very concerned about and one of the reasons, among others, why we oppose this legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan being coherent today, especially after we both flew all night to get here today. However, this time I do not agree with his speech.

One of the first Conservative speakers made a very good point. She said there were some process problems. That is the whole issue, from my perspective. If there was a law passed illegally, not in the spirit of the treaties, or against the treaties, it does not matter how good the various things are. There is no use even debating them. Some members are debating the points. If the process was not right the member would be the first to know that, after filibustering on a process point for 16 hours. I am sure if he was a Yukon chief he would be filibustering this for the same reason, the process.

The member has made some great points in favour of the bill. He said territorial governments closest to the people should be able to make more decisions. Not only the territorial government, all the opposition parties just unanimously passed a motion to support this bill. Therefore, if we want them to be closer to the people, live up to what the member said.

That falls in with the philosophy of subsidiarity, to make the decision from the lowest down. The territorial legislature, all the chiefs and their governments have said to pass this as is. We should follow the member's dictates.

Finally, we should not dictate to the provinces and territories. That is what we are taking away, that dictation that happened in these elements with a lack of respect, as he talked about, for competition for the provinces and territories.

That will be enough, because he has made such an eloquent, good reason as to why the Conservatives should support the bill. I will leave it at that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his intervention. I wish I had as much time today as I do when I am at PROC to fully develop these points. Maybe there would be less confusion if I did, because the principle of subsidiarity is not that the federal government should pass legislation just because another level of government asks them to. The principle of subsidiarity is delegating practical authority, and therefore the ensuing responsibility for that decision, to orders of government that are closer to the people.

Therefore, it would be a misunderstanding of subsidiarity to say we should pass this legislation because it happens to be the opinion of the Yukon legislature. Subsidiarity is about something much deeper than that. It is about creating mechanisms to give full responsibility for decision-making and for managing the consequences to orders of government that are closest to those directly involved. That might, in certain instances, even be a process that is resisted by those orders of government. However, the principle says better decision-making outcomes are likely to result through that type of process.

Beyond that, if I understood him right, the member said he was less interested in engaging with the specific arguments about the points because he objected to the process by which previous changes were brought into YESAA. There is always discussion about mechanisms for doing better consultation for legislation. I know there were many people critical of the government's own approach when it came to consultation around, I think it was Bill S-3, where in fact there was a poor decision and the consultation did not even include the litigants in the initial phase of that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I do have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

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

Madam Speaker, I come from a region where the environmental assessment and review procedures are pretty clear for everybody. Not only that, but the environmental assessment and review procedures that exist in northern Quebec were agreed to by the provincial and federal governments and indigenous peoples. Therefore, they provide clarity for that region. For any type of development in that region, everybody knows what the rules are and what to abide by. I think the legislation before us tends to go in that direction, unlike the previous legislation that the previous government tried to impose on indigenous peoples, which dictated and was contrary to what was in the agreements and treaties in the Yukon.

The member talked about the jurisdictions we have in this country, federal and provincial in particular, and I think they need to be addressed when we talk about environmental assessment review in any part of this country. One of the things that the Supreme Court has mentioned over and over in many decisions over the years was that, in spite of the fact that there are reserved jurisdictions for the federal government, and on the other hand the provincial governments, those jurisdictions are not absolute, and one of the reasons is that there are aboriginal rights in this country that we need to respect when exercising those jurisdictions.

I would like the member's comments on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment about the importance of indigenous jurisdiction, that it is not just about federal and provincial, that there is indigenous authority and other orders of governments. I do not disagree with that at all.

To come back to the points I made with respect to the legislation, there needs to be a decision-making process that is fair, has clear timelines established, is predictable from the outset, allows all of those who are affected by the process and the project to have input, ultimately allows a decision that reflects the evidence to be made in the best interests of the communities, and makes the decision in a timely manner. Obviously, that decision has to include a multiplicity of different perspectives.

Of course, the member will know that there are a range of different indigenous communities with different kinds of perspectives on development projects. I can say, speaking from the perspective of my province, that there are many indigenous people and communities who are very much in favour of energy development. They believe in it and also benefit directly from it. Of course, there are others that take a different perspective, both in Alberta and elsewhere. However, on balance, I think that the framework established by the previous legislation was better in terms of setting out clear, predictable guidelines and processes.

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

Mr. Speaker, while we are debating Bill C-17, which is entirely about rights of people in the Yukon and maintaining a system of environmental reviews that had been negotiated with first nations, we want to put right something that was done wrong in the previous House.

However, I do want to take the member up on a number of the comments he made in relation to pipelines and the people who oppose them. I would like my friend to contemplate the position I take, which is that the problem is not the pipelines but rather what is in them, as long as we are determined to see bitumen mixed with diluent. Based on the best science we have in this country and in the U.S., the senior scientific academy, this is a substance that no one knows how to clean up. Bitumen is only mixed with diluent for the purpose of making it flow through pipelines, because it is a solid. It gets a very low price internationally, because it is a solid.

Certainly, I support upgraders and even support getting upgraders and refineries being built to create jobs in Alberta and pipelines to take a product that Canadians can use so that we can shut down the import of foreign oil to the east coast of Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is more direct and in many ways more honest about putting her perspective on the table than some who want to kind of dance around these questions.

Here is the thing about bitumen and energy resources in general. We all use these products. Whether we like it or not, these are all unavoidable parts of our lives. For those who are concerned about the potential risks of moving them and these sorts of things, then the resulting policy conclusion should be trying to reduce the use of these products. However, while we are still using them, while we still use everything from plastics, to jet fuel, to all kinds of different products that come from the energy sector, then we have to extract them and we have to move them. It is not realistic that we can do all of the downstream processing and product development at the very place where they are developed. It would not be practical to have all that labour right beside where these projects are developed. The alternative, then, is to not develop, to get resources from other countries, or to look for reasonable solutions to transportation.

I think all the evidence suggests that pipelines are better than rail from a safety perspective and from an environmental impact perspective, so it behooves us to be realistic and to look at what the resources are that we use and therefore the necessary mechanisms of transportation and development that are associated with them. If we do not look at that, then the alternative is simply that we put ourselves at a massive economic disadvantage compared to other countries that will do this development. Often they will do it in a less environmentally friendly and less human rights friendly way compared to what we are doing here in Canada, and we will find ourselves at a disadvantage for no particular benefit.

That is why I am in favour of development. I am particularly in favour of Canadian development because it is—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I believe there is a message from the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am taken by the breathtaking scope of the speech by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The cogency of the speech is only exceeded by its generosity.

I would like to ask the member a very simple question in regard to the environment. She indicated that the environmental policies of the government are based on junk science. When 98% to 99% of the world's environmental scientists feel that climate change has its causes in human activity, does the member believe that, or does she believe that is also junk science?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about the environment. The member's riding happens to be along the Ottawa River.

This is another example of how the federal government is trying to take over issues and authorities of local concern. We have our other friend down there who has Motion No. 104. That is a bill to initially study the Ottawa River. In concert with studying the Ottawa River, the government is already trying to set up conservation authorities, taking the authority that the local municipalities have, creating wetlands where private property is, and furthermore driving people out of the area, because they cannot develop, and they are forced to go into the city.

I do not take climate change as my religion. I believe in science. The member's “99% of scientists” figure is incorrect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her speech, which I found rather surprising on a number of levels. I will not belabour all the atrocities she uttered about a number of things.

Among other things, she talked about the importance of the environment and the economy in different regions in the country. Everyone knows that I come from a region where there are extremely strict environmental assessment and review processes, probably among the strictest in Canada, in northern Quebec, under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. At the time, when we signed the James Bay agreement, people were saying more or less the same thing that the hon. member said this evening.

Every time the developers showed up for mining, forestry, or hydro-electricity projects they credited the process in place in James Bay for keeping northern Quebec's economy moving quite well even when Quebec's economy is doing poorly. It is important to know that, especially when the hon. member's government tried to pass a bill to run counter to the agreements that are in place.

I have a specific question for the hon. member on the time limit she wants imposed on assessments.

We cannot impose a time limit on the constitutional rights that exist in this country, and especially the constitutional rights of the indigenous people.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is give the authority to the Yukon. We are not talking about James Bay or anything else right now. We are talking about the Yukon, where the federal minister gave the authority to the territorial ministers to do what was necessary so that they could develop their resources.

To stop them from developing their resources, with all the environmental processes in place, without some element of certainty, leaves the process open for the “forever neverendum”. Nothing gets done. Investors leave.

My goal tonight is to speak to the government's undoing of everything that was promoting economic development in the Yukon previously.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in all provinces and territories across Canada, the largest factor contributing to competitiveness—or, rather, non-competitivenes—is the burgeoning carbon tax that is being inflicted upon the provinces and territories. They are being told they have to add this tax. Any tax is going to drive away development. It is a cost on everything one does, everything one consumes across the country.

We have had this experience in Ontario. It was called the global adjustment on electricity bills. This carbon tax has many of the same traits. It is hidden. There will not be a line item. In fact, the government does not even want the budget officer to tell Canadians how much it is going to cost. That is the single greatest detriment to competitiveness across Canada, not just Yukon, and we are all headed for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has put herself forward for the first time today as the true voice of Yukoners, and I find that rather shocking. If one speaks for an area that one does not represent, it behooves every member here to do research and find out what the people of that region actually want. The people of that region want this bill to pass as soon as possible.

I recommend that the hon. member give a phone call to the president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, Mike Burke, who has called for this legislation to pass as quickly as possible. If what the previous government forced through the House, violating the rights of first nations, was so massively popular, then perhaps it would be Ryan Leef sitting over there instead of the hon. member for Yukon. This bill was an affront to first nations' rights.

It is not about promoting development. This is something that all in this House should want to pass as quickly as possible, because the unanimous will of the Yukon legislature is to pass Bill C-17 as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member for Yukon should be ashamed of himself. I look forward to the day when Ryan Leef is back here, sitting with the Conservatives in a majority government in 2019. The bill that Conservatives passed handed the powers to Yukon; this bill takes them away.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will read something, “Climate change is a fact. It is a threat. It is man-made. We have to do something about it, and that something includes putting a price on carbon.” I agree with this sentiment. We just heard it. I agree with the sentiment, but the quote is not mine. It belongs to the leader of the Ontario PC Party, Patrick Brown.

I wonder if my colleague across the way agrees with his view. Is he peddling a conspiracy theory? Is it junk science? What is Mr. Brown up to? I wonder if she could enlighten the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite better check his phone and GPS. This is not the Ontario legislature. This is the federal Parliament of Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Can you see Russia from where you are?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that from the Yukon they can spit, and they see Russia for sure. We are definitely having a good time here tonight, Mr. Speaker.

I meet often with first nations people in my riding, and one of the things they say is that they always look at everything for seven generations. They often talk about their seven generations. They look down the road seven generations. They know whatever they are doing today will have an impact and they want to make sure that what they do today has beneficial impacts seven generations from now.

I would argue that the current government is definitely not taking that approach. Particularly when it comes to their deficit spending and the massive debt that they are taking on, the Liberals are not looking at how the seven generations that follow us in this place are going to have to deal with bringing the debt and the deficit under control. I would say that we need to look to our first nations communities for that example of considering the seven generations. That is very important for them, and it is something that we can embrace in this place. In everything we do, we can consider how it is going to affect the next seven generations. I very much reprimand the current government for its use of taxpayer dollars, its use of deficit spending, and the ballooning of our debt from that particular perspective.

I also would like to comment a bit about the resource development that happens in the north. In the party that I come from, we often talk about resource development. It is something we say all the time, but we do not necessarily put how it affects everyday life into more concrete terms. Resource development in my riding is heavily based in the primary industry sectors, such as agriculture, mining, forestry, the oil fields, and those kinds of things. We talk about it, but then we still do not necessarily know what it means or how it impacts our individual lives.

I would ask members to take a look around them. They are going to see wood. That comes from the logging industry in this country. I imagine that the pads in front of us are made from some sort of plastic material. That comes from the oil patch. If we look around us, we are going to see some metal that came from mining. The copper wiring that we see all around us comes from a copper mine. I know that in northern B.C. there is a large copper mine that I have driven by before. All of these kinds of things make our lives better. That is the real point.

I come from an automotive background. I worked as an automotive mechanic. I definitely think that automobiles have made our lives better. The fact that we can get from point A to point B in a relatively short time is something that even my grandparents, when they were my age, would never have considered, or that we would be able to drive 100 kilometres an hour for 12 hours at a time without any major breakdowns.

That we can get across this country in less than a day is still mind-boggling to my grandparents. All of the resource development, all of those things that start out in rural Canada, have an impact on our everyday lives. All of those things say nothing to the person who has that job at that mine, that sawmill, that oil installation, or that refinery. I know several people who are gold miners in Yukon. It is an adventure and a great thing for the people who gold-mine in the Yukon. I think there is even a TV show about it. However, it also puts food on the table for their family.

I have a quote from Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge, who is not from Yukon but the Northwest Territories. He testified at the committee with respect to our suicide study. I think this quote is fitting for this discussion as well. He said:

I was told a couple of weeks ago that the unemployment rate in our community is 54%. And you mentioned self-esteem. Boy, if the band or a band company could create some jobs.... If you have a family and a father, and they could give him a job, holy man...that would make a big difference in anybody's life.

That is what we are talking about today: jobs for people in the north of Canada, jobs for people to provide their family with an income, food, clothing, and shelter. That is what the economy is all about, providing people with the ability to provide their family with food, clothing, and shelter.

The other thing that comes with the economy is wealth creation. We hear more and more all the time at the northern and aboriginal affairs committee how we are not managing wealth, we are managing poverty. The first nations communities across this country are saying that they are living in third world conditions, and I agree with that to some degree. However, the trouble is we are not allowing wealth creation to happen in those places. We have to unshackle these communities and allow them to pursue wealth creation. To do that we need to get investment to come in. That goes to the very heart of this bill. With this bill, and the time frames being extended, or with no end dates being put on them, we are not bringing it in. People who have a billion dollars to invest anywhere in the world will look around the world and say that Yukon is unstable, and that they are not quite sure how long they will have to work there before the project that they think will make them money will actually get going, so they would rather go to a jurisdiction where they know and understand the timelines.

What we really need to do is allow the investments to come in to the north to provide the people who live there the jobs they need to provide for their family. In the process, they will produce a product out there that the rest of the world can use to make their lives better. The stuff that we develop in Canada we export around the world. That makes the lives of people all around the world better. Therefore, we need to ensure that the investments come to northern Canada, and that development happens in northern Canada so that the people who live in those communities can make the quality of their life better, and that with those products that are produced in those communities and shipped around the world, Canadians will make every person's life in the entire world better.

With that, I will wrap it up. This bill is wrong-headed because it takes out a number of things that had brought stability to Yukon. We will see a withdrawal of investment in that area, and it says nothing to what will happen to the current projects that will be sitting in limbo after this bill is passed.

I look forward to the questions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, for the record I want to clarify the member's very last comment. There will not be any projects left in limbo.

On the day Bill C-17 receives Royal Assent, section 49.1, of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act is repealed. Projects that have been submitted to a decision body, prior to that day, for an exemption from assessment and have received, before that day, a positive decision (or as the quote above states “were greenlit without additional review”) continue to enjoy the benefits of that decision and do not have to be reassessed.

Therefore, the certainty this bill will put in place and that it has brought about the court case, and the uncertainty related to a potential abrogation of the treaty, and the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law, I think will allay the member's fears in his last comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for allying my fears on that.

The member said there are groups that have had a decision made, and those decisions will not be overturned. As far as I understand, there is a number of groups that are either in the process of having it reviewed or have submitted but are not in the process yet. There is some confusion as to what is going to happen with those particular groups.

That said, the underlying premise of my entire speech is that we need the development of the north to ensure that the people who live in the north have their lives made better. In that process, they can make the lives of all Canadians, and people around the world, better through the products that are produced right here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my colleague on the Standing Committee for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

I listened carefully to his speech. Some parts are good; some parts are troubling. As members know, I come from a region where the rules are pretty tight and pretty severe in terms of environmental assessment and review of projects, whether they be mining projects or forestry projects or hydro development projects.

Where there are rules that are strict, I believe there is certainty, because every player will know by which rules they need to play in any given territory. This is what this bill is all about. This is why indigenous people in particular who hold constitutional rights in the region need this as well. They have agreed to this bill for that.

I want to ask the same question I asked the member's colleague previously. There is talk about imposing a time limit on environment assessments, something which I wholeheartedly disagree with because constitutional rights of indigenous peoples do not have time limits. They exist now; they existed yesterday; they will continue to exist tomorrow.

Time limits cannot be imposed on constitutional rights. Whatever time it will take to consult with indigenous peoples is a constitutional duty that we need to undertake every time.

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

Mr. Speaker, he talks about how the rules are tight in the James Bay agreement. There comes a significant level of certainty with the tight rules. I think we both agree on the fact that the certainty is what allows groups to move in and understand what the process is, that they have to go through the process, and at the end of they will have a yes or no. They will get to proceed, or the project does not proceed.

One of the defences of the bill that was tabled by the government is that the current projects are doing their assessments in less than a third of the time that is allocated by the certainty of the long date, the 18-month period. What that has allowed is that at 18 months, there is going to be a yes or a no. That provides certainty.

The member said that in the James Bay agreement there is certainty. This, as well, is certainty. I think we are undermining that certainty by just leaving it open-ended on the extended date.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I oppose these amendments.

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

(Amendment agreed to)

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put two points on the record about improvements in the bill since a number of speeches may have been formulated. One is related to timelines. There are timelines now in the process and they are done locally. They are done by the board and gazetted so everyone has their say. The fear about timelines no longer exists.

The other point is about reassessments. A new mechanism in the bill would allow an assessment to be for longer than just the next licence, possibly for the life of the project, so there would not have to be a reassessment partway through. These two improvements would reduce some of the concerns people had about the bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a larger issue, though, about the Liberal track record of creating uncertainty and ongoing regulatory changes for natural resources right across the board, whether it is for Yukon, LNG, pipelines, or energy development. I think all members in the House believe in the duty of the crown to consult in a robust and comprehensive regulatory process, balancing local concerns, first nations concerns, environmental concerns, and economic opportunities.

I hope, as we go forward, the Liberals become more unequivocal about their support for natural resources development right across the board for all Canadians, all the opportunities and prosperity that will provide for future generations, and the importance of natural resources development for all economies across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it sounded like the entire Yukon was doomed as I listened to the member's speech. I would like an explanation. I know of many regions in the country where there are strict environmental and social assessment rules and the economies in those regions generally go very well. I would like the member to point to examples or experiences where these kinds of rules exist and the economies of those regions have gone bust.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the track record of Canadian resource development, from LNG to pipelines, to oil and gas to mining is world class. Alberta in particular, but Canada in general, had a long track record of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory assessment processes for all kinds of natural resources development, which always involved consultations with first nations people, as is the duty of the crown, as well as with stakeholders, assessments of economic opportunities, and balancing environmental sustainability. That is the very thing about Canada. We produce natural resources development in the most sustainable and responsible way in the world.

Not only do we export needed products across the globe, as well as technology and expertise, we also offer the world a decades-long track record of exactly how to do regulatory assessments in a way that is predictable, stimulates economic opportunities, prosperity in jobs for future generations, and unlocks the potential for natural resources development. It is only the left that seems confused about whether Canada has a strong regulatory process. We always have. We do in mining and all kinds of other energy development.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a litany of potential disaster on our natural resource development across the way. The Liberals are changing the assessment processes, bringing uncertainty to both natural resource development and environmental protection, putting political opinion and spin ahead of science, mocking first nations by refusing to respect transparency laws that are already in place, and playing games with people's lives through a carbon tax.

Does the member think the divisiveness being caused by the government is going to be more or less than the divisions caused by the Prime Minister's father?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the disconnect and the anger at Ottawa from the people I represent is greater and stronger than it has ever been in my lifetime. I would say that this Prime Minister is following down the exact same path as former prime minister Trudeau, his father, by pitting regions against regions, sectors against sectors, provinces against provinces, and people against people.

I hope that one day the Liberals will actually walk the talk about uniting Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As much as we are enjoying ourselves, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find it the will of the House to call it midnight at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-17.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #339

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)