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

[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.

[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.

[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 fulsome 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 fulsome, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Chief Ruth Massie stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will debate Bill C-49, on transportation modernization, at second reading.

On Monday we will debate our changes to the Standing Orders. Following that debate, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-51.

Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-3, on Indian registration, at report stage and third reading.

Following that debate, we hope to make progress on the following bills: Bill S-2, the bill respecting motor vehicle recalls, at second reading; Bill C-17, respecting the environmental assessment process in Yukon, at second reading; Bill C-25, on encouraging gender parity on the boards of federally regulated organizations; Bill C-36, the bill to give Statistics Canada greater independence; Bill C-48, the bill to impose a moratorium on oil tankers off the B.C. coast; and Bill C-34, the bill to reinstate sensible conditions for public service employment.

Resuming debate

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerning motion No. 14 is not about having a problem with working until midnight each evening—except, obviously, on topics raised by the opposition. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said in the House yesterday, that most of us are already working every day on a similar schedule.

In my previous career, I was already used to long hours. When I ran a global business, my European colleagues began calling me at 4 a.m., and my days would often stretch until midnight. This was necessary so I could meet with my employees and people in the plants and businesses in the Pacific region I was responsible for.

As the head of a North American refining and petrochemical company, I realized that maintaining customer relations and meeting deadlines to submit applications made for very long days.

The Liberal government said it wanted to make Parliament more family friendly in order to encourage women to get into politics. I support encouraging more women to get into politics, but I do not believe that many women would choose to work until midnight each evening, away from their kids.

Now, why did this government introduce such a motion, when theoretically it should oppose it?

As I have said, I am not opposed to working long hours. I said earlier today, and will say it again, Einstein was quoted as saying that the definition of insanity was repeating the same action hoping for a different result. The government has not accomplished a lot in the way of legislation. If we think about the 19 bills that have passed versus 52 in the same time frame when the Conservatives were in power, really not much has been accomplished. There is no prioritization of what is coming forward.

I want to take a moment to talk about what has already passed because it shows something important.

So far in Parliament the transparency for first nations has been removed with Bill C-1. Bill C-2 gave back to the middle class $932 a year in taxes and then Bill C-26 increased their CPP payments by $1,100 a year, with no benefit. Bill C-10 gave Air Canada a deal to get maintenance jobs out of Canada and escape a lawsuit. Bill C-14, medically assisted dying, was passed without protecting the rights of conscience. Bill C-17 addressed environmental items for Yukon. Bill C-18 was environmental change for Rouge Park in Toronto. Bill C-30 was a CETA deal that now has to be renegotiated with Brexit happening. Bill C-31 was the trade deal with Ukraine. The rest were all maintenance budget items that needed to be done. That is all we have accomplished in 18 months of the Liberal government's agenda. Everything else is lost in process, being amended in the Senate, and not coming forward.

What is the government going to achieve by making us sit every night until midnight, which, as I said, I am fully willing to do? I really do not think it is getting anywhere. Why is it not getting anywhere? Because it does not listen to the opposition's points of view.

The job of the opposition is to bring reasoned and intelligent arguments on why a government proposal is not good for Canada and to make helpful suggestions about what would make it better.

When bills are sent to committee, the committee's job is to make helpful suggestions and amendments that would make them something all Canadians could embrace. That is really what is happening. The government is not accepting amendments, not listening when the opposition talks, and again and again, when things go to the Senate, the Senate comes up with the same amendments and spends more time studying them, doing exactly the same thing that committees of the House are supposed to do. That is one problem.

Another problem is that there has to be trust when parties work together.

I am going to compare the antics that I see happening here with what I see in the business world. In the business world, people work together. People have to be able to trust one another when they make deals. They have to be able to follow up on things as they said they would.

From what I have seen, the opposition House leaders are trying to work with the government House leader but she is not keeping up her end of what she has agreed to. Every day I watch her stand in the House and misrepresent to Canadians that she just has a discussion paper, when really a motion has been rammed through PROC. I have seen her avoid answering questions that she is accountable to answer.

I would suggest that there has been a huge erosion of trust in the government House leader and sometimes that cannot be fixed in order to restore the ability to work together. The government should really consider changing up that position and coming back to a place where we can work together and trust that agreements that are made, amendments that are suggested, and motions that are brought forward are as agreed. That is really important.

There is another point that I would like to make that has not been discussed much here. I have listened to the debate on Motion No. 14 and I have heard a lot about the blame game. I hear from the Liberals that when Stephen Harper's government was in place, it did this bad thing or that bad thing, or whatever. Honestly, two-thirds of the Parliament are new. Some of us were not here in the previous Parliament. We have an opportunity to do things differently now. If we think something was previously done wrong, we have the opportunity to do it differently in the future.

When items come up in the business climate, not everything needs the same amount of time to be talked about. I have sat in the House and heard Liberal members stand up and say they support such and such a bill and I have heard Conservative members and NDP members stand up and say they do too, and then we talk about it for days.

This is not the way we should be spending our time. If the government had not squandered all of the time in that way, we would have more time and we would not have to sit late. In the same way, there are things that need to be discussed longer that cannot be rammed through, things such as the budget bill that has been combined with the infrastructure bank. When comments come forward, the government needs to lead. It needs to separate those things out so that the things that can be quickly passed get passed on. When I say passed on, I am saying that if we all agree on a bill at first reading and we do not need to change anything, then the legislation should be sent right away to the Senate. Why are we spending time doing second and third reading and committee and everything else? We need to be able to update some of the processes here.

I am not about just criticizing without providing recommendations for how I think we could make this better. Here are my recommendations, which I think the government could use to change some of the things that it is doing and which would result in getting legislation passed through in a better way.

When it comes to the rules of the House, I see an opportunity to modernize those rules but a change would need to honour the tradition of Parliament and have all-party consensus or at least the consensus of a majority of members to change things, because those things influence our democracy and they are important. Doing some of those things would, as the suggestions I have made about passing things we all agree on and everything else, clear the legislative agenda in a way that would move things forward more positively.

I also would reiterate that you have to have someone working with the opposition leaders who can be trusted, and I think that trust is broken.

The other point I would make is about amendments that are brought forward and are agreed to by the opposition members. It is not often that the NDP and the Conservatives play on the same team and sing from the same song sheet. That does not usually happen but lately it has happened a lot. When that happens, it should be a signal to government that this is an amendment that Canadians want to see.

The government needs to say what it is going to do and then it needs to own up to it. Some of the credibility loss that has happened has happened because the government said it was going to do something and then it did not. The government maintained it was going to be open and transparent and then facts have been hidden or things have not been well represented. The government said it was going to be accountable but then every day when we stand up and ask questions we get the shell game. It does not answer our questions, and this would not be acceptable in the business world.

These are some of the things that would help to get the legislative agenda flowing through. As a member of the opposition, I want to see the right things happen for Canada and I am willing to work with the government to see that happen.

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.

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.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[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 point 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.

[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.

[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 to 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?

[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.

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, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.