Bill C-88 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to establish an administration and enforcement scheme in Part 5 of that Act that includes the issuance of development certificates. It also adds an administrative monetary penalty scheme and a cost recovery scheme, provides regulation-making powers for both schemes and for consultation with Aboriginal peoples and it allows the Minister to establish a committee to conduct regional studies. Finally, it repeals a number of provisions of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act that, among other things, restructure the regional panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, but that were not brought into force.
Part 2 of the enactment amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to prohibit certain works or activities on frontier lands if the Governor in Council considers that it is in the national interest to do so.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we should not lose focus of what we are discussing. What we are discussing is ensuring that we respect land claims in this country, that we consult with those who are impacted by resource development on their land and that we have complete respect for indigenous people in development in their areas.

The changes coming forward today in the bill are because of changes that were forced upon indigenous people. We are making sure that we have changes here that would allow them to go forward. The legislation brought in by the Harper government set back many developments in the Northwest Territories by years.

The Conservatives confuse responsible development and environmental protection with weakness. They are not weaknesses. They are strengths.

For all the permits and licensing we have done as a government for mining and oil development, have we not been able to do them with good environmental practices and good resource development practices?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her work in this area. Since we have taken power, we have started the process of reconciliation in terms of resource development. We have seen that the TMX pipeline was rejected because real reconciliation and real consultation did not happen. What did we do? We went back and started that process over again to make sure that we did it properly. Eleven exploratory licences have been put on hold until we get this right. We need to put a line in the sand to say that from here on in, we are going to do things the right way. We are going to engage with indigenous people and together we are going to develop an even better country than we have today.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two or three times during his comments, and again in response to questions, my colleague from Guelph commented on protecting our waterways. We remember very clearly that a few days after the current government came to power, the Minister of Environment authorized Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Just this year in February, Quebec City dumped another 46 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. How can my colleague stand here and talk about his government protecting our waterways when this kind of action has taken place?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a mess to clean up. Let us be frank. When we came into government, the environmental review process was a sham. The people trying to do the work were trying to give advice to the government, but the government was not there to listen.

Through this bill we would be working with our new environmental assessment process, our new climate change targets, and putting a price on pollution. We want to have cleaner air, water and a more sustainable development of all our resources. We are going to get there together with our indigenous partners.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are all on the same page when it comes to our first nations, indigenous, Inuit and Métis people, recognizing how important the land, air, sea and water all around are to them. They work very hard to make that a priority within their communities. However, I take offence at the member saying that we are concerned about their air or their water. There is only one source of water in the world and it belongs to everyone. It is the same with our air. It is not a matter of pollution having to be taken care of in one place, otherwise B.C., with its carbon tax, would have no forest fires. Clearly, that is not the case.

The indigenous community, the first nations community want to develop their resources. Why is the current government shutting down their right to engage in resource development when they, of all people, understand the need to balance the environment and resource development in Canada?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member across the way ask this question before. I think it is a different universe we are talking about, where we are consulting with first nations, indigenous and Métis people. I came from the Prairies. I know how important the Métis culture is and how silenced it was the development of the Prairies. Right until this day, they have not had a voice in Ottawa. Therefore, we are consulting. We are working with two ministers on the development of resources with indigenous people. We are working on a path forward.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can hear the heckling across the way. I know it is painful for them to have to look at new ways of doing things that include people. However, we are focused on including all Canadians, including our indigenous, Métis and Inuit brothers and sisters.

Bill C-88—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the government is shutting down debate in the House of Commons. As I will remind Liberals once again, this is something they promised in their platform that they would not do, yet here we are.

Today, the Liberals are proposing to ram through a bill that would take away tools from northerners who want to control their own destiny. This reminds us of what they are doing with other bills, like Bill C-69. They are making it impossible for development to occur in the natural resource sector.

As we have seen, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, has rejected the approach of the government. It is a unilateral approach whereby Ottawa knows best and the southern government in Ottawa is telling the northern governments how they can operate, trying to turn the north, quite frankly, into one big national park.

Could the minister responsible for this portfolio respond to the concerns of Premier McLeod and others, who believe that northerners should make decisions about natural resource development in their territories? Why is the government doing everything it can to shut down natural resource development in the country, particularly in the north?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating why we need to put time allocation on this important legislation. We are doing so because the opposition chooses not to find a way forward.

Since the member opposite has done a fairly decent job at misrepresenting the legislation, I will remind Canadians that Bill C-88 responds to concerns raised by indigenous governments and organizations in the Mackenzie Valley, specifically the proposed restructuring of the land and water boards of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Following the general election in October 2015, Canada committed to exploring ways to address the concerns raised about restructuring provisions. When it comes to these restructuring provisions, conversations took place between different levels of government. The Conservatives were a part of those.

When the Conservatives introduced legislation, they brought in the super board concept. That is why the Conservative government at the time was taken to court. It lost that court case because northerners did not support that approach.

However, northerners support our approach and we believe it should receive swift passage. Unfortunately, we have to move time allocation because the Conservatives will do whatever they can to block the important work that benefits northerners, especially when it comes to this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, it is sad to note that this is now the 60th time that closure has been imposed by the Liberal government. I remember that back in 2015, the Prime Minister promised he would take a new respectful approach to Parliament. Unfortunately and sadly, yet again closure is being imposed in the House. We are seeing a real betrayal of the election commitments that were made.

We in the NDP support the bill, but we have also been consistently raising concerns about the fact that there is not a single reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples in it. There are flaws in the bill. The government has refused to entertain amendments and it is refusing, in any way, to entertain improvements to the bill.

This is the heart of the problem. Commitments that were made in 2015 have been steadfastly broken. The government is not respecting Parliament at all.

Why is the government being so dysfunctional regarding improving legislation and being so dysfunctional in the House of Commons?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, technically, time allocation can only be used when we cannot find a way forward. The fact that I have had to use time allocation is a reflection on the way he chooses to represent his benches. If we could have found a way forward, we would not have had to move time allocation.

There was a time when NDP members would recognize the importance of legislation, but they have been holding hands with the Conservatives now for so long that they have forgotten their ways.

I would remind those members that it was the NDP that held hands with the Conservatives to ensure we did not have the Kyoto accord. It was the NDP that held hands with the Conservatives to ensure we got rid of Kelowna, which was an important accord that would advance indigenous communities. It was the NDP that held hands with the Conservatives to ensure there was no national child care plan. Today, the NDP House leader continues to hold hands with the Conservatives, rather than get to work on advancing important legislation.

I am more than willing to find a way forward and not have to use time allocation.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we go again with the government shutting down debate, just as it has done for the last number of days when we have tried to ask for an emergency debate on the canola issue in the Prairies.

This is an emergency situation for these farmers. They are trying to decide what they can plant or should plant and what their livelihoods or potential future could be. However, the government continues to throw out these delay tactics, moving to Orders of the Day so that we cannot introduce these requests. Today the government refused to allow an emergency debate when it was asked for, when we finally had the opportunity to ask.

Again and again the government throws up roadblocks to any reasonable debate and discussion in this House.