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

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today mindful that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I am honoured to begin the debate at second reading of 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. This bill clarifies the legislative and regulatory framework for the development of key regions of Canada's north, the Mackenzie Valley and the offshore areas of the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort Sea. These regions have vast economic potential but they are also environmentally sensitive. Moreover, these regions have sustained indigenous people and communities who have lived in the north since time immemorial. Those communities, their organizations and governments have a right to a say in how the region is developed.

The bill before us addresses two different acts of Parliament that affect resource development in the north: the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

Let me begin with the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I remind the House that in March 2014, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act transferred control of public lands and waters in the Northwest Territories to the territorial government. It is that government that now makes decisions on resource development. It receives 50% of resource revenue within the specific annual limit.

We know the abysmal track record of the Conservatives when it came to respecting and honouring indigenous rights and supporting the people of the north. That act was the perfect example. In 2014, through Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, the Harper government completely changed the land and water board structure without adequate consultation and in complete ignorance of indigenous rights. Those changes became very controversial within the region as the current member for Northwest Territories knows well. Through many conversations, consultations and meetings, there were many good points brought forward by people in that area.

The Harper government removed three regulatory authorities: the Gwich’in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board was to remain as a single consolidated land and water board for the Mackenzie Valley. That was what the Conservative government wanted but it is not what the indigenous governments wanted. The indigenous governments and organizations correctly argued that their authorities in land and water management are guaranteed by their land claims and by their self-government agreements and they should be honoured. The Conservative government could not unilaterally abolish their land and water boards. This was just another sad example of the Harper government's tendency to trample on the rights of indigenous people.

In February 2015, the Northwest Territories Supreme Court issued an injunction that halted the provisions that included the restructuring of the land and water boards. The injunction preserved the existing regulatory processes until the court could provide further instruction. At the same time, other measures included in section 253(2) were affected, including a regulation-making authority for cost recovery and consultation, administrative monetary penalties, development certificates, regional studies and the terms of board members. The Conservatives appealed the injunction in March 2015. We heard from stakeholders that that situation not only created mistrust on the part of indigenous governments and organizations toward the Canadian government, but it also created uncertainty that discouraged the responsible development of the region's resources.

In the fall of 2015, in order to better put us on a path to reconciliation and economic development, the then minister of indigenous and northern affairs met with indigenous governments and organizations in the Northwest Territories to find a way forward. The minister announced that she had directed the department to pause its appeal and start the exploratory discussions.

Rather than taking this fight and continuing it in the courts, our goal has been to work with indigenous governments and organizations to identify potential solutions. In the summer of 2016, the minister met with indigenous governments and organizations, and in September 2016, she wrote to the relevant parties to officially begin a formal consultation process. The consultations have been thorough and effective. They have included indigenous governments, organizations, the Government of the Northwest Territories and industry. This is the way to move forward on matters affecting resource development in Canada's north.

The Conservatives' attempt to unilaterally change the regulatory regime set the relationship with the Northwest Territories and indigenous people back by many years. However, with this bill, we are getting back on track and we are working with them to move forward.

The bill removes the board amalgamation provisions and confirms the continuation of the Sahtu, Gwich'in and Wek'èezhìi land and water boards with the jurisdiction to regulate land and water use in their management regions. These regional boards will also continue to be panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board will continue to have jurisdiction for the regulation of land and water, including the insurance of land use permits and water licences in the area of the Mackenzie Valley where land claims have not been settled and for transboundary projects.

In effect, this bill repeals the provisions of the Conservatives that challenged the rights of indigenous governing bodies under their comprehensive land claim agreements. Other provisions of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that were included in the Northwest Territories Devolution Act but were halted by the court injunction will also be reintroduced in this bill.

Specifically, the bill provides for the Governor in Council to make regulations pertaining to cost recovery to indigenous consultation. Development certificates will set out the conditions under which a project can proceed. Administrative monetary penalties can now be established through regulations for violations relating to these certificates. Provisions will allow the establishment of committees for the conduct of regional studies. The bill also provides for the extension of the terms of board members to allow them to complete a proceeding that is under way. This will ensure there is continuity in the process and in the decision-making.

We are setting out a positive way forward for the development of the Mackenzie Valley. It is a way forward that acknowledges the rights of indigenous governments and organizations and will provide certainty to industry. When we listen to northerners when developing policies that affect them, great things are possible and it leads the way to better prosperity for all people in the north.

The second part of this bill involves the Canada Petroleum Resources Act which governs the drilling of oil and gas that takes place offshore in the Arctic. Those offshore drilling operations face a number of technical and logical challenges, including a short operating season and sea ice. We do not yet have the technology to resolve these challenges, but I have confidence that there will be technological solutions that will enable offshore drilling to be undertaken safely in the future.

To get to these solutions, we must be guided by the knowledge of the nature of the challenges. That knowledge will be shaped by science, including both marine science and climate science. We need evidence for effective decision-making that will help us reach the goal of responsible resource development. This science is still in its early stages. The technology will eventually follow. In the meantime, we must take steps to protect a sensitive and vulnerable environment in the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

In December 2016, the Prime Minister announced a moratorium on new offshore drilling in our Arctic waters. The moratorium will be tested every five years through a science-based review. This review, undertaken in collaboration with our northern partners, will provide evidence that will guide future oil and gas activity.

The bill before us would complement the 2016 moratorium and protect the interests of licence holders by freezing the terms of their licences for the duration of the prohibition on oil and gas activity. The licences will not expire during the moratorium. This will allow us to preserve the existing rights until the five-year science-based review is completed. At that point, we will have a better understanding of strategic plans and potential decisions in collaboration with our northern partners, indigenous governments and the governments of the north.

I am pleased to inform the House that the companies that currently hold the existing oil and gas rights and our northern partners have been supportive of responsible development of the Arctic offshore and the strategic path forward. They understand the importance of protecting the unique Arctic environment while pursuing safe, responsible oil and gas activities, activities that create jobs and economic growth in northern indigenous communities. They appreciate the importance of the science-based review in establishing future decisions on Arctic offshore development.

These amendments are fair to existing rights holders and allow us to go forward with a serious review of the science in order to better understand the potential impacts and benefits of oil and gas extraction in the Beaufort Sea. This is sound, sustainable management and is consistent with what our government is already doing regarding science in the north.

The bill before us ensures that indigenous governments and organizations will have a strong voice in the development of resources in their territories. Our goal is to put in place a robust regime that will protect Canada's rich natural environment. It will support a resilient resource sector and at the same time respect the rights and interests of indigenous people.

This bill is part of an ongoing journey toward meaningful reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the protection of our lands and waters. In this way, we are able to foster economic opportunities and growth and protect the environment for future generations.

I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting this bill and supporting the wishes, hopes and aspirations of those who live in Canada's north.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest.

I am going to focus on part 1 of the bill, which is with respect to the land and water boards. The devolution agreement allowed for them to be collapsed into one. The land agreements with the different communities actually allowed for this to happen. It was not contradicted within it. She might know that this came out of the McCrank report, who looked at what was happening and said that the regulatory process in the Northwest Territories was complex, costly, unpredictable and time-consuming and that certainly, this would allow for a more efficient use of expenditures and to allow administrative practices to be more understandable and consistent.

It sounds like she supports going back to the old system and it sounds like it has support from the communities up there. However, I think it is important for her to recognize what the implications are going to be. I think the McCrank report stated it very clearly.

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, when I came to politics in 2013, what I remember very clearly were the early meetings I had with groups in the Northwest Territories with regard to the bill and the changes the Conservative government was pushing forward.

At that time, aboriginal governments and many others across the Northwest Territories were pushing back, but the Harper government was not listening. That government was unilaterally making changes with regard to how resource development would occur in the Northwest Territories without accepting the wishes, the understanding or even having further discussions with aboriginal governments at that time. That was the reason they sought the court injunction.

In making these changes, we have been able to build a relationship and a partnership with aboriginal governments to do what they feel is necessary and what is supported by the industry and by the Government of the Northwest Territories.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments about the need for consultation and the need for input from first nations and other regional groups in making decisions around natural resource industries in the north.

Part of this bill is a reaction to a moratorium that was placed on resource extraction offshore in the Arctic and was made without any consultation at all.

Could the member tell us why the Prime Minister would think this was a good idea when that relationship. which is so important to him. called for consultation? I have heard from leaders across the north and I have talked to the Inuvialuit leader. One of the leaders said that they were hopping mad when this moratorium was put in place.

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that when it comes to the development of oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic, a lot of work has to be done on the technical side and with the logistical challenges that exist in that area, including the short operating season and ice conditions. Recently, when I was in the Inuvialuit region, I had the opportunity to have this discussion with people there as well as many others across the north.

One thing that northerners can agree on is that we need to have the technology in place to resolve the challenges when it comes to enabling offshore drilling and we need to ensure we can do that safely in the future. The goal of everyone in the north is to ensure we get this right and we do it properly.

That is why there is a process in place between the federal government and territorial governments so we look at this carefully and move forward together.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Liberal government imposed sanctions on Saudi Arabia in response to the Jamal Khashoggi affair.

Canada gets over $20 billion in oil from Saudi Arabia, yet the government has put a moratorium on northern Canadian oil.

Could my hon. colleague provide some insight into what would happen if Saudi Arabia were to cut off the $20 billion-worth of oil it gives to Canada when Canada is not in a position, as a result of this moratorium, to be energy secure?

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to offshore oil and gas development. It is committed to ensuring there is a pipeline that would allow the export of oil and gas around the world and build that industry within Canada.

However, we will also ensure that whatever we do, whatever investments we make, whatever developments occur within the oil and gas industry are done in the best interests of not only the people in our country, but also done in the best interests of our environment. We will take the time to ensure that offshore drilling in the Arctic and Beaufort Sea is done safely and properly in the future. That is the responsible thing to do and it is supported by many in the country.

When it comes to further oil and gas development, we are the one government that has stood up in the country to ensure we get a pipeline built so we can get oil and gas to market and continue to build on that industry for Canadians.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when the decision was made many years ago. The leaders from the Northwest Territories were outraged. The Tlicho chiefs were very upset. The grand chief of the day, Eddie Erasmus, said, “We are Canada’s treaty partner. We thought the days of the government in Ottawa thinking it ‘knows best’ about our lands, resources and future were over when we signed the Tlicho Agreement. We won’t go back to the day....”

Many leaders felt betrayed when the agreement was breached by this decision. They felt their constitutional rights were breached. The agreement was supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

Could the member explain how something like this could happen when the an agreement is supposed to be protected by the Constitution?

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Northwest Territories. Every opportunity he has, in the House and outside, he stands to speak for the people of the north and the people of the Northwest Territories.

I know he has lived with the unrest around the decision made by the Harper government in 2013-14. Not only was it a unilateral decision that was imposed on the people of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments, it was a change of legislation that really gave no respect to the land claims that had been settled with indigenous people in that area.

We are a government that is looking at reconciliation with indigenous people all across Canada. That means working together. That means overcoming the challenges that were there in the past and moving forward with a new direction. I am happy to say that we respect indigenous governments. We respect the land claim agreements and we will work with them for the best interests of the people in their jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really concerning. We talk about consultations, but when it comes to the oil and gas industry, we saw no consultation on the west coast tanker ban. There was some on the moratorium on offshore oil on the Beaufort Sea. It was less than an hour before it was announced.

Could the member explain to me exactly when consultation is important and when it is not?

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if any government in history has ever consulted more in our country than the government of the day. It consulted with all people, not just one group. We consult with indigenous governments, territories and provinces. We consult with industry, investors and ordinary Canadians who have an expertise or opinion in the areas on which we are focused.

We have not been out there pushing back on aboriginal land claims and rights, like the former government did. It set back aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories by years. It unilaterally rammed legislation through the House of Commons without proper consultation. As a result, it ended up in the courts, and the Supreme Court ruled on the side of indigenous governments.

Even then, the Conservatives appealed that decision, because they could not accept that indigenous people and other Canadians outside of their government actually had rights in our country. We have an obligation and responsibility to work together to get a good path forward for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak 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.

Before I get into the details of the bill, it is important to look at the context with respect to what has been happening over the past three years and what is starting to be a real pattern of the Liberal government. The decisions it makes consistently increase red tape and bureaucracy, and are mostly anti-resource development. This bill is no different.

I would like to talk about a few areas to show the context, which will then show that this follows a pattern that adds to what is becoming an increasing concern in the country, and that is the ability to move our natural resources forward.

When the Prime Minister took office, there were three private companies willing to invest more than $30 billion to build three nation-building pipelines that would have generated tens of thousands of jobs and billions in economic opportunity. The Prime Minister and his cabinet killed two and put the Trans Mountain expansion on life support. Bill C-69 would block all future pipelines.

In addition, the government has made a number of arbitrary decisions regarding natural resource development, with absolutely no consultation with those impacted. Today, we only need to look at what is happening in Alberta with the hundreds of thousands of job losses. Who has ever heard of a premier having to decrease the production of a needed resource throughout the country and the world because we simply cannot get resources to the market? This is because of the government's failure.

The northern gateway project was approved by the former government in June 2014. It had a number of conditions on it, just like the current Trans Mountain project does.

In November 2015, just one month after being elected, the Prime Minister killed the project without hesitation. It was subject to a court challenge. When we did finally hear what came out of that court challenge, to be frank, it was nothing that could not be overcome. We could have dealt with that.

The court decision told the Prime Minister to engage in consultation in a more appropriate and balanced way. The court really gave what I would call a recipe for perhaps fixing some problems with the process.

Did he wait for the court decision? No. He went out and killed it flat. With this approved pipeline, he did not wait for a court decision or wait to see how it could move forward. He decided that he did not want that one.

I think we are all pretty aware of the Trans Mountain pipeline. It has been moving along for many years. We know that many first nations support it and hope to see it go through, as they see enormous opportunities for their communities. Of course, others are against it.

What happened in this case? When the Liberals came to government, they decided they had to have an additional consultation process. However, did they follow the directions of the court in the northern gateway decision in which the court was very clear about what the government had to do to do consultations properly? Apparently not. When the court decision came down, we learned otherwise. To be frank, it was much to my surprise, because the Liberals talked about how well they were consulting and that they were putting this additional process in place. The court said that the Liberals did not do the job. What they did was send a note-taker and not a decision-maker.

The fact that the Liberals did not consult properly on the Trans Mountain pipeline is strictly on their laps, as they had very clear guidance from the northern gateway decision and they did not do what they needed to do. They should be ashamed of themselves. Had they done a proper process, they likely would not have had to buy the pipeline, the pipeline would be in construction right now and we would be in a lot better place as a country. With respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline, the blame for where we are on that pipeline lies strictly on the laps of the Liberals.

I also want to note, in spite of what people say, that the courts have said the process was okay, so it has nothing to do with environmental legislation by the previous government or with anything the Conservatives had put in place. It was the Liberals' execution of a flawed process.

Energy east was another one. The former Liberal MP who is now the mayor of Montreal was very opposed to it. I am not sure of all the pieces that went into the Liberals' decision-making, but all of a sudden, the downstream and upstream emissions of energy east had to be measured. As people have rightfully asked, has that happened for the tankers coming down the St. Lawrence from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Did that happen with the bailout for Bombardier?

The Liberals created regulatory barriers. Trans Mountain hung on for a long time before it finally said no go. I think Energy east saw the writing on the wall, knowing that the government was not going to be its friend and create an environment to get the work done. It could see the new rules coming into place, so it walked. What a double standard. Canadians who extract energy in an environmentally sound and environmentally friendly way have had standards applied to their ability to move oil through a pipeline that no other country in the world imposes on companies in terms of upstream and downstream emissions.

Next on the plate is Bill C-69. A number of former Liberals are very open about their concerns about Bill C-69. Martha Hall Findlay, a very respected former Liberal MP, said in a recent Globe and Mail article that the new environmental legislation, Bill C-69, “is the antithesis of what this regulatory reform effort hopes to achieve.... [I]n its 392 pages, the word 'competitiveness' appears only twice. Neither the word 'economy' nor the phrase 'economic growth' appear at all.” We have new environmental legislation that most people call the no-more-pipeline bill.

Martha Hall Findlay went on to note that this bill would create enormous uncertainty, more red tape and increased court challenges, and not only in the energy sector but in all other infrastructure in Canada for years to come. I do not know if members are starting to see a pattern: the Liberals have killed pipelines and put in legislation preventing new pipelines from being built. I am not sure why the process with Trans Mountain was not proper; it should have been. Everyone knew what they had to do, but they did not.

Another piece of legislation that is focused on killing opportunities in this country is the tanker moratorium, Bill C-48. The government loves to talk about how it consults, consults and consults, but it only consults to get the answer it wants. There was a large group of first nations that had a huge opportunity with the Eagle Spirit pipeline that would go through its territory. It had plans, it was moving along, everything was in place, and all a sudden Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, put its dreams and hopes to rest for a while. The interesting thing is that there was no consultation at all. There was no notice about this tanker ban, so how can there be consultation when the government does not want to do something, but vice-versa when it wants to do something?

Now I will get into the details of Bill C-88. In 2016, there was an oil and gas moratorium in the Beaufort Sea, and the interesting thing about that announcement was that for most people in Canada, it came out of nowhere. The Prime Minister did not even have the respect to hold conversations with the territorial premiers and the people most impacted. He made the announcement down in Washington, D.C., along with an “Oh, by the way” phone call 20 minutes before announcing this measure that would impact those communities. That is absolutely shameful. The Prime Minister announced a moratorium on all oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea when he was down in the United States with President Obama at the time.

I want to read a few quotes by the community leaders subsequently. The Northwest Territories premier Bob McLeod issued a “red alert...for urgent national debate on the future of the Northwest Territories”. He wrote:

The promise of the North is fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we see a re-emergence of colonialism....

Whether it be ill conceived ways of funding social programs, or new and perplexing restrictions on our economic development, our spirit and energy are being sapped.

That is a very different from what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary when she talked about the previous government. It is her government. Did she hear those words from the premier? He said, “our spirit and our energy are being sapped”.

Mr. McLeod further wrote:

Staying in or trying to join the middle class will become a distant dream for many....

This means that northerners, through their democratically elected government, need to have the power to determine their own fates and the practice of decisions being made by bureaucrats and governments in Ottawa must come to an end. Decisions about the North should be made in the North. The unilateral decision by the federal government, made without consultation, to impose a moratorium on arctic offshore oil and gas development is but one example of our economic self-determination being thwarted by Ottawa.

Then Nunavut premier, Peter Taptuna, told the CBC on December 22, 2016:

We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development. And at the same time, when one potential source of revenue is taken off the table, it puts us back at practically Square 1 where Ottawa will make the decisions for us.

Merven Gruben, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, told the indigenous and northern affairs committee on October 22, 2018:

I was talking to [the Liberal MP for the Northwest Territories]...and he said, “Yes, Merven, we should be doing something. We should be helping you guys.”

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change compared to when you work in oil and gas and you're used to that kind of living. Our people are used to that. We [don't want to be just] selling trinkets and T-shirts.

To go to the actual bill, what we can see is that in spite of the lofty words by the parliamentary secretary, there has been a real lack of consultation on issues that are very important to northerners.

Part A would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to reverse provisions that would have consolidated the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one. These provisions, of course, were introduced by the former Conservative government with Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act. Part B, of course, would amend the the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

As I have already noted, this is another anti-energy policy from the Liberal government that is driving investment out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and increasing poverty rates in the north. Like Bill C-69 before it, Bill C-88 would politicize oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of cabinet to block economic development, and would add to increasing red tape that proponents must face before even getting shovels in the ground. Further, Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of the calls by elected territorial leaders for much of the self-autonomy they desire.

We used to look at the north as being an opportunity to be a key economic driver for decades to come. Other Arctic nations, including China and Russia, are exploring possibilities. This could be something that is very important for our sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are creating great swaths of protected land. I want to know why that change was originally made to the water and land boards.

In 2007, Neil McCrank was commissioned to write a report on improving the regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north. As outlined in the McCrank report, entitled, “The Road to Improvement”, the current regulatory process in the Northwest Territories is complex, costly, unpredictable and time-consuming. The merging of the three boards into one was a key recommendation. Part of the report stated:

This approach would address the complexity and the capacity issues inherent to the current model by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources. It would also allow for administrative practices to be understandable and consistent.

If these recommendations on restructuring and improvements are implemented, the regulatory systems in the North will be able to ensure orderly and responsible development of its resources.

Regarding the move to consolidate the boards, the report went on to state:

...is not meant to diminish or reduce the influence that Aboriginal people have on resource management in the North. Rather, it is meant as an attempt to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development...

I want to note that it was Bill C-15, which the Liberals and NDP voted for, that included that component. It was supported on all sides of the House. It was also included as an available option in the three modern land claim agreements. Bill C-15 looked to streamline the regulatory process and to place time limits on reviews and provide consistency. It was never meant to impact impact indigenous communities and their ability to make decisions. It was to streamline the regulatory process, place time limits on reviews and consolidate federal decision-making.

Certainly, I see this component of the bill as a move backward rather than forward. At this point, it would appear that all of the communities involved want to move in this direction. I believe that is unfortunate. The model I wish they would have worked toward would have been a much more positive one in doing the work they needed to do.

The final part is the drilling moratorium, which is perhaps the most troublesome. It would allow the federal cabinet to prohibit oil and gas activity in the Northwest Territories or offshore of Nunavut if it were in the national interest. This is a much broader power than currently exists in the act, which only allows Canada to prohibit that activity for safety or environmental reasons, or social problems of a serious nature.

I note that the licences set to expire during the five-year moratorium would not be affected, which is seen as somewhat positive by the people holding those licences. However, I suppose if we have a moratorium forever, it really does not matter if one's licence is on hold forever, because it would not be helpful in the long run.

In conclusion, what we have here is perhaps not on the scale of Bill C-69 or some of the other things the government has done, but it just adds to the government's habit, whenever it deals with the natural resource industry, of tending to make it more complicated and of driving businesses away rather than doing what Canada needs, especially right now, which is bringing business to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what the member finds very difficult to believe is that we can actually have a government that can stand up for the environment in a very responsible way, as we have done, and it not be a weakness to economic development, but really be a strength. That is what has happened in Canada over the last few years under this government.

We are creating a stronger and more sustainable economy. We only have to look at the fact that we have created over 600,000 new jobs in this country. We have been able to acquire the assets of a pipeline because we are determined to get our oil to markets, something the Conservatives could not do. We are continuing to permit mining operations at expanded mines right across the country. We have invested more money in infrastructure, and economic and business development than any government in the past.

When the member's Conservative government was in power it pushed legislation upon the indigenous people of the Northwest Territories that was unwanted. They took the government to court. We are remedying that today. Will she now support that legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Liberals did actually support Bill C-15, which is what they are now backtracking on, so I want to make that important note.

The Liberals love to say that the economy and the environment go together and they are going a great job on both. Frankly, they are doing a terrible job on both.

When we look at what is happening in Alberta, at GM, at the softwood lumber industry, where I just heard there are going to be some layoffs in terms of the forestry in my riding, the Liberals are certainly not doing a very good job in terms of the economy. They might have benefited from a solid U.S. economy and a housing boom, but they sure have not benefited from creating long-term jobs that are going to be important for our future.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard lately, the Conservatives spend a lot of time blaming the Liberals and vice versa, but I see the bill as an attempt to fix problems from the Conservative government and those problems the Conservative government brought in were part of a pattern. The member talks about trying to make things more streamlined and more efficient. That is exactly what they did with gutting the environmental laws in the previous Parliament that have set back the regulatory system on oil and gas regulation in this country. It has caused a deep division in the country.

Why did the member's government think it was a good idea and think that the first nations would be happy if their membership on those panels was cut? They had two out of the four on the regional panels and then they only get one out of 10 on the super board. Why did the Conservatives think that was a good idea and why did they think that would support indigenous rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to note that the NDP also voted for Bill C-15, so it was a pretty straightforward Northwest Territories devolution bill.

The NDP members love to say that we did not care about the environment and that our environmental bills created undue challenges. I hear that all the time, but I had never seen an example anywhere of where our attempts to create an environmentally appropriate, responsive regime created any negative impact on the environment, period. The legislation that we put into place had no negative impacts. I challenge anyone to bring an example of something somewhere that created some harm to the environment because it helped to move things along, but there was certainly a lot of noise so people lost trust in what was a good regime.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's statement, she talked about the self-economy for the north.

I find it interesting, because the Beaufort Sea was not included in the devolution agreement, neither was the Norman Wells oil field. These are two economic drivers that could certainly contribute to the north. However, they were left out. In fact, this process where the decision was made to change the regulatory system so that we have a super board went directly against what was agreed to in the land claim. It went against the regulatory structure that was in the land claim. There were other things that the Conservatives tried to change, including the fiscal agreements. It was obvious that the Conservatives thought the environmental assessment process slowed down projects, and they wanted to gut it completely.

Since the time the decision was made, we have seen that the system works fine. It works effectively and efficiently. Would the member agree that if she were to make this decision again, she would admit that she was wrong and that it would be left alone?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, and I could be corrected on this, both within the devolution agreement and the agreements, the opportunity to allow for the creation of one board was well within the structure of those agreements. I could stand to be corrected on that particular area.

If they have found some way, using the same structure, to deal with all those issues that were identified in the report that I talked about, which clearly identified a whole host of problems with what was happening with all the different boards, it takes a fairly significant degree of manpower and expertise. Sometimes it is better to be close to home with decisions, and sometimes somewhere in the middle.

When there is a need to be able to analyze significant projects, make decisions and do the technical work, it cannot always be easy for small boards. I have lived in small communities and I have lived in larger communities. Certainly, the model that was recommended and the reasons it was recommended were very sound, from my perspective.

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

Mr. Speaker, again we see an instance of the Prime Minister making an announcement involving a personality abroad, essentially looking like he is trying to impress an international audience without consideration of actually engaging and consulting with, and making that announcement here at home. We saw another example of that just in the last week.

The member spoke about how disappointed people in the north were when the government announced a moratorium on offshore development. I heard about this during a recent trip to the north with the foreign affairs committee. There was no consultation, whatsoever, on the shutting down of development. We would think that the people who talk so much about the consultation that has to happen before proceeding with development should also recognize that there is some proportionate consultation requirement associated with shutting down development, and yet this was an announcement that was made by the Prime Minister overseas with no consultation.

Could the member maybe comment further on the lack of respect that represented, and how many northerners do want to see economic development in the north?

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

Mr. Speaker, that brings up a really great point. First of all, it is absolute insult to northerners when the Prime Minister is down in the United States making a significant decision, and not only had they not been consulted, but they basically had maybe 20 minutes to get their thoughts together before they had to respond to a shocking decision.

It speaks to the issue. More importantly, it is very similar to the bill that put in the tanker moratorium, and I believe there is probably going to be a court challenge to that tanker moratorium. If there is a duty to consult for projects to move forward, when the government is making arbitrary decisions about what cannot be done, there should also be an equal duty to consult in that area.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. I would like to start by saying that the overall position of the NDP on this bill is that northerners know best how to manage their own resources. We will be supporting this bill at second reading but feel there are some areas where important improvements could be made.

This bill is part of a series of measures the Canadian government has made over the past half-century or so to bring more democracy to the north and end the colonial style of government that has been in place since Confederation. It seems, though, that every step forward has some steps backward and this bill perhaps is no exception. This is a bit of an omnibus bill.

I just want to point out that although the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo mentioned that the NDP and Liberals voted for Bill C-15, that was because it was an omnibus bill on the devolution of power to the Northwest Territories. We were all in favour of the bill and then the former Conservative government tacked on that poison pill which cut down indigenous rights. We supported it, even though we had concerns about that last part of it.

This is a bit of an omnibus bill. It sets out to do two different things. First, it would repeal parts of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which was passed in the last Parliament and, second, it would bring into force an announced a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in offshore waters in the Canadian Arctic. Bill C-15, passed in 2014, was a bit of an omnibus bill. The bulk of that bill dealt with the devolution of powers from the federal government to territorial government. The general public opinion in the north was that this was a great thing. It was reversing the tide of colonialism and giving back more powers to northerners to manage their own affairs.

However, the second part of Bill C-15 went back on that, eliminating four regional land and water boards and replacing them with a single super board. Those four boards were created out of land claims agreements and negotiations with various first nations in the Mackenzie Valley area and the new super board significantly reduced the input that those first nations would have on resource management decisions.

Since 1967, much of the political history of the Northwest Territories has been one of de-colonialization through the devolution of powers from the federal government, and there have been four settled land claims in the Northwest Territories since then.

First, the lnuvialuit agreement covers the northern part of the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea region and the Northwest Territories portion of the Arctic Archipelago. The region is outside the areas covered in the regional land and water boards covered in Bill C-88 but does bear on the second part of the offshore oil and gas exploration.

Second, the Gwich'in agreement covers the southern portion of the Mackenzie Delta and the northern part of the Mackenzie Mountains.

Third, the Sahtu Dene and Métis agreement covers the region around Great Bear Lake and the adjacent Mackenzie Mountains.

Fourth, the Salt River Treaty Land Entitlement covers an area near the town of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. This agreement does not involve the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

There are two more agreements in place now in the Northwest Territories: the Deline self-government agreement for a community covered by the Sahtu agreement, and the Tlicho land, resources and self-government agreement covering the area north of Great Slave Lake.

These agreements are modern-day treaties that create and confirm indigenous rights and are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. The Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho agreements contain provision for the creation of a system of co-management boards enacted by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. On each of these boards, there are four members and a chair. Two of the four members are nominated or appointed by the Gwich'in, Sahtu or Tlicho, so that they have an equal partnership in those decisions.

In parts of the Northwest Territories where there is no settled land claim, the main board created by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, is in operation. In the lnuvialuit Settlement Region, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conducts environmental assessments.

On December 3, 2013, the Harper government introduced Bill C-15, which was primarily meant to implement the provisions in the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement. However, as I mentioned, it contained this poison pill in the form of changes to the land and water co-management boards created by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Harper bill eliminated the regional boards in favour of a single superboard consisting of 10 members and a chair. Bill C-15 also changed the process by which members of the single board were appointed and only provided for a single representative from the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho. These groups went from having an equal partnership, two of four members, to only having one in 10 members on this superboard. These changes were wildly and widely unpopular in the Northwest Territories and contrary to the wishes of northerners, as reported by a consultation process launched by the Conservatives prior to bringing forward Bill C-15.

The member previously mentioned the McCrank report. There was a consultation process about that report, but the first nations, when told about these options, said not to do this and that they did not like it. It is not consultation if we just tell first nations what is going to happen. We have to try to make accommodation, and that is exactly what did not happen here. I have some quotes about what first nations and Métis groups thought of this.

Jake Heron from the Métis Nation said that it's very frustrating when you're at the table and you think you're involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously.

Bob Bromley, an MLA in the Northwest Territories said, “The federal government's proposal to collapse the regional land water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.” He also said that a single board “does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation.”

Dennis Bevington, a former MP for the Northwest Territories said, “I don't think that's fair to the people that went into the devolution agreement, people like the Tlicho who agreed to the devolution deal because it had some separation from the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I think it's inappropriate.”

Bill C-15 received royal assent on March 25, 2014. Shortly afterward, the Tlicho and Sahtu launched lawsuits asking for declarations of portions of the devolution act to have no force or effect and an interim injunction to stop the Government of Canada from taking steps to implement those provisions of Bill C-15 that affected the regional board structure for the Mackenzie Valley. On February 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted that injunction to the Tlicho. The federal government immediately began appeal proceedings to lift the injunction, but with the defeat of the Harper government, Canada began consultations with Northwest Territories indigenous governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The result is Bill C-88 before us today, which would reverse those changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Last night, I happened to be sitting next to Grace Blake on the plane flying from Toronto to Ottawa. She is a Gwich'in leader from Tsiigehtchic. She was very happy to hear that Bill C-88 would keep the land and water boards in place. I think her feelings are representative of most residents of the Northwest Territories.

A representative from the Tlicho, Ryan Fequet, said, “The current land and water boards' composition reflects 50-50 decision-making between first nations and the federal government, and I think the superboard's proposed structure would have changed that, and that's why various parties voiced their concerns.”

I will now go to the second part of Bill C-88, which deals with the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

As other members have mentioned, this began back in late 2016 when the Prime Minister was meeting with President Barack Obama and they both gave what was called the United States-Canada joint Arctic leaders' statement. In that, Barack Obama said that the U.S. is designating “the vast majority of U.S. waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas as indefinitely off limits to offshore oil and gas leasing.”

At the same time, it seemed that Canada felt obliged to designate all Arctic Canadian waters as indefinitely off limits to future offshore Arctic oil and gas licensing, to be reviewed every five years through a climate and marine science-based life-cycle assessment. The Prime Minister made this decision without properly consulting any form of government in the north. As was mentioned, he gave everybody a phone call 20 minutes before the fact.

Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod reacted by issuing a red alert calling for an urgent national debate on the future of the Northwest Territories and saying that the Prime Minister's announcement was the re-emergence of colonialism.

He added:

We spent a lot of time negotiating a devolution agreement, and we thought the days were gone when we'd have unilateral decisions made about the North in some faraway place like Ottawa, and that northerners would be making the decisions about issues that affected northerners.

In response to the Prime Minister's unilateral action, the Premier of Nunavut, Peter Taptuna, stated:

We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development.

And at the same time, when one potential source of revenue is taken off the table, it puts us back at practically Square 1 where Ottawa will make the decisions for us.

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation also raised concerns. Duane Smith, the CEO, stated:

There was a total lack of consultation prior to the imposition of the moratorium. This and the subsequent changes to key legislation impacting our marine areas are actions inconsistent with the way the Crown is required to engage with its Indigenous counterparts.

I happened to talk to Mr. Smith about this subject when I was at the Generation Energy Forum meetings in Winnipeg in October 2017, a year later, and he was still hopping mad about this.

In response to the concerns of northerners, Canada began a consultation process and agreed in October 2018 to begin talks with the territorial governments and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to reach a co-management and revenue-sharing agreement. Meanwhile, the current oil and gas development moratorium remains in place, to be reviewed in 2021.

Now I would like to speak to how this bill could be improved.

For one thing, despite the fact that the government supported my colleague's private member's bill on putting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into every appropriate legislation that the government produces, there is no mention of that at all in this bill. Again, I talked to first nations leaders and they are very frustrated with the government over all the talk and no action in that regard.

The second place that it could be improved, and I will mention this a little later, is through a real commitment for intervenor funding in the review processes that this bill puts forward. There is no mention of that and it is a critical part of any proper consultation.

Outside this bill there are still so many more important areas that the government could be taking action on, such as with respect to first nations drinking water. Seventy-three per cent of drinking water systems are considered at high or medium risk, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

With respect to indigenous housing, estimates from the First Nations Financial Management Board pegged the housing infrastructure gap on reserve at between $3 billion and $5 billion. This was the main thing mentioned to me by Grace who was sitting next to me on the plane last night. Her concern is housing, housing, housing.

With respect to indigenous schooling, whether we look at physical infrastructure, teachers or dropout rates, critical gaps remain. Less than a quarter of indigenous students who started grade 9 went on to finish high school. We really have to step up the game and fix these gaps.

The government has to stop fighting indigenous people in court. Currently, there are thousands of court cases going on between Canada and indigenous people, including 528 specific land claims and 70 comprehensive land claims.

The government has to fix the high cost of food in the north by replacing the nutrition north program with one that actually assists northerners in affording nutritious foods.

It should settle the two outstanding land resource and self-government processes in the Northwest Territories with the Dehcho and the Akaitcho.

I want to finish by mentioning a process that really brought northern resource management issues, and specifically management issues in the Mackenzie Valley, to the attention of southerners and radically changed the way northerners took control of their resource decisions. That was the Mackenzie Valley inquiry, or the Berger inquiry, as it is popularly known. It began with pipeline plans in the early 1970s to bring oil and gas from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, across the north, over the Yukon to the Mackenzie Valley, as well as two separate plans for pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley into Alberta. The Liberal government at the time commissioned Justice Thomas Berger to create an inquiry that would look into the situation and figure out what northerners wanted, what the impacts of those projects would be on the north and how the government should best proceed.

Justice Berger started in 1974. He travelled to every community in the area, 35 communities, in the affected region. Everyone who wanted to testify was heard. Several days were usually spent in each community. For instance, in Old Crow, in the Gwich'in territory in northern Yukon, 81 people out of a population of 250 testified, many in the Gwich'in language. Five other languages made up the testimony from the other communities. Anyone who wanted to speak was heard carefully and respectfully.

The Berger inquiry also set the standard for intervenor funding. I mentioned that earlier. That money is used to allow concerned citizens to travel and speak at hearings. In 1977, Justice Berger released his findings. He found that the environmental impacts of a pipeline across the Arctic slope of the Yukon would be too great to justify the benefits. Instead, he recommended much of that area be protected from development.

Therefore, in 1984, Ivvavik National Park was created in the Inuvialuit settlement region. In 1995, Vuntut National Park was created in the Gwich'in area of northern Yukon. I had the pleasure and the privilege of visiting those areas.

In 1983, I spent the summer doing biological surveys in the Old Crow area and spent 10 days on Herschel Island, just off the coast of the Beaufort Sea. It was a wonderful time on Herschel. Liz Mackenzie and her two daughters were the only permanent residents there. They were Inuvialuit. They kept us well fed with bannock and fresh Arctic char. I rafted down the Firth River in 1995. I saw muskox and caribou. The porcupine caribou herd calves along the Arctic coast of Alaska and migrates through this area. It is because of those protections that the porcupine herd is literally one of the only caribou herds in Canada still doing well these days. Most caribou herds are declining drastically.

As for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, Justice Berger pointed out that land claims negotiations were just taking place in the Mackenzie watershed, so he placed a 10-year moratorium on any decision in that region to allow those agreements to be finished. The Berger inquiry is really the gold standard of consultation in Canada. If anyone in the government is interested in what good, proper consultation looks like, this is it. People were heard and accommodations were made.

If we look at the leaders of today in Northwest Territories, many of those leaders began their career by being inspired by leading their people in the Berger inquiry. In an article Ian Waddell wrote on this, he mentioned a few of those names. There was Nellie Cournoyea, who worked for the committee on the original people's entitlement, the Inuvialuit group. She later became the premier of Northwest Territories. Dave Porter, who used to carry equipment for the CBC crew, became a great aboriginal leader in Yukon. Jim Antoine, then the young chief of the Fort Simpson Dene became the premier of Northwest Territories. Georges Erasmus, who appeared before the inquiry for the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, later the Dene Nation, became the head chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and on and on.

I will finish by saying that northerners, regardless of descent, overwhelmingly support land, resource and self-government agreements and the co-management processes created by them. Northerners see these processes as de-colonialism. Resource extraction is the only viable form of economic development available to northerners, and while they want strong environmental protections for any resource development, northerners want to be equal partners in making these decisions.

We support Bill C-88, and we support this process of the devolution of powers to territorial and indigenous governments They must continue to eliminate colonialism within our country.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member on his comment regarding the sets of negotiations going on in the Northwest Territories. We currently have 10 sets of negotiations going on. Some of them are fairly small. They are community self-governing negotiations. However, at the end of the Conservative government's last term, every set of negotiations was stalled. There were no discussions going on.

I think we have to consider the view of the aboriginal people when it comes to the breach of what they thought were constitutionally protected agreements on their land claims and self-government agreements and also on devolution. Certainly the trust of aboriginal people was shaken to the core. A lot of people did not want to move forward.

The member talked about some of the situations that could have been prevented. Could the member expand on what could be done to prevent situations like this from happening again? This certainly set us back a number of steps.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how can we avoid these situations in the future? I think we can avoid them if we stop trying to cut corners to move projects ahead.

People think projects are being frustrated by consultations that are taking a long time, but consultations take time. What we have seen time and again, whether it is this situation, the northern gateway situation, or the Trans Mountain situation, is that governments, both Liberal and Conservative, try to cut corners. Where does it end? It ends up in court, because those people who deserve proper consultation, the first nations, for one, stand up and say, “You didn't talk to us properly. You didn't consult with us. You heard our concerns and then just went away.”

For proper consultation to occur, the concerns have to be heard. They have to be heard early and they have to be heard with respect, and there has to be an attempt to accommodate them. It cannot just be, “Okay, we heard you, and now we're going to do what we planned to do in the first place.”

What I heard in this case was that the government had made up its mind. It wanted to streamline these boards into one board, yet it did not try to accommodate the first nations' concerns.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that northern concerns about meaningful revenues from resource development are important. He also spoke about the lack of consultation. This gives incredible uncertainty to industry, and it basically builds the narrative that the government is out of touch and is not listening to people on the ground and industry.

In my own riding, I had a similar situation. Resource development and manufacturing had these once-in-a-lifetime investments. As the automotive industry changes from gas-powered cars to electric autonomous cars, it is looking ahead. It is making investments for 40 years, but it needs to make the investments now.

I want to ask my colleague about the uncertainty from the government and the different policies it is bringing in. The government brought in something to do with a carbon tax. The schedule goes to only 2022, and it would be $50 a tonne, but the United Nations report the Minister of Environment is really big on right now says that it has to be $5,500 per tonne by 2030. That is a $5,450 difference in just eight years. This is what people who are investing have to take into account.

Would the member comment on whether the government should actually bring in the amount it should be charging for carbon by 2030? What price for carbon does the NDP support by 2030?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the carbon tax, the effect of the carbon tax on investments and on the development of these resources is minimal compared with the other headwinds these developments face in terms of the international price for commodities and things like that.

In terms of streamlining resource development, something I did not get to in my speech was that these young indigenous leaders who were involved in the Berger inquiry are now strong leaders in the Northwest Territories, and many of them support resource development and pipeline proposals. Those proposals are stalled not because of any process or carbon tax but because it is just not economical to develop those resources at this time.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to one of the themes in my colleague's speech.

There is a kind of urban legend about the sign on the foreman's door at a construction site that says, “There is never enough time to do it right the first time, but there is always enough time to redo it three or four times.”

The member talked a bit about what goes into having a proper process that results in a good outcome the first time instead of trying to rush and having to go through a process several times before arriving at the final outcome. I wonder if he would expand a bit on those remarks and then maybe talk a bit on a related theme, which is the lack of a vision or a strategy for Canada's energy future overall and what might be included in such a strategy. How would having a sense of where we are going help inform how we conduct particular projects and the processes involved in getting them off the ground?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, it is ironic and perhaps a little sad that we had a process in the Northwest Territories. There were concerns about how fast development was occurring and how we could do it more efficiently and in a more streamlined way. The government went against the concerns of first nations there and broke the agreement that was contained in their land claims and created a situation where we now are having to redo all that legislation several years later, putting more uncertainty and delay into the system.

With regard to looking at a way forward, it would really help if Canada had a national energy strategy that included a way for us to meet, for instance, our Paris climate targets. A lot of Canadians would feel much comfort in resource management decisions and energy extraction decisions if they saw a believable and practical plan forward that met our climate change agreements. What we see now is a great divide in Canada, because we do not have that overarching plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northwest Territories, who has been a long-time advocate for that community, said it well when he made reference to the number of ongoing discussions. He reflected what the Prime Minister has indicated to Canadians from day one, which is that we need to recognize the importance of the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada, and we need to work hand in hand with indigenous leaders and with different communities. The member for Northwest Territories and I have had long talks about the importance of bringing people together.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on just how important that is for long-term development?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the bill we are discussing is part of a controversy in the north, because the government did not do proper consultation with northern communities. If Barack Obama had said that the U.S. would be shutting down oil and gas drilling in the north and that Canada should do it too, our Prime Minister should have said that it might be a good idea but that he would start some serious consultations with the people who would be affected, not make a unilateral declaration on the spot and phone people up after the fact.

I see that again with the Trans Mountain decision. We had a failed process under the Conservatives. The Liberals promised to fix it. They did not, and we are stuck here back at square one.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I am very proud to join my colleagues to speak in full support of Bill C-88 today. The Prime Minister stated that no relationship is more important to our government and Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. I am proud that we made that commitment and that we continue to strive to fulfill it.

The bill before us today is an important part of this commitment to me and my constituents in the Northwest Territories. The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act was originally passed in 1998. It provides for the establishment of an integrated system of land and water management for the Mackenzie Valley through a series of co-management boards, at which the Dene, Métis, territorial and federal governments share input and decision-making. Although the MVRMA was passed in 1998, the discussions on this type of land and water management system began in the early 1980s during the negotiations of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement.

Regional land claim and self-governing regions in the NWT have boards, also called panels, that review and make recommendations about their lands. Unfortunately, regardless of the system that was in place after years of negotiation, a system that was working well and gave the indigenous people the right to oversee how their lands were used, the previous government decided to cut these boards out of the process. I am glad they were not successful.

First, the Tlicho government filed an injunction, later joined by the Sahtu Secretariat. The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories agreed and granted this injunction, so here it sits. These previous amendments were never brought into force and the regional boards continue to operate efficiently and effectively, as intended.

Our government is dedicated to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in the spirit of reconciliation. One of the key elements in achieving true reconciliation is meaningful consultation. That requires real work. We are committed to restoring trust and further strengthening our relationship with indigenous partners in the Northwest Territories by supporting the integrated co-management regime for lands and waters in the Mackenzie Valley.

We need to ensure that the management of our natural resources is done in a way that respects the inherent and treaty rights of the indigenous people. Through Bill C-88, we can ensure sustainable resource development while also protecting the long-term health and well-being of the environment. This proposed legislation was created in a spirit of reconciliation meant to help renew the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in the Northwest Territories through mutual respect and co-operation.

Bill C-88 is a direct response to the concerns of the indigenous governments and organizations respecting the legislative and regulatory framework flowing from their constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements. While the previous government ignored these concerns, we know that by working together we can reach a better result.

The amendments proposed by this bill respect the integrity of the land claim agreements the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories entered into in good faith. We have heard loud and clear from our indigenous partners that the dissolution of the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho land and water boards by the previous Conservative government denied indigenous groups their hard-won rights. We have also heard from them that it directly contravened their land claim agreements, which included the creation and management of these boards. Reconciliation is not an empty word to our government.

Actions must follow words in order to move forward and work toward real, lasting and positive change in the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. The bill before us today proposes to reverse the board restructuring and reintroduce the other regulatory amendments that have also been on hold. Simply put, indigenous people have the right to oversee how their lands are used, and also to share in the wealth.

Bill C-88 would integrate the perspectives of indigenous people into the future usage of lands and water on their territories by including and incorporating indigenous views and perspectives into the decision-making regarding land and resources.

We must work together to improve the quality of life of indigenous peoples in Canada, and key to achieving this goal is indigenous control over indigenous lands. In order to protect the integrity of land claim agreements and treaty rights, the importance of engagement and consultation must be respected.

The Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho stood up and made it clear that they wanted their voices heard and their rights acknowledged and respected. This bill will ensure that they continue to have a say in what happens to the lands and water they preside over.

I mentioned earlier that there are other amendments in this bill besides those aimed at fixing the restructuring part that has been on hold the past four or so years, so not all of the previous government's amendments were off base. However, they are all tangled up in their restructuring error.

This bill reintroduces these amendments. There are regional studies, board term provisions and new regulatory authorities, to name a few. The amendment to the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act would enable the science-based review currently under way in the Beaufort Sea to be completed without interruption, while at the same time preventing the existing oil and gas rights in the Arctic offshore from expiring before the conclusion of the review. After a one-year consultation with existing rights holders, territorial governments and indigenous governments, everyone agreed on the importance of protecting the unique Arctic offshore environment while pursuing responsible oil and gas activity.

True reconciliation cannot occur until indigenous governments and organizations are fully included in the management of lands and resources in the north. We need to bring the voices of indigenous people into the process in order to have a broader and more complete view of the future of Canada's natural resources. As the Prime Minister has said, “Together, we can build a world where the rights of Indigenous peoples are respected, where their voices are honoured, and where their communities thrive.”

The bill we are debating today will ensure that the unique perspectives of indigenous governments, leaders and communities will be heard and listened to. I urge all of my colleagues today to recognize the importance of incorporating an indigenous perspective into the future decision-making of our natural resources sector and to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine Christmas holidays at the house of my colleague from Northwest Territories. When the moratorium was imposed on offshore drilling, his brother, who is the premier, was absolutely outraged.

The member talks about the importance of having that conversation. Perhaps he can tell members whether he deems what occurred to be adequate consultation with the people who will be most impacted by that decision?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out first of all that the Beaufort Sea was not included in the devolution agreement. It was a real frustration to the Government of the Northwest Territories of the day that this one key component that would generate revenues was not included. The Norman Wells oil field was also not included as part of the devolution process.

As we moved forward, the moratorium was brought forward. We should recognize that there was really no activity going on in the Beaufort Sea. I went back and looked at how much money was invested during the five years prior to that. In the five years leading up to this decision, $7 million was invested.

I invite the member to visit some of my coastal communities in the Northwest Territories to talk with some of the Inuvialuit people living there. They are very proud and resilient. They want to have Canadian living standards, like everyone else. They want the economy to thrive. However, they also want to protect their traditional lifestyle. They are very good at hunting and fishing, and supplementing their incomes. They are worried now about climate change. They are worried about oil spills that we do not know how to clean up.

This is timely. We now have the Government of Northwest Territories. We have the indigenous governments. We have the Inuvialuit doing a scientific review. A lot of work has been done, and we are in a better position to make a decision on this.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy for the north. He talks about how important it is to have meaningful consultation and to gain meaningful revenues from resource development for the people in the north.

The challenge we are having across many sectors is with the uncertainty from the policies of the current government. One in particular that keeps coming up is the carbon tax. The member knows that his party has put forth a schedule out to 2022, when we will have a $50 per tonne carbon tax, but nothing after that is specified for up to 2030. The environment minister stood here last week to say that the Liberals were following the advice of the UN report that sees a carbon tax of up to $5,500 per tonne by 2030. The range between $50 a tonne and $5,500 per tonne in an eight-year period is significant. When companies and resource-development companies are making once-in-a-generation investments, they need certainty.

Could he please tell the House what is the recommended price for carbon, or the carbon tax, by the Liberal Party for 2030?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as I travel in my riding in the Northwest Territories, I talk to many people, including the the Chamber of Mines, and I meet with the chamber of commerce. I have talked with a lot of the organizations and industries in the Northwest Territories that want to expand. There are several very challenging factors for us in the Northwest Territories.

One challenge is to have certainty with regard to the lands. We are experiencing several sets of negotiations, some of which have been ongoing for longer than 30 years, and industry would like to see certainty. Industry leaders want to see indigenous governments resolve the land tenure issue. That would provide certainty. The indigenous governments want to stand shoulder to shoulder with other governments to participate in the benefits that industry would bring, but they cannot do that until the land tenure issue has been resolved.

The second issue that industry has flagged as recently as several months ago is that we need to invest more in infrastructure. If we are going to provide certainty through a settlement of land claims and self-government, we also have to lower the cost of exploration in the Northwest Territories. That means more airports, better airports, bigger airports. We also need proper roads. We only have 12 communities that are serviced by roads right now, and if we are going to attract industries, we are going to have to start providing transportation infrastructure so that they can come at a reasonable cost. Otherwise, it does not make sense for the industries to come when it costs them three or four times more to operate in the Northwest Territories, or anywhere in the north for that matter, than it does in other parts of Canada or the world.

Those are the issues we have to sort out.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to show my support for Bill C-88, while acknowledging that we are gathering on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Our government is taking a new approach. We are currently conducting extensive consultations with indigenous governments and organizations as well as other key stakeholders on issues that will affect them. This process has helped create a law from which all Canadians can benefit.

Bill C-88 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in direct response to concerns expressed by indigenous groups affected by the previous piece of legislation as well as comments from key stakeholders.

Our indigenous partners have made their opinions quite clear. The Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated applied to the courts in 2014 and 2015 respectively to defend their rights in accordance with their individual land claim and self-government agreements.

The bill we are debating today corrects the problems caused by the Conservatives and responds directly to the concerns expressed by indigenous governments and organizations. As part of the ongoing reconciliation process, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations asked departmental officials to initiate an ongoing dialogue with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories to address their concerns.

On September 23, 2016, the minister sent letters to indigenous groups and stakeholders launching consultations on the draft bill to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in order to address these issues.

Bill C-88 is the result of consultations with indigenous organizations and governments in the Mackenzie Valley, transboundary organizations and governments, resource co-management boards and oil and gas industry organizations.

In addition to indigenous organizations and governments, Canada consulted the Government of the Northwest Territories. Our government also consulted members of the mining and gas and oil industries, including the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, the Mining Association of Canada, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Ongoing consultations over the long term with key stakeholders have provided Canada with invaluable insight into the practical nature of the bill before us today. The comments from our partners provided unique perspectives and useful guidance which, in the end, led to the drafting of this bill. That is why proper consultation is important.

Canada recognizes that the Conservatives' legislation was drafted without enough consultation. That is why the Government of Canada ensured that the voices of indigenous groups, the government of the Northwest Territories, and industry representatives were heard at every stage of the process—from initial discussions through to drafting and review. Bringing together stakeholders is the key to developing effective policies and practices. The Government of Canada is holding extensive consultations in order to create processes that satisfy the needs of all parties. That ensures that the final product serves everyone in a positive and productive manner and gets rid of any possible uncertainty regarding natural resources.

In March, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations met with industry groups to better understand their opinion on developing and co-managing resources in the North. Industry plays a major role in creating a stronger and better relationship with governments and indigenous organizations when it comes to protecting, managing and developing Canada's natural resources.

In order to truly make progress on the path to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, industry must be taken into consideration as a key strategic partner alongside all levels of government. By bringing together all the stakeholders, every concern will be addressed as it is raised.

If passed, the amendments this bill makes will contribute to the more efficient, predictable and consistent use and management of land, water and natural resources in the Mackenzie Valley. With the creation of a clearer path for governments and organizations in terms of natural resource management, industry will no longer face the potential uncertainty that hinders its ability to invest in northern Canada.

This law will enhance economic opportunities and growth while protecting the environment for future generations. It addresses concerns expressed by indigenous organizations and governments and respects the framework flowing from their constitutionally protected land claim and self-government agreements. It recognizes the importance of having indigenous peoples actively participate in the co-management of natural resources and of protecting their right to monitor the future of their territory.

The environment, the economy and reconciliation go hand in hand. We need to create a more effective system for everyone, and that is exactly what Bill C-88 accomplishes. I encourage my hon. colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, he said the Liberals would be creating a more efficient system. The reason Bill C-15 amalgamated the boards was based out the McCrank report, which had indicated some significant issues in efficiency, capacity and ability to do things. Therefore, basically the Liberals are reversing things.

The Liberals intend to go back to the original system. What have they done to respond to the issues in the McCrank report outline some serious efficiency problems? On the face of it, what they are doing is moving from what was proposed to be a much more robust system to something more inefficient.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that we need to consult with indigenous peoples. Whether the government passes laws that would be kiboshed by the courts is at issue here. To get on the pathway to reconciliation, it is important for our government to consult with indigenous peoples. As well, yes, we need to consult with industry. This process would ensure that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really encouraged when the member made some important comments. He said that for this, industry was extremely important and that it needed clarity. His colleague from the Northwest Territories also said that. Therefore, my question for him is the same one I wanted to ask his colleague.

When companies make these once-in-a-generation investments, whether it is an automotive plant or resource development, they need certainty. The Liberals brought in a new policy, their carbon tax, and have only let Canadians know what the price will be until 2022, which is $50 per tonne. However, the United Nations report, which the environment minister has said she is following, states that it could be up to $5,500 per tonne. The member will know that there is a huge gap between $5,500 a tonne and $50 a tonne. When planning for these huge investments with new regulations, if companies do not have that certainty, they cannot make the investments.

What will be the Liberals' price on carbon be in 2030 so these companies, which need to invest now in these once-in-a-generation developments, can go forward with confidence knowing what their costs will be?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to tell him what the price on carbon will be by 2020 because I am not sure if we will still be here. However, under Stephen Harper, the price was going to be $60 a tonne in 2018. I am wondering if the Conservatives are finally going to get on board with providing the industry with predictability? We have told it that it will be $10 per tonne in 2018, $20 per tonne in 2019, $30 per tonne in 2020 and $50 per tonne by 2022.

Does he accept the same position as Stephen Harper, who declared in 2008 that in a decade it would be $60 per tonne? Therefore, today in 2018, it would have been at $60 per tonne.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill will look to fix some of the problems created by the previous government.

As our government moves to ensure we move forward on the path of true Truth and Reconciliation, I wonder if my hon. colleague has any additional comments on how the bill would ensure recognize the importance of indigenous rights and move toward reconciliation.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past where governments have passed laws. Fortunately, the courts have kiboshed the decisions, because the laws did not respect our Constitution and indigenous peoples.

This bill is a good step forward in reconciling with indigenous peoples, providing clarity to the industry and to them. It is a good step forward to reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to begin my remarks on Bill C-88.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Yellowhead.

Bill C-88 speaks to the general context in which we think about oil and gas development in Canada. It speaks to the framework that the government has put in place that allows or does not allow important projects to go forward. I will speak in more general terms about some of those issues during the five minutes I have before question period. After question period, I will continue and speak more specifically about some of the issues that are dealt with directly in Bill C-88.

I am pleased to represent an oil and gas riding. We have something called the “industrial heartland”. We benefit, in particular, from the downstream refining and upgrading component to the energy sector. However, we have many people from our riding who are involved in the direct extraction of our energy resources as well.

Sometimes we hear points made in the House that somehow we should choose between the issue of getting pipelines developed or getting value-added processing done in Canada. People in my community, which is a hub of value-added processing, are very supportive of pipeline development as well. It is not an either/or. In fact, we can do both at the same time. Indeed, we need infrastructure to get our resources to market. At the same time, we are very supportive of policy proposals that facilitate greater energy-related manufacturing and otherwise taking place within Canada.

Under the previous government, we saw four pipelines get built and a number of other projects were in process at the time when there was a change in government. What was the current government's approach when it came to developing vital energy resources? First, it directly killed the northern gateway pipeline project and passed a tanker exclusion bill that sought to make the export of our energy resources from northern B.C. impossible. Even if there were to be a new project proposed that went through all the consultation requirements, that still would be unable to succeed because of Bill C-48.

The government piled all sorts of new conditions on the energy east pipeline project, which led to a decision not to proceed with it. However, let us be very clear. It was the Liberal government changing the rules in the middle of a process, adding additional conditions, that prevented that from going forward. Of course, we have seen its failure thus far with respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline as well. This is really having a chilling effect on development.

I look forward to continuing my remarks after question period.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan will have seven minutes remaining in his speech following question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has seven minutes remaining in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to continue a discussion I began before question period about the government's approach to the energy sector. It is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate, but it is no particular pleasure to review the great damage the government is doing to our energy sector. This bill is one of a number of bills which contain provisions that really weaken the situation for those who consider getting involved in resource development, whether it is as a worker, an employee, an investor or one of the many who benefit from spinoff jobs and opportunities associated with the development of our energy sector.

I would observe that part 2, for example, of this legislation would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. In effect, it would allow the Governor in Council, in other words, the government, to issue orders prohibiting oil and gas activities, freezing the terms of existing licences and preventing them from expiring during a moratorium. This would essentially empower the government to take extreme steps whenever it wants to, whenever it deems it in its evaluation of the way things should go, to put an abrupt stop to natural resource development. Conservatives see this as part of a larger pattern.

Bill C-69, the government's “no more pipelines” bill, piles on all sorts of conditions and challenges that are clearly designed to achieve the result of not allowing pipelines to proceed in the future. There is Bill C-48 that would create a tanker exclusion zone, which is designed to say that we can never export Canada's energy resources from the northern coast of British Columbia. It is so interesting to observe government members talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to oil and gas development, especially some of my Liberal colleagues from Alberta. They talk about feeling the pain and they talk about supporting pipelines on occasion, but then we look at their legislative and voting record.

There have been multiple opposition day motions which call for the recognition of particular pipelines as being in the national interest. There has been legislation from the government, such as this bill today and others I have mentioned, that are designed to create a very difficult environment for any natural resource project to proceed. The Liberals put forward these bills that make it more and more difficult for investment projects to succeed and at the same time they vote against opposition day motions and proposals which recognize that these projects are indeed in the national interest. In terms of the Liberals' record, in terms of their votes and their actions, we see a real, practical, concrete, tangible opposition to the success of the energy sector, an energy sector which is not just for one region or one part of the country but is one which benefits the whole country.

I am a member of Parliament from Alberta and represent a resource rich area of the country. Many people in my constituency are part of the energy sector and are frustrated with the approach of the government. I would like to speak briefly about another region of the country, the north of Canada.

I had the pleasure of joining the foreign affairs committee recently on a trip to the territories. It was interesting to talk to people about the decision of the Prime Minister, while overseas, to unilaterally declare a moratorium on offshore development in a way that flew in the face of what many people in the north were hoping for in terms of opportunities that could come to them through new investment, new jobs and new development in Canada's north, development that would really open up opportunity and ensure greater access to services for people in the north.

A real opportunity did exist and yet the Prime Minister, while overseas and without consultation, did exactly the sort of thing that is envisioned in this legislation. He made a declaration that prohibits activity in the area of oil and gas development.

When we look at the proposed legislation, the government would be taking for itself more tools to be able to step forward at any point to say that it did not a want a project to proceed or did not want to allow development, even if there was an expectation, even if there was planning by indigenous leaders and by municipal, provincial and territorial leaders, or if there were investments made and workers making their plans to seek those opportunities. All of a sudden, the Prime Minister could put a stop to it.

So much is said by the government about consultation with indigenous people and how it is such a critical relationship for any government. However, while talking that talk, government members do not seem to recognize at all that many indigenous people in Canada want to see the development of our energy resources. They want to have the opportunities that flow from these developments. However, their voices are totally ignored if they are on the side of the discussion that is seeking more development, more opportunity, more employment and more of the kind of development that would allow them to significantly prosper and benefit from the wealth that would come into their communities as a result of oil and gas and other natural resources.

To put it as clearly and directly as possible, when it comes to our natural resource sectors, the government has an anti-development agenda. It is not an anti-development agenda it is perhaps willing to openly acknowledge or recognize. It covers it up in various ways, including by pumping billions of taxpayers' dollars into a pipeline it still has no plan to see move forward. However, in the concrete legislative initiatives it is putting forward, we see what its agenda is, and we see it walked out in practice.

A couple of years before the last election, the current Minister of Democratic Institutions put out a tweet talking about landlocking the “tar sands”. Now we do not hear that kind of language from the front bench. The Liberals try to modulate their tone, because they know that most Canadians do not want their anti-development agenda.

If we look at the history of the people involved in the government, if we look at the statements they have made in the past, if we look at the past statements and involvement of senior staff in the Prime Minister's Office, and as I mentioned, the comments from the Minister of Democratic Institutions, I think we can see what we are observing in the concrete detail of legislation that has come forward, which is, yes, the anti-development agenda of the government. It is disappointing. It is hurting jobs and opportunities in my province and across the country. We need Canadians to wake up to this, respond and stop legislative measures like this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we have had a couple of members from the Conservative Party stand in their places and give what I would argue is false information. Of course, they are trying to convince Canadians that this is a government that could do better on certain fronts. There is always room for improvement, but let there be no doubt, and I say this to my Conservative friends who have raised this today, that this government has done more to ensure that Canada's commodities, particularly oil, have an opportunity to go beyond exporting straight from the Alberta border to the United States of America.

I would remind my friend across the way that 99% of our oil, for example, went to the United States when Harper first became the prime minister, and 10 years later, that 99% was still there. This Liberal government has been successful in being able to ensure that we will expand that into the future.

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

Madam Speaker, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in this House, that somehow the government is trying to move forward to export our oil. That member and his party proposed and voted in favour of Bill C-48, which would explicitly not allow the export of Canada's energy resources through northern British Columbia. If the Liberals wanted to help get our oil to other markets, the least they could have done was not pass a law that was explicitly designed to make it impossible to get our oil to other markets.

It is very simple. The previous Conservative government was working hard facilitating moving forward the northern gateway project, which would have opened all kinds of new markets and opportunities for those resources. If the member wants to see results in this area, I would tell him to repeal Bill C-48 and stop Bill C-69 as well. However, in particular, when it comes to pipelines and export, it is Bill C-48.

Let us move forward with projects that began under the previous government that would have gotten us to the results the member claims to want but very clearly does not want, from the substance of what he is voting on and saying in the House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, it is very clear that the Conservative members still do not think that natural resource projects are being carried out fast enough.

They want all companies to have the power to move projects forward at all costs, regardless of the views of the communities affected by these projects. Today, we are hearing the same thing about matters relating to northern Canada.

I would like to ask my colleague what the Conservatives' real position is on the energy east project, which is still under review. The Conservatives still think it is a viable project that could rise from the ashes.

Is my colleague claiming that this project has the necessary community support to go forward if the Conservatives were to put it back on the table?

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, I think he badly mischaracterizes our position. Our position is that consultation with communities is important. That consultation should focus on those who are actually affected, not create a forum for activists who have no expertise and no connection to the community to drag on the process indefinitely.

We believe that those consultations should be focused, should engage the affected communities and should engage the knowledge of experts. They should be designed to allow a predictable process whereby companies are able to hear a result and are able to make proposals with a predictable understanding of where things are going. Hopefully, projects will be able to succeed under that framework in cases where the necessary work is done.

The member talks about the need to engage with communities where people may be opposed to these projects. Of course, the same goes the other way. Communities that are supportive of these projects do not want projects unilaterally shut down without consultation.

Our party would welcome the proposal of a pipeline project that would allow all of Canada to benefit as a market, where resources from Alberta could go to eastern Canada instead of eastern Canada being dependent on resources from Saudi Arabia.

I would hope that member, whose party has been quite rightly vocal about human rights issues in Saudi Arabia, would understand the connection between buying Saudi oil and the opportunities that would come as an alternative from having eastern Canada benefit from Canadian natural resources.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are again with another anti-energy policy from the current Liberal government that is driving energy investment out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and significantly increasing poverty in certain regions, especially in the north.

I am speaking to Bill C-88, because I am concerned that the changes it would make would politicize oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of this Liberal government to block economic development. It would take local control and environmental stewardship away from the aboriginal people of the region and would inhibit local, territorial governments from doing what is best for the people of the area. I am speaking of the Mackenzie Delta.

I see that my friend across the way is smiling, because he is very proud of the region he has grown up in.

Bill C-88 is not just another Liberal anti-energy bill, like Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and Bill C-86. These bills could block all future pipelines, giving the government the authority to unilaterally shut down natural resource development. It is now systematically going after the Northwest Territories, as it has done with our western provinces.

Only a few people get to visit the Mackenzie Delta or travel the pristine waters of the Mackenzie River. Those who do find it breathtaking, due to its vast biological and ecological formations.

When Sir Alexander Mackenzie travelled the Mackenzie River in 1789, he was astonished by its sparse population and the pristine beauty of the region. As members may know, the river was named after him. That is for a few of my Liberal colleagues across the way, except for the member for the Northwest Territories.

I count myself fortunate, no, I should say I count myself blessed and lucky, to have been able to travel from the start of the Peace and Athabasca rivers, which are the headwaters of the Mackenzie River, and I have followed it as it flows, leading to the Beaufort Sea in the north. This pristine area, rich in ecological wealth, covers an area of just under two million square kilometres, and its drainage basin encompasses one-fifth of Canada. This is the second-largest river in North America, next to the Mississippi River.

Oil and gas have been part of this region since 1921. There are also mines of uranium, gold, diamond, lead and zinc in the area. During World War II, a pipeline was built from Norman Wells to Whitehorse, in Yukon. It carried crucial petroleum products needed during World War II and helped Canada and the United States build the Alaska Highway, which significantly helped Canada during the war. It is called the Canol Pipeline, and it still exists today.

At a very young age, I personally met and was inspired by one of Canada's great leaders. That was Mr. John Diefenbaker, whose statue sits at the rear of this building. He was a leader of great wisdom and vision who led our country to where it is today. I remember he once said, “I see a new Canada—a Canada of the North.” This is what he thought of and envisioned. He spoke of giving the people of northern Canada the right to develop their resources, protect their environment and maintain and develop strong economies in the region. Diefenbaker saw the need for the people of the north to do this, not the Government of Canada.

One of Canada's leading novelists of the same era, Hugh MacLennan, a Liberal visionary, noted at the time that by 2061, the Mackenzie Delta would have three million people living along the banks and shores of the river and that people's pockets would be full of money from the wealth of the region. He said there would be at least two universities built in the Mackenzie Delta area.

That Liberal's prediction was wrong, and the actions of my Liberal friends across the way from me are also wrong.

There are roughly 10,000 people living along the Mackenzie River Delta, in places like Wrigley, Tulita, Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope, Fort McPherson, Inuvik, Aklavik and Tuktoyaktuk. I have been to those communities and I know the people.

There are 68 aboriginal groups that also live in this region. I have had the pleasure and honour of gathering and socializing with them to discuss their issues. We used to gather at the Petitot River. I have been there a number of times. To me, they are the real stewards of the land, not organizations like CPAWS, the David Suzuki Foundation or others that have the ear of the environment minister. The aboriginal groups are the real Canadian environmentalists and the real stewards of the land.

Recently, Merven Gruben, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, testified at the committee on indigenous and northern affairs. He said that the Liberal government should be helping northern communities. Instead, it shut down the offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole Arctic without even consulting communities. He also said that people in his town like to work for a living and are not used to getting social assistance. Now, all they are getting are the few tourists coming up the new highway. That makes for small change compared to when they worked in the oil and gas sector.

They are the people of the Mackenzie River Delta. Our Conservative government gave them the power to manage their resources in a true, healthy and respectful manner that only the people of the region can do. This was done through Bill C-15, which created the Northwest Territories Devolution Act of 2014.

Our former Conservative government viewed the north as a key driver of economic activity for decades to come, but this Liberal government is arbitrarily creating huge swaths of protected land with little or no consultation with aboriginal communities, while other Arctic nations are exploring possibilities within their respective areas.

Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for the increased control of their natural resources. It consists of two parts. Part A would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998. Part B would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders. That scares me.

What about the provisions that were introduced by the former Conservative government within Bill C-15's Northwest Territories Devolution Act? Bill C-88 would reverse these changes, even though Liberal MPs voted in favour of Bill C-15 when it was debated in Parliament, including the Prime Minister.

Now the Liberals want to reverse the former government's proposal to consolidate the four land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley into one. I believe this is so that they can take control. The creation of a single board was a key recommendation that would address “complexity and capacity issues by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources” and would allow for administrative practices to be “understandable and consistent”. When Bill C-15 was debated in the House of Commons in 2013 and 2014, the restructured board was included in the final version of the modern land claim agreements.

The Liberals would further politicize the regulatory and environmental processes for resource extraction in Canada's north by giving cabinet sweeping powers to stop projects on the basis of “national interest”. This reveals a rejection of calls from northerners for increased control of their national resources.

The Liberal government should leave the people of northern Canada with their resources and let them be their own environmentalists and stewards of the land. They know it the best.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the last part of the member's comments where he said we should let northerners decide about the north. I think that is certainly in order. I think that is what he should do also. He should support this bill and let the will of northerners decide.

People of the north want to see changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and see scientific review. I have had an opportunity to speak to the member many times over the last while and I think we share a lot of goals and aspirations. However, there is a difference between how the Conservatives see the north and the Liberals see the north. The Liberals see the north as a treasure. I think the Conservatives see the north as a treasure chest and want to remove any impediments that get in the way.

I would ask the member why would he not support this bill in that light.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have had many discussions. I do not think we are too far off on our feelings of the north. I have a fondness for the people of the north and I do not believe that we should be plundering any part of northern Canada for its wealth. It should be left to the people of the north to look after themselves and be the stewards of the land

I object to this bill because its overtones are so similar to Bill C-48, Bill C-86 and others. As well, it takes the control away from the people. That is where my concerns come in. It takes the control away from the people and local government officials like the hon. member's brother who is a very well-known and respected person in the Northwest Territories. I feel they are a bit concerned about this bill, as I am.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to a comment my colleague made. At the beginning of his speech, he said—and I imagine he speaks on his party's behalf—that he did not want to politicize the debate on the transport, or even the export in some cases, of natural resources. However, that is exactly what he is doing with a number of files. For example, when it comes to pipelines, he is politicizing the debate on the transport of natural resources.

Why is he asking the House to stop politicizing these debates when that is exactly what the Conservative Party is doing at every opportunity?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is on a different page from me.

When I talked about politicizing, it was with reference to what the government is doing by changing the regulations to make it more advantageous for the federal government to have the final say over the people of the land, who should have the final say. The government of the land, the provinces, should have the final say and the people of the provinces should have a stronger say than the federal government.

That is what I am referring to when I talk about politicizing.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to the people of Alberta who have suffered so much from the oil crisis, especially the hard-working people who work hard for their families. Those people have been insulted by the Prime Minister himself last weekend.

I want to hear from the member about this. What does he think about the comments made by the Prime Minister about the hard-working Canadians in the oil sector?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, workers in Alberta are frustrated. The government is totally ignoring what is happening in Alberta. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the last few years.

However, it is not only Albertans. We are upset because many of those people who were working in Alberta were from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, people who have lost their jobs and have had to go back to their provinces, maybe where the economy was not doing as well.

We are upset because we have a government that is not listening to the members of Parliament from Alberta or the Premier of Alberta who was here last Wednesday. The government is not listening to the people and trying to help our province get through this situation, so that all Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast, which includes the north, benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-88 and explain why I approved it at second reading stage. Before I go on, I want to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

I would like to use my time to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to the authorization of regional studies. Although this may be a lesser-known aspect of Bill C-88, regional studies should have a significant and positive impact on the review process at the core of the regulatory regime governing resource development in Canada's north.

The proposed changes in the bill before us would allow the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade to establish committees to conduct regional studies. These studies could take very diverse forms. They could, for example, be as narrow as a documentary analysis or as broad as in-depth research to create databases on a body of water or a land mass. The relevant text of the proposed bill is purposely broad in order to allow for a variety of scopes and activities.

One of the reasons why the bill uses non-specific language is that science and scientific knowledge are expanding and becoming increasingly sophisticated. Today, it is impossible to accurately predict what kind of regional study will be most beneficial ten or twenty years from now. That said, regional studies can generate valuable environmental and socio-economic information on the potential impacts of a proposed project. This would definitely be information that the Northwest Territories' regulatory boards would find useful.

Although the proposed bill does not specify the form, scope, or subject of the studies, it clearly sets out what these studies and committees are not. Regional studies are not a substitute for the regulatory boards, for example, or any of the roles these boards play in the regulatory regime.

The bill also states that a committee has no other role than what is set out in its terms of reference. Asking a committee to undertake a study essentially means hiring an expert or consultant to prepare a report. Under this bill, regional studies would be subject to the general principles of the integrated co-management regulatory regime authorized by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The value of including regional studies in environmental impact assessments has long been recognized. Under subsection 16(1), proponents had to consider the cumulative environmental effects of their projects, while section 16(2) emphasized the role and value of regional studies, outside the scope of the act, in considering cumulative effects. Parliament repealed the act in 2012, replacing it with a new version that explicitly authorizes the minister of the environment to establish committees to conduct regional studies. Regional studies also feature prominently in a 2009 publication issued by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

The publication, which is entitled “Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada: Principles and Guidelines”, lists the benefits of regional studies. These include analyzing, identifying and managing cumulative environmental effects at a more appropriate, regional scale.

According to this publication, regional studies can also contribute to the discussion of alternative sustainable future scenarios and key environmental goals and objectives for a region.

Studies save time and resources by avoiding environmental effects early on, rather than mitigating cumulative effects much further down the line. Regional studies establish regional environmental targets, limits and thresholds against which to monitor and evaluate subsequent development and management actions. In this way, studies support effective project-based performance assessment. Lastly, the publication suggests that regional studies can provide an early indication of public interest in regional environmental issues.

It is clear that the value of regional studies to environmental impact assessments is increasingly being recognized. Many regulatory regimes in Canada use them as a way to collect environmental data and analyze environmental effects. Besides the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, provisions authorizing regional studies also appear in section 5 of Saskatchewan's Environmental Assessment Act and section 112 of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

Many other jurisdictions in Canada incorporate regional studies into impact assessments, even though those studies are not explicitly mentioned in the legislative measure in question. The simple truth is that regional studies are becoming increasingly popular because they are useful. They can provide accurate, up-to-date, relevant data. They are versatile and can be adapted to specific, practical circumstances. For example, a regional study may analyze potential impacts from the perspective of an ecosystem or region as a whole, rather than solely from the perspective of a particular project. Regional studies can provide necessary baseline data from which to analyze the impact of future development projects. These studies can also help to determine environmental thresholds. Ultimately, the reliable data and analyses generated by regional studies help board members make well-informed decisions.

By authorizing regional studies, Bill C-88 will make this valuable tool available to regulatory boards in the Northwest Territories. The studies can be used to support project reviews and potentially speed up environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews.

Our government is committed to maintaining strong legislation that protects Canada's rich natural environment, respects the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and supports Canada's resilient natural resources sector. Bill C-88 makes a number of significant improvements to the system.

In addition to authorizing the use of regional studies, the bill restores the regional land and water boards and creates a law enforcement system comprising inspections and revised penalties. Other changes will allow the boards to request extensions of their members' terms and enact regulations governing how governments and proponents consult indigenous peoples during the process to issue licences and permits and the environmental impact assessment process under the law. All these improvements will strengthen northerners' ability to maximize the benefits of resource projects while minimizing their negative impact.

In closing, the bill before us deserves the support of the House. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-88 at second reading.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to quickly remind people what the former grand chief of the Tlicho government said at the hearing. He stated:

It took 13 years of negotiations, negotiations with Canada and the GNWT, to arrive at the compromise that could have true co-management in the Wek'eezhii region, what we call the heart of the territory...

The board works and it works well, but Bill C-15 wants to take all that away. It wants to destroy what took so long to build. It wants to do so with no rational reason whatsoever. Bill C-15 seeks to destroy the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. It wants to terminate it and replace it with a super-board with jurisdiction over the whole Mackenzie Valley.

I think everyone would agree that our board systems work well. They are effective and efficient. We are not sure why we would try to fix something that is not broken.

Would the member agree that we should leave the system that is in place, retract what the Conservatives put in the bill, and let the boards operate with the northerners in charge?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Northwest Territories for his question. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance and I am well aware of his strong commitment to the needs of the people in his riding, which is huge.

The short answer to his question is that I totally agree with him. If people do not want to take my views on the subject, they can simply refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, which, in 2014, overturned the measures in the 2002 Conservative bill. For that reason and the ones raised by my hon. colleague, I totally agree with him.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, could my friend provide his thoughts on the commitment the Prime Minister made, virtually from day one, to ensure that we have a government in Ottawa that understands the true value of reconciliation and how very important it is that we work with indigenous leaders and community members, and even to go beyond that?

When we look at this legislation, it may not be absolutely perfect, but it sure does advance the cause. A good part of that owes to the fine efforts of the ministries and those who have come to the table to ensure that we have good, solid legislation today.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing his point of view on the subject.

He is absolutely right. Our government was elected on a clear promise to rebuild the relationship between Ottawa and indigenous peoples. This bill is another concrete example of how we are walking the talk. We also really need to trust indigenous peoples. After all, they were the ones who were here stewarding this vast and welcoming land.

We have an opportunity to amend our laws and procedures to give more power to indigenous communities, and I am very proud to be part of a government that endorses this view.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, today, as we begin second reading debate on 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, I will use my time to focus on the proposed amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

The north is seeing the effects of climate change in a more significant and faster way than the rest of Canada. In fact, climate change in the north is occurring at twice the global rate. Scientists now predict that the north will be ice-free by 2040, rather than the previous prediction of 2100.

Climate change is having a profound impact on Canada's Arctic, as well as northern and indigenous peoples and communities. While some of the impacts of climate change, such as melting sea ice, are creating economic opportunities, they are also creating new health and safety risks for northerners and negatively affecting core traditional northern lifestyles, such as hunting and fishing. These changes are reframing Canada's approach to future development of Arctic offshore oil and gas in three ways.

First, climate change is changing the ecology and distribution of marine species, which requires us to have a better understanding of what the risks are.

Second, climate change is altering the northern environment, with more unpredictability in weather and ice and ocean behaviour, and we need a better understanding of all the factors influencing risks for workers and wildlife.

Third, we have to be sure that activities will be pursued responsibly. We want to strike the appropriate balance between economic opportunities and environmental protection. Development must be done in a way that respects and strengthens reconciliation with indigenous peoples in the north.

I am aware of the importance of oil and gas activities to economic prosperity and social well-being in Canada. We recognize the important potential these activities have to strengthen Canada's northern economy. However, acting in haste would be irresponsible and could cause permanent damage to our oceans and communities.

In 2016, the Prime Minister affirmed that commercial activities in the Arctic would occur only if the highest safety and environmental standards were met and if these were consistent with our climate and environmental goals. These are important principles. As a government, by strengthening and modernizing our regulatory regime, we can ensure that these principles underpin resource development in the north.

The bill's proposed amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act are part of this modernization.

This is not the first time we have come to this chamber with legislation to help northerners. In the late fall of 2017, we brought forward Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act. During third reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs said that we needed a robust process in place to protect our rich natural environment, respect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and support a strong Canadian natural resources sector.

The bill before the House today aims to do the same thing, namely, to protect the environment, respect indigenous rights, and support the natural resources economy. The bill would also provide the foundation for partnership and future collaboration. We know we can do all of these things, if we take the right approach.

I will now speak more specifically to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and what the proposed amendments in the bill would do to it. In short, the amendments would allow us to carefully assess the prospects of Arctic offshore resource development in the context of a changing environment. They would enable the government to freeze existing licences held by companies wanting to explore for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea. This change complements the halt to the issuance of new licenses announced in 2016. This would allow for a thorough evaluation of the current science around climate change and effects on oceans so that we can best determine the next steps for Arctic offshore oil and gas.

The Government of Canada will undertake this review with our northern partners, including Arctic indigenous groups and territorial governments. This means that any decisions will be steered by those most affected.

This approach supports seven-generation thinking. This indigenous principle means that actions should only be taken when we have thought through the consequences for people seven generations into the future. This is critical in the context of climate change and the kind of planet we are going to leave to our grandchildren.

On that note, I want to take a moment and reaffirm our government's commitment to the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This means our government will support and collaborate with indigenous and northern communities and territorial governments as they take action on climate change.

Budget 2016 and budget 2017 provided over $220 million for new programs under the pan-Canadian framework. To date, these investments have supported hundreds of projects in the north and indigenous communities for marine life monitoring studies, coastal erosion and glacial melt impact assessments and initiatives for communities to explore wind and solar power alternatives to offset the use of diesel fuel. The funding is also being used to help indigenous people participate in policy discussions on climate change.

The bill is consistent with these critical efforts to understand, mitigate and adapt to climate change. It is a question of deepening our understanding of the Arctic ecosystem and of the people who call the Arctic home.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, former international chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, has pointed out the importance of seeing the human aspect of effects of climate change in the north. In her book, aptly named The Right to Be Cold, she writes that she has been struck by the tight focus on wildlife instead of human life in the Arctic. She goes on to describe watching a montage about climate change in the Arctic produced by non-northerners. She relates that the photographs were impersonal, showing images of droughts, melting glaciers, coastal erosion and polar bears. She said that there was not a human face in sight.

The point is that when dealing with the Arctic, we are dealing with societies as well as ecosystems. Taking a step back, the proposed amendments in the bill enable us to look at the big picture, including our interconnectedness and vulnerability as humans in a rapidly changing world.

That is why I support Bill C-88 as it relates to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and encourage all members to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that is really concerning about the bill is the fact that it would lock in place a lot of the drilling infrastructure in the North Sea. I believe the member is from southern Ontario. I wonder if he would have been excited about the bill if great swaths of farmland or, if he is from the Niagara region, vineyards had suddenly been deemed to be a national park and therefore no more human activity could happen in that area. If he had received a phone call about it 20 minutes before that announcement, would he still be excited about the bill?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the Niagara region, we are very proud of something called the greenbelt. It protects the environment. It protects green spaces against development. It protects farmland. It is shocking that the hon. member poses this question, because the people in Niagara respect and want that. People come to visit and live in Niagara because of the nature and the beauty the region provides. To not do the same in the north is unconscionable.

This bill is going forward so the people in the north can determine how best to develop the land and how best to protect it.

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

Madam Speaker, that is really interesting. The whole point is that 20 minutes before the announcement was made that there would be a drilling moratorium in the North Sea, a phone call was made to the premier of the Northwest Territories. The people of the Northwest Territories and Yukon had no chance to even have a say or give their input on this drilling moratorium. The people of Niagara had the ability to say that they would like to have a greenbelt in their region.

Would the member not grant the people of the Northwest Territories and Yukon the same privileges as those provided to the people of southern Ontario?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point of the bill is to put control of resources and protection of the environment in the hands of those most impacted by it. The bill would undo what the previous government did, which is unconscionable and shameful. This is part of reconciliation. It is an important step forward and we fully support it.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, we recently heard of the oil spill on the east coast and that the weather prohibited the clean-up. I am not sure how they will clean up that spill.

Could the member tell me what he would imagine would be a clean-up process for an oil spill in the Northwest Territories in the Beaufort Sea. There are no navigable aids, no response team and really no mechanism to clean up right now. How long would it take or would we even respond?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take the point of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories that it is sparsely populated. Reacting to a spill would be difficult. It would take a significant amount of time, if it were even possible based on the weather conditions. That is why this is not right for an Ottawa-based approach to put on the people of the Northwest Territories. This is for people who are most impacted by that to make the decision.

The hon. members on the other side scoff at that for some reason that is unknown. However, this is the best way forward, to put it in the hands of indigenous peoples and territorial leaders.

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

Madam Speaker, the drilling moratorium announcement was part of the joint Arctic leaders' statement that the Prime Minister made in 2016. The ironic part about it was that none of the territorial leaders was at this joint Arctic leaders' statement.

Would the member opposite agree me that if he indeed cares about northern voices being part of the decision-making process that at least the premiers of the territories should have been at this joint announcement?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look behind me and I see the hon. member for the Northwest Territories who is a strong leader in his community. He supports this and that is good for me.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin this debate by quoting the premier of the Northwest Territories when the Prime Minister, in 2016, as part of a Joint Arctic leaders' statement, declared that the Beaufort Sea would be a national park essentially and that there would be no more drilling. This meant that any infrastructure there would now be landlocked and any infrastructure that had been invested in would now be stopped and be held up from being developed.

The premier of the Northwest Territories said that they would end up “living in a park.” That is precisely what the Prime Minister and his principal secretary Gerald Butts would like to see, that all of Canada become a national park, with no economy happening whatsoever.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Bill C-88 lays out the legal framework for the drilling moratorium. It is part of an ongoing trend we see from the government. Canadians are welcome to live in Canada provided they do not do anything to touch the environment. Again, in the Northwest Territories, this is a record. However, we are seeing a trend.

The Prime Minister has pounded his fists on the table, saying that he will get the Trans Mountain pipeline built. However, when it comes to every other energy project in the country, he has done everything in his power to undermine it. It all started with Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium on the west coast. This effectively killed the northern gateway pipeline. It is part of a larger trend.

In Bill C-68, we see the reversal of the changes we made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, making it easier for municipalities to develop their regions by putting culverts in and pipelines across streams. Those kinds of things were important changes we had made to make life easier for the people who live beyond Ottawa and Toronto, yet we see the government of today definitely reversing that.

There is also Bill C-69, what we are calling the no more pipelines bill that overhauls the regulatory process for pipelines.

We had a great regulatory framework to build pipelines. Under the Conservative government, we built four pipelines, approved northern gateway and other pipelines. What is really frustrating is that the Liberals went around saying that the public had no confidence in the process, which was completely false. It had been tested significantly by the court. Now that they are in power, they feel the need to overhaul it entirely so it will have to be tested by the court again.

We see that again with Bill C-69, putting the livelihoods of many workers in the oil patch at risk. It is putting the livelihoods of many people who live north of the 55th parallel at risk. We would like to see the government change its ways regarding this.

Bill C-88 is part of a strategy to keep oil in the ground. Therefore, we would definitely like to see it pull this bill back and Bill C-69 in particular.

Over the weekend, there was much to be said about the back-to-work legislation the House imposed on the Canada Post workers. Just yesterday I saw a carton on Facebook about two oil field workers. One of the workers said, “I wish Ottawa would legislate us back to work.” This bill would legislate them out of work.

The Beaufort Sea has vast oil reserves that have been explored. There are millions of dollars in infrastructure sitting up there, which has been basically been abandoned because of the drilling moratorium.

We need to ensure that Canada can work and be prosperous again. We have to ensure that our natural resources, whether oil in the Beaufort Sea, diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, or gold mines in the Yukon, can be developed and can bring prosperity for all of Canada.

One of the major things we know about in northern Canada is the carbon tax and how that will affect northerners in particular. We hear the Liberals talking all the time about Canada being a carbon intensive economy. If we looked outside this morning, we would see that it was snowing, and we typically have snow for six to nine months out of the year, depending on where one lives in Canada. That means the temperature is below freezing for that length of time in the year, so we need to warm things up. We need to make sure our houses stay warm. I enjoy a warm shower every morning. Those things require energy. Not only does Canada require energy, but the world requires energy as well. What better place to get our energy than right here in Canada? However, when we bring in a drilling moratorium in the Beaufort Sea or introduce a carbon tax or table Bill C-69, we limit the development of our natural resources and we then import the energy we need from other jurisdictions that do not have the environmental regulatory framework we have. We do not allow our economy to flourish so it can bring prosperity to some parts of the country that could really use it.

It is important that we develop our resources, including resources in the Beaufort Sea. We know that a large amount of money has been invested in developing that part of the world, and to just bar its development, through government regulation into the future, seems shortsighted and pandering on the world stage to forces outside of Canada.

The announcement in 2016 shows to some degree that the joint Arctic leaders' statement did not take into account the Canadian perspective whatsoever. It was pandering to an international audience. The Prime Minister only had the decency to phone the premier 20 minutes before he made the announcement. That left the territories scrambling. When I was up in the Northwest Territories, one of the things they often said was to let them keep their own royalty revenues. Allowing them to keep the royalty revenues now, when they are unable to develop anything, will not help the situation whatsoever.

With that, I ask the Liberals to reconsider the bill, to reconsider the drilling moratorium in the Beaufort Sea, to reconsider Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and ensure that we can get development of our natural resources back on the table, bringing prosperity to all Canadians and all Albertans.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about the need to bring our natural resources forward so they can be properly sold, and I heard other Conservatives talk the same line tonight. However, when we talk about oil specifically, when Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, 99% of our oil was exported to the United States. When he left in 2015, 99% of our oil was still exported to the United States. There was no attempt, or at least no successful attempt, to diversify that marketplace and to get our oil anywhere other than where it was already going, the United States. In fact, the four pipelines the previous government did touch in one way or another in getting approvals and some kind of work done on them only contributed to our continued export of our oil to the U.S.

Therefore, if the Conservatives are so interested in making sure we are selling our natural resources to other markets for the betterment of our economy, could he please explain why they were unable to do anything on that front for a solid 10 years?

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite recognizes the fact that we had four major pipeline projects built. The thing that he failed to mention was the fact that northern gateway was approved and ready to be built until the Liberals brought in the tanker moratorium with Bill C-48. That would have definitely brought our oil to foreign markets.

Another thing he failed to mention was energy east, for which the government moved the goal posts and demanded an upstream and downstream calculation of the CO2 emissions the pipeline project would have produced. That deemed the project uneconomical. The company basically said that if the government continued to put up hurdles or hoops for it to jump through, it would take its ball and go home, particularly when other jurisdictions around the world were reducing red tape and making it more exciting to do business there.

I am glad the member recognizes the four pipelines we built. I am upset that he forgot to mention energy east and the northern gateway.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that the issue before the House today is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, which are very important to my riding. The member chose to speak mostly about Bill C-69.

I also want to point out that oil exploration in the Beaufort Sea peaked in 2008. World markets declined, and in the previous five years leading up to that decision, only $7 million was spent on the Beaufort Sea, amounting to a little over $1 million a year to keep the licences and permits going. No work was created. After one year of consultation with existing rights holders, territorial government and indigenous governments, everyone now agrees how important it is to protect the unique offshore environment and that we need to pursue oil and gas development in a safe way.

I totally agree with the member that the north should be keeping the royalties, but should we not also be deciding what is best for ourselves in the north?

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the entire thrust of my speech was. Bill C-88 imposes a drilling moratorium in the Beaufort Sea from Ottawa. That is precisely what the member seems not to want, yet he is standing and saying that is not the case.

He talks about royalties, but if there is no drilling going on, there will be no royalties. I ask the member for the Northwest Territories to stand and defend the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. The resources being developed would bring improvement to the quality of life in the Northwest Territories, if we can get some of our resources to market.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. 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 Trois-Rivières, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Public Transportation; and the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Infrastructure.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-88 would have a negative effect on Canadians in northern communities, who are already struggling to survive. When will enough be enough? Northerners are struggling to access basic resources like affordable groceries, water, high-speed Internet, safe roads and health care. Why is the Liberal government making life even harder for northern Canadians by restricting some of the largest sectors in the north, Canadian energy and, indirectly, the mining industry?

I regret to inform the House that Bill C-88 would repeal and reverse the land and water board restructuring changes the Conservatives passed in the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. It would also further polarize and politicize the regulatory and environmental process for resource extraction in Canada's north by giving the Liberal cabinet ultimate power to stop projects as it suits its political agenda. Northerners deserve increased autonomy over their natural resources sector. The Liberal government needs to stop meddling in the affairs of the north for its own gain.

Bill C-88 is an unnecessary and paternalistic blockade of oil and gas development in the Arctic and other northern regions. I must say that Bill C-88 fails on all fronts. It fails to respect workers in the oil and gas sector, fails to protect investments in the development of remote areas, fails to protect Canadian aboriginal communities on the path to reconciliation and, most disturbingly, fails to give northern communities the autonomy they deserve.

Bill C-88 would be particularly hard on the oil and gas sector. The government's failure to get key energy projects completed and to invest in the north is threatening expansion of the oil and gas sector, putting tens of thousands of good-paying, high-quality jobs at risk. While big American oil companies are getting discounts of over $100 million a day on Canadian oil, Canadian oil still needs to reach international markets.

Bill C-88 is yet another anti-energy policy, making getting and keeping jobs in one of Canada's largest economic industries nearly impossible. Canada's Conservatives will continue to fight for Canada's resource sector and the hard-working Canadians whose livelihoods depend on energy. They can count on us to stand up against a government determined to phase out their jobs.

On another note, Bill C-88 fails to take into consideration economic development in remote indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the north. The north is a key driver of economic activity in Canada. There is no doubt that Canada's north should be treated with the respect it deserves. Conservatives know that economic prosperity in the north does not mean ruining landscapes or harming the environment. Economic investment in the north means finding jobs for Canadians in some of the most remote areas of our country, it means economic prosperity for our economy as a whole and, most importantly, economic investment in the north means food on the table for thousands of Canadian families currently struggling to get by.

The Liberal government is hiking taxes on over 90% of middle-class families in the north. Despite the government's lavish spending, Canadian northerners are no further ahead. We need to promote effective investments in important areas in the north, such as health care, housing and quality drinking water. It is also important to spend money that translates into tangible results for northern Canadians.

Bill C-88 is nothing more than a ploy to win votes in urban centres rather than actually reduce poverty in the northern regions of Canada. We need to put Canadians first, not politicians and their concealed agendas. We need a government that will take the right steps to create sustainable economic opportunities for northerners in Canada. It is time that we started investing properly in the north so we can reap the rewards of economic prosperity for decades to come.

Bill C-88 also fails to adequately support the economic needs of indigenous peoples in Canada. It would significantly impact Canada's northern indigenous populations. Representing a rural riding with a large indigenous population, I know that the rights and sovereignty of Canada's indigenous people must be respected. We must work collaboratively with the indigenous populations in the north to put forward policies that make real and measurable improvements in the lives of Canada's indigenous people.

The Liberals failed to take the necessary steps to create sustainable economic opportunities for indigenous people in remote communities. By cancelling key energy projects, delaying offshore oil and gas projects in the Arctic for five years and imposing out-of-control taxes on rural populations, the future for Canada's northern indigenous populations is not looking bright.

Conservatives support advancing the process of reconciliation but also realize there is no lasting reconciliation between the Canadian government and indigenous populations without economic reconciliation. We must empower indigenous communities through job opportunities, industry and economic growth, rather than take valuable opportunities away.

Last but not least, northerners deserve a greater say in their own regional affairs. Canadians do not want Big Brother. The government needs to establish a plan to both respect northern sovereignty and promote economic prosperity in the north. The Liberal government's plan to impose restrictions on the northern economy will have serious long-term effects on the people living in remote communities.

We need to give autonomy back to people living in the north. Political elites in Ottawa should not get the final say on what energy projects get approved and which energy projects get denied. We need to consult workers and other stakeholders in the north before deciding to scrap potentially valuable energy projects. If we take away northerners' voices on these issues, the communities that can least afford these dangerous polices will be the ones most impacted.

Looking to the future, we need a government that will respect the autonomy of the north, provide economic opportunities for Canada's indigenous populations, invest in northern economic prosperity and protect Canada's oil and gas workers.

Conservatives do not support Bill C-88 and the Liberal government's anti-energy policies. Together, we should change this legislation to better support Canadian industry in the north, and protect the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of workers in northern Canada.

The Northwest Territories has vast underdeveloped oil and gas reserves. It is estimated that the Northwest Territories potentially hold as much as 37% of Canada's marketable light crude oil resources and 35% of its marketable natural gas resources. Like Bill C-69, Bill C-88 will have Ottawa pick the winners and losers. Even if northern industries jump through all the hoops and meet all the criteria, Ottawa can simply say, “No, game over.”

We should have Canadian oil in every refinery in Canada, and jobs for Canadians, not for Saudi Arabia, and support made, produced and manufactured in Canada.

The Liberal government record is shameful. It killed northern gateway by putting a tanker ban on the west coast. Then it created a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea, an announcement made in December 2016 without even consulting northerners.

The government killed energy east by changing the environmental assessment process almost monthly and then added upstream and downstream emissions, which is not applied to any other industry in the world. The list goes on.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member took a bit of time to talk about making sure that indigenous governments and the rights of the local people in the Northwest Territories were respected in the process, but I asked a question previously about the Conservative government's inability to deliver on any kind of natural resource or, in particular, oil delivery and mobility.

The problem is that while at the same time the Harper government was touting this economic superpower idea of all the oil and everything we could do with it during the 10 years the Harper government was around, the Conservatives also spent a considerable amount of time attacking indigenous people, trampling on their rights in fact, attacking the environment and climate initiatives and organizations that were out there to do that. Effectively that put a target on the back of the oil industry.

I want to know how the member can stand here today and talk about protecting the rights of locals, in particular in these communities, while at the same time Stephen Harper and his government exactly undermined them for 10 years.

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

Madam Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories and indigenous peoples should be responsible for their own development. We do not need Ottawa there to determine whether a project goes ahead or not. As I said earlier, industry can jump through all the hoops, back and forth, doing everything the government wants, but at the end of the day, the government can say yes or no, based on a whim.

I would like to rephrase your question by asking this: What can we do to give the rights back to the indigenous peoples and the Northwest Territories?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the member that it was not my question, and I would ask him to address questions and comments to the Chair in such a way that they are not going directly to a member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to follow the Conservatives' logic on natural resources development, especially in terms of natural resources transportation.

Earlier, I asked a question about how this debate is being politicized. A Conservative member said it is vital for communities, the provinces and the territories to have the final say. In his speech, the member said that the government must make sure local communities and the government of the land in question have decision-making power with respect to oil and natural resource transportation projects.

Logically, then, do the Conservatives agree that, when a province and its government oppose a natural resource transportation project, as Quebec's National Assembly opposed energy east, the Conservative Party would honour that consensus and agree that the project cannot go ahead without the approval of the whole province?

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

Madam Speaker, there are things that are in the national interest, and we have to ensure we have consultation and ensure everyone is at the table when making a decision. However, when it comes to a national interest, like energy east, that means jobs for Canadians. Right now we are buying the majority of our oil from Saudi Arabia for the east coast here. We have practically zero Canadian oil.

When it comes to Canadians, every decision should be based on what is best for Canada, what is best for the community and for the indigenous community. We all have a voice, but when we make a decision it should be after consultations with everybody involved. Our approach is to use science and make sure that whatever we do is better for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the many issues that come before the House, and this bill is yet another good example of legislation that has been well done.

At the end of the day, members will see there is wide support for the legislation in the communities that are most impacted. More than that, I would suggest that Canadians as a whole have confidence in this government's ability to manage our resources in a fair fashion that sees the national interest served, that the environment is addressed and ensures that consultations take place, whether they are with indigenous people, provincial or territorial governments or organizations. We take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, we have seen ministers of the Crown make a great deal of effort in reaching out to the many different communities and to stakeholders. Ultimately, it allows us to put together the type of legislation that we have.

If there is one single aspect of this legislation that we need to make note of, it would likely be how Bill C-88 would fix a problem that was created by Stephen Harper a number of years ago when the government at the time brought in Bill C-15. Members from both sides of the House have referred to Bill C-15.

I had the opportunity to address the bill a number of years ago when I was on the opposition benches. If memory serves me correctly, I was somewhat critical of the inability of Stephen Harper's government to work with the different stakeholders, and I would put a special emphasis on indigenous people. I remember talking with my colleague from the north, the member for Yukon, about this particular issue when the Conservatives were making some of these changes. I remember how passionate he was as a northerner, and also as an elected official in recognizing the harm that was being caused.

Fast forward to today, and as I listened to my colleague from the Northwest Territories speak to the legislation, I have a better understanding of how he and his family have been long-time advocates for the issues in the Northwest Territories, which could be broadened to include northern Canada. One cannot help but be inspired by the level of dedication and strong sense of commitment to ensure that what we are doing is moving us forward in the right direction. This is why I thought it was important to listen to the member for Northwest Territories, as he has a great deal of knowledge on such an important issue.

The Prime Minister talked a great deal, even before the last national election, about the issue of indigenous people, and ensuring that they are enabled to provide the strong and healthy leadership we know they are very capable of and to ensure that they are sitting at the table. The Prime Minister often talks about the importance of that relationship.

I have listened to the questions and comments coming from the Conservatives. However, I can see within the questions and comments from my colleague and friend from the Northwest Territories his caring attitude in regard to what was done and what it is that this legislation is attempting to undo.

Let me be a bit more specific. Bill C-15 says that we have these land and water management boards that were responsible for different geographical areas. Through Bill C-15, the Conservatives wanted to get rid of those boards in favour of one super board.

If that had been an honest reflection of what was being pushed for by the affected communities, I suspect there would have been more sympathy toward at least that very aspect of Bill C-15. There was a great deal of resistance to the bill. There are communities today that feel fairly positive about the way Bill C-88 would reverse that aspect of Bill C-15.

I wanted to highlight that for the simple reason that at the end of the day we want there to be a sense of fairness among the different decision-makers. By recognizing the important role that not one so-called super board would play but that those local, decentralized boards would play is a positive step forward.

It might take some time to work over some of the issues as a result of the actions taken by the Stephen Harper Conservatives at the time but we have to recognize that Bill C-88 is a move forward in the right direction.

I had the opportunity to do a bit of research thanks to Google maps just to get a sense of the Mackenzie Valley. It is a huge area. The basin that feeds into the Mackenzie River is probably larger than the land mass of most countries around the world. We are talking about a significant amount of land and waterways. I understand it begins in Fort Providence, where my colleague from Northwest Territories calls home nowadays, which is really the southern beginning of the valley.

Even though I have never had the pleasure to visit that area, I have seen, as I am sure all members have seen, documentaries and films, through which I got a fairly good sense of everything that the Northwest Territories has to offer. From what I have seen, that mass of land and water is most impressive.

The Prime Minister decided that we needed that moratorium. It is interesting to note that the Conservative member who spoke before me asked about the national interest. I would suggest that the moratorium was in the national interest. Not only was it in the interest of the Northwest Territories but it was in the national interest.

Canadians genuinely are concerned about their environment. They are concerned about how we draw resources out of the environment and transport them.

Canadians understand and appreciate that the people who really know the area the best are the people who call that area home. They really have the experience and the knowledge to ensure that the types of decisions being made take our environment into consideration.

Dealing with things of this nature has to factor in indigenous people and other stakeholders. I am quite pleased with the way the government has said that we want to make sure that the types of consultations that were required were going to be done, and that is why it has taken as long as it has to come before the House. There is so much to lose if we do not do this right. I look to those leaders in the Northwest Territories to provide strong leadership on this front.

I do not question how important it is to protect our environment, but I also know how important it is that we continue to develop our communities, economically in particular, and how that economic growth benefits people who live in the northwest or live in northern Canada but also benefits everyone in Canada.

I will go back to that concept of the national interest. There are many Canadians who travel to the north periodically, whether for tourism or other reasons. Tourism in the area, my colleagues from the north will tell us, has fantastic potential for growth and that is one of the reasons we want to protect our harbour and the environment. I suspect that there is a growing demand for workers from down south to be able to be able to fulfill some of that potential for growth into the future. In fact, I was talking to my friend from Yukon. He was telling me how the Filipino community is starting to grow up north.

A big part of economic development is to ensure that the government has the financial resources to provide the types of programs that we have heard about today, whether it is health care, education, training programs or protection of our environment. All of these take money and one of the ways we can accrue the financial resources to provide those types of services to Canadians is through the development of our natural resources.

Let there be no doubt that there is a great deal of development potential in Canada's north. If we work with others and look for the leadership of those who are living in the communities, we can actually manage that development in such a way that everyone wins. This is something that as a government we have demonstrated that we are committed to doing. I could give tangible examples.

Conservative after Conservative have stood up today in their place and been critical of this government's inability to get a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean for markets out in that area, looking at China and beyond. However, what the Conservatives do not tell us is that this government, in managing both the environment and the economy and working collaboratively with the stakeholders, in particular indigenous people and provincial governments, was able to accomplish something that Stephen Harper could not accomplish in 10 years.

For the first time in many years, we now have the potential to see a pipeline that will deliver our commodity to other regions of the world, outside the United States. Some of my Conservative colleagues are snickering at that comment, but that is the reality. Even today, the Minister of Natural Resources made reference to the fact that when Stephen Harper became prime minister, over 99% of our oil commodity was being sold into the United States. After being the prime minister for 10 years, the Conservatives had failed Canadians, failed Albertans and they did not materialize, as this government did materialize, in a very real and tangible way.

The Conservatives are critical and ask about the national interest. I would suggest that is a very good example of why we bought the pipeline. I am very proud that we have a government that is committed to ensuring that we manage our natural resources and the many different commodities that we have.

The government is not prepared to forsake the environment, to forsake the importance of having individuals living in those communities engaged, and that is what I like about Bill C-88. It reinforces the importance of that, and it does it primarily through getting rid of the one aspect of Bill C-15 that was so poorly received by the communities directly affected. That is one of the reasons why I suspect that this legislation will get support from all political entities within the chamber, with one possible exception. I should not say the possible exception, I understand the Conservatives will be opposing the legislation.

However, I do believe there is better understanding coming from the other parties in the House. I believe that if the Conservatives would start listening a little more to what Canadians have to say about a series of important public issues, they, too, might be more inclined to recognize the merits of Bill C-88 and get behind the legislation itself.

I want to highlight a couple of other issues that I think are important to recognize. There is a cost recovery component to the legislation, where the bill includes a regulation making authority for cost recovery. This would allow cost recovery from proponents on major development proposals undergoing environmental impact assessments, as well as ensuring a water licensing process undertaken by a land and water board. The issue of cost recovery has been talked about a great deal over the years, and I thought it had received fairly wide support from all sides of the House.

There are administrative monetary penalties within the legislation. The bill proposes a scheme for administrative monetary penalties through regulations, including the power to designate the offences under the act that may be considered violations. The determination of the penalty amounts for each violation, the maximum amount for these penalties would be $25,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations.

I want to also recognize that the legislation provides some certainty for industries, which is also very important, given the moratorium that was put in place. However, let us recognize that the moratorium was a good thing for Canada. It was a very good thing.

At the end of the day, this is a government that takes our environment seriously, unlike the Conservatives. This is a government that understands the importance of the development of our natural resources, and it is a government that recognizes the importance of working with people.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the sense of humour of my colleague from Winnipeg North when he talked about the pipeline being a good deal, when we saw $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money going to Houston instead of being invested here in Canada. I very much respect him, but I am very surprised that he said that.

More seriously, why are we talking about the petroleum industry? I am wondering what my hon. colleague's thoughts are after the statement made by the Prime Minister about oilmen working hard in the oil industry. Those people are being insulted by the Prime Minister. What are his thoughts on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is someone who truly cares about what is taking place in the province of Alberta. This Prime Minister, with all seriousness, has done more for the advancement of the economy in Alberta than Stephen Harper did. All one needs to do is look at the western diversification fund. We can talk about capital infrastructure through many programs initiated by this government in the province of Alberta and about establishing a process that will see oil ultimately reach markets other than just the United States. Harper talked, but this is a Prime Minister who has actually delivered for the province of Alberta and all people.

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

Madam Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister credit. He has united everyone in Alberta against him. That is what he has done. That is all he has done.

I want to get back to the issue at hand. The member talked about the previous government's Bill C-15. He must have thought it was okay, because he voted in favour of it. The Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-15, and now he is pretending that it was an egregious piece of legislation that had to be withdrawn.

The member also talked about the moratorium on offshore oil and gas as being great for Canada. Maybe he should talk to Premier Bob McLeod, who felt that it was so egregious, he issued a red alert on the colonial attack on the territories' oil and gas future. He said, “The promise of the North is fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we see a re-emergence of colonialism.”

When the Prime Minister announced the offshore moratorium, he did it from Washington, D.C., and did not even have the courtesy to inform Bob McLeod until an hour before he made that announcement with Barack Obama, as Barack Obama was on his way out of office as a lame duck president.

Conservatives will take no lessons from the Liberal Party, which treats northerners as though Ottawa knows best. That is what the member just said. He confirmed again that the offshore moratorium, which was an insult to northerners, was actually a great thing for Canada. Why does he not stand up and apologize to the people of the north?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are going to have to agree to disagree. There is legislation before us that would rectify a serious flaw in Bill C-15. If the member reflected on what I said in Hansard about Bill C-15, I am sure he would find that I was somewhat critical of the government for not working with the communities to bring forward legislation that reflected what I believed, at the time, would have been a much better approach than the Stephen Harper attitude toward consultations. The legislation before us today has taken the time it has because the government has been working with the people of the Northwest Territories, other stakeholders, indigenous groups and many other individuals.

With regard to the moratorium, I suspect that we would find fairly good support from all regions of the country, including the Northwest Territories, on the value of ensuring that we have a process that protects our environment. That was the primary purpose of the moratorium. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that the environment is worth fighting for.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I heard the Conservatives mention a number of things in the last couple of hours regarding the north. They talked about oil and gas infrastructure in the Beaufort Sea. I should point out that there is no oil and gas infrastructure in Beaufort Sea.

I heard them talk about sharing the resource royalties from the oil and gas, but there is none. They also talked about the concern that we shut down activity in the Beaufort. There is and has been no activity for a long while.

I would like to ask the member if he would agree that we should instead shift our focus to investing in navigational aids, spill response, and necessary infrastructure, such as ports, and then should conduct a thorough, scientific review. We would probably have the support of northern communities behind us, knowing that we have a good plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is why I am such a big fan of my friend and colleague from the Northwest Territories. What we hear from the Conservative benches is a lot of criticism based on Conservative Stephen Harper's spin documents. Those documents say that there is in fact oil and gas, and that is why they continue to read it.

Contrast that to the member who actually lives in the community. He talks about the future in terms of how important the ports are. Maybe we should be looking at ways we can invest in ports. There are many other aspects of potential development in our north that could, in fact, lead to all sorts of wonderful opportunities. It is not all about oil and gas. That is how the Conservatives see it.

There are many other opportunities. Earlier in my comments, I highlighted tourism, the idea of ports and anything related to aviation, which would allow individuals to experience the great white outdoors and the beautiful summertime. That takes investing in infrastructure. That is something I believe is just as important as we continue to have that dialogue with individuals who call the north home. That is where the leadership for the development of the Northwest Territories is going to come from.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to go to part A of the bill. I am not sure if the member is aware, but the report done by McCrank says, “the current regulatory processes in the Northwest Territories are complex, costly, unpredictable and time consuming.”

To amalgamate while respecting indigenous rights, he said,

The approach would address the complexity and capacity issues inherent to the current model by making more efficient use of expenditure and administrative resources. It would also allow for administrative practices to be understandable and consistent.

I guess he thinks it is great to go back to the system of war. Is he saying that McCrank was wrong? What has your government done to actually make sure it has dealt with all those problems that were identified?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to ask the member to ensure that she addresses the questions to the Chair and not directly to the government.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Neil McCrank was wrong. That, I guess, is the essence of the answer to my colleague's question.

Stephen Harper at the time believed that he could have one board to replace the others. He was prepared to do that at all costs. He was not listening to what people within the community actually had to say. Rather, he seemed to be focused on one or two possible Conservatives and at the end of the day did not take into consideration the importance of the community nor the importance of the environment.

Ultimately, that is the reason we are having to make the change. It is something that is overdue, and I am glad the minister was able to bring forth the legislation. I would ask my friends across the way to reconsider their position, as this is good legislation that would make a positive difference up north.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

As always, I am honoured to represent the constituents of Saskatoon—Grasswood today in the House as we speak to Bill C-88.

As members may or may not know, I am a member of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, and on October 15 of this year, we undertook a study on northern infrastructure projects and strategies. At the meetings we have heard from federal government officials as well as from territorial and local government officials. We have also heard from indigenous groups and a variety of stakeholder groups. We have learned many interesting things, but the one common theme in all the testimony we have heard for months is that there is a real need for infrastructure in the north. People in the north do not need more rules. People in the north do not need more regulations, and people in the north do not need moratoriums. What they do need is infrastructure.

The members opposite will argue, and we have heard this all day, that Bill C-88 is a remake of a piece of Conservative legislation that received royal assent in 2014 and then faced a court challenge. Bill C-88 still incorporates many of the changes the Conservative legislation made with respect to new environmental enforcement powers and requiring project proponents to cover the cost of the review process. However, it did not carry the weight of a carbon tax, which the current government wants to bring to northern Canada.

The concern from industry, obviously, about the added carbon tax cost and all the new federal environmental red tape, combined with the lack of infrastructure, is that it already costs a lot more to develop a project in the north compared to any temperate location. With the new Liberal regulatory costs, the high business taxes, the carbon tax that is coming in and charging for the cost of the review process, we might as well take out an ad in Bloomberg News saying, “Canada's north is definitely closed for business.”

This is not an overreaction. Let me share some of the testimony from Brendan Marshall, vice-president of economic and northern affairs for the Mining Association of Canada. He said:

Currently, domestic legislative and regulatory processes with implications for project permitting and costs persist, while recent supply chain failures have damaged Canada's reputation as a reliable trade partner. Further, recent tax reform in the U.S. has significantly enhanced that jurisdiction's investment competitiveness over Canada's.

We certainly have echoed that for the past number of months. The tax changes made in the United States are eating corporate Canada. Mr. Marshall continued:

The impact of this uncertainty has been felt by Canada's mining industry, where investment has dropped more than 50%, or $68 billion, since 2014, amid a strong price rebound for many commodities over the last three years.

I will read a few more quotes from evidence at our committee meetings in the last month or two. The hon. Wally Schumann, Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment and Minister of Infrastructure for the Government of the Northwest Territories, said in our meeting:

The Northwest Territories is home to many of the minerals that will fuel the global green economy, including cobalt, gold, lithium...and rare earth elements. Alongside our mineral resources, our territory has significant energy power potential. As we continue our shift to low-carbon alternatives, our hydro development has the potential to meet market needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions....

Despite our enormous economic potential and strong indigenous partners, the Northwest Territories is still hindered, in that we still require much of the basic infrastructure that already exists in southern jurisdictions. This includes roads to which many of our communities do not have access. In partnership with Canada, we need to continue to build territorial and community infrastructure to support healthy and prosperous communities and to lower the cost of living [that we are seeing today in northern Canada].

However, Bill C-88 would not provide any of that. Merven Gruben, the mayor of the hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, said:

It's kind of déjà vu. In 2012, I was invited to come here and speak to a panel as well. I think it was just about the same people, or the same panel. We did such a good presentation in the fall of 2012, that in February 2013 our friend Mr. Flaherty—rest in peace—announced in the budget that we were going to get $199 million for our highway. That was the beginning of our Tuk-Inuvik highway. I don't know why we call it Tuk-Inuvik highway. I like to call it the highway to Tuk. It's just the finishing off of the Dempster Highway, the Diefenbaker highway. That's what it should be, the road to resources.

Anyway, we got this highway built, and unbelievably, this year we had 5,000 people come to Tuk—5,000 tourists. On a good year, we maybe get about 2,500....It's just a total game-changer.

Mr. Gruben went on to say:

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change compared to when you work in oil and gas and you're used to that kind of living. Our people are used to that. We're not used to selling trinkets and T-shirts and that kind of stuff....We're sitting on trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. It's right under our feet, yet we're shipping diesel and gasoline from far away.

This just does not make any sense at all.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the more troubling aspects of the bill is, specifically, the proposed amendments to the CPRA, which will authorize the Governor in Council to issue an order when, in the national interest, prohibiting existing exploration licence and significant discovery licence holders from carrying out any oil and gas activities.

What company would invest its shareholders' money to develop an oil or gas deposit when there is a possibility that the government could come in at any time and shut it down? What exactly do we mean by the “national interest”? There is no explanation. Perhaps an example or two of what the Liberals mean by that would certainly clarify it.

The mandate letter of the sponsor of the bill reads in part:

As Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, your goal will be to implement national commitments and priorities that depend on strong relationships with other orders of government, creating good middle class jobs, growing the economy, and advocating for and achieving improved trade between provinces and territories. You will also work to address the needs and priorities of Northerners.

Bill C-88 certainly stifles the creation of good, middle-class jobs. It would not grow the economy at all. It certainly would not address the needs and priorities of northern Canadians. It is going to be very difficult for the residents of the north to attract resource development companies when they do not have the needed infrastructure, and the onerous tax burdens and regulatory hoops they have to jump through.

We have talked in committee about infrastructure in northern aboriginal communities. We have talked about transportation, energy and telecommunications. On transportation alone, due to the lack of efficient transportation systems, costly workarounds must be developed.

The government must know that it really cannot have it both ways. It cannot attract investment in Canada, in particular in the north, where its penchant for taxes and onerous rules and regulations live on. We have seen this time and again in the country. Now northern Canada is feeling the wrath of the Liberals.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I think a couple of the member's colleagues said that they supported indigenous self-government, controlling one's own destiny.

The Sahtu and the Tlicho have self-governing modern treaties. I wonder if the member supports that.

While he is thinking of the answer, to show their support, all the MPs in the House are invited by Chief Roberta Joseph from Dawson City to the AFN reception, second floor of the Westin Hotel, to protect the Porcupine caribou herd, starting in half an hour. If they cannot make that, I will invite everyone in the House, and in fact in the country, to come to Yukon Day tomorrow, at 5:30 p.m., at 228 Valour Building.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the invitation. Unfortunately, tonight we have some votes in the House of Commons, so we cannot make the reception, but we will be there tomorrow on behalf of the Conservative Party.

It is interesting, because when we look at Bill C-88, it consists of two parts. Part 1 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which was initially passed under the Chrétien Liberals back in 1998, 20 years ago. Of course it was amended by our former Conservative government within Bill C-15, for which the Liberals, who were third party back in 2014, voted.

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

Madam Speaker, frequently the Liberals in their speeches have talked about the importance of consultation and engagement and working together in partnership.

I wonder how my colleague would describe the Prime Minister, while he was in Washington, making a grand statement about a moratorium on oil and gas in the Beaufort, giving a 20 minute notice to territorial governments and having no conversation at all. It was a decision that impacted across the north and without one word of consultation.

Could the member comment on the way the Liberals have said glowingly how much importance they put on consultation and working in partnership?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, that day will go down as one of the worst days in Canadian Parliament history, the Prime Minister announcing a moratorium in northern Canada, with the announcement being made with an outgoing president of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

How would the members feel if they were northerners, getting a phone call 20 minutes before the announcement was to be made that there would be a moratorium on oil and gas where they live? They can sell a t-shirt for $7.99 and a few trinkets, but these northerners want jobs and they want to be a part of the middle class in the country. That was just a stab in the back when the Prime Minister made the announcement, not in this country but with the president of the United States.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, there is an injunction about that particular clause that is being changed by the courts, that the Sahtu and the Tlicho brought before the government to get changed. They want the boards changed back to the way it was negotiated in their land claims.

Does the member have a comment on whether that clause is a good idea?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, back in 2014, the Conservative government tried to reduce government. In the country we have seen a lot of obstruction in oil and gas. This was the issue back then. We had so many water boards and so many other boards up there, that we tried to condense it down to one that could deal with the situation. It probably hurt a few people's feelings.

However, at the end of the day, look at what we see in Alberta, the announcement yesterday by the Premier of Alberta, reducing oil capacity in that province. We watched the Liberal government buy a pipeline for $4.5 billion that we did not need to buy. The company in charge took the money, and it is now doing very good business in the state of Texas.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always good to speak in the House and on an issue about which I am passionate, northern Canada.

Bill C-15, which we have heard referenced a number of times, was legislation of which I was very proud to have been a part. I was part of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We spent a lot of quality time in the Northwest Territories talking to people about making government work better for the people of the Northwest Territories. That is what Bill C-15 did. It devolved powers from Ottawa to the territories, something for which the Northwest Territories had been fighting and asking for decades. That is what our government delivered.

This bill, Bill C-88, basically formalizes in law one of the most egregious slaps in the face I think I have ever witnessed as an elected representative.

The Prime Minister went to Washington, D.C., to see his friend Barack Obama off. He had already termed out. He was in the lame duck portion of his presidency. The Prime Minister decided that it would be a good going away present to put a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Beaufort Sea in the Northwest Territories and he did it without consulting.

The current government likes to talk about consulting with indigenous people. However, when the rubber hits the road, it could not care less what the indigenous people of the country think unless it goes along with its preconceived notion of what it wants to do as a government. We saw that with the moratorium. We saw it as well with the northern gateway pipeline, where the Aboriginal Equity Partners, a group of 31 indigenous communities, had a $2 billion opportunity staring them in the face. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government shut that down with the stroke of a pen. Again, they did it from Ottawa.

When it comes to the Liberals, Ottawa always knows best and when it comes to indigenous peoples and the Liberals, Ottawa always knows best. We saw that with the moratorium and the northern gateway pipeline. They feel they have no obligation to consult when it comes to the economic opportunities they rip away from indigenous communities. They ripped away opportunities from the Aboriginal Equity Partners. They again ripped away opportunities from northerners with this moratorium.

The member for Northwest Territories said that there was no oil and gas development happening there. Is that any surprise? Why would any company invest its hard-earned dollars in a jurisdiction when a government, with 20 minutes notice, can shut the whole thing down? In the case of the northern gateway pipeline, there was three-quarters of a billion dollars of private company investment and the government shut it down with the stroke of a pen, ripping away $2 billion of economic opportunity from a group of aboriginal communities in a region of the country that has very little other economic opportunity.

What was the reaction from the northerners when this was done? The Northwest Territories premier, Bob McLeod, said very clearly, “The promise of the North is fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we see a re-emergence of colonialism.” He was talking about the approach of the Prime Minister and the government, with its colonial approach, shutting down development because it would play well with Barack Obama, the green lobby and southern Canada. They did not care at all what the reality would be in the north.

The premier also stated, “We shouldn't have to stop our own development so the rest of Canada can feel better.” He went on to say, “We need jobs. We need work. You want us to leave the North because we can't work there. You want us to live in a large park. That's essentially what's happened.”

The Premier of the Northwest Territories gets exactly what the Prime Minister is trying to do, which is to make the Northwest Territories, Canada's north in general, Nunavut and Yukon, into a great protected space, where Ottawa will just keep sending up the money and the northerners will not have the ability to control their own natural resources and destiny. That is what Bill C-15 did. It gave control of the north to those who lived there, to the northerners. It brought into line the regulatory processes and regime with what was happening in the rest of Canada.

In a way, I guess Bill C-88 would do the same thing. The Liberal government brought in Bill C-69, which will devastate and kill resource development in this country. Everyone in the industry says so. Everyone in oil and gas knows that Bill C-69 will devastate them. The entire province of Alberta, from the NDP to the United Conservative Party and all points in between are saying that Bill C-69 has to be removed. The government must repeal Bill C-69, or at least pause it.

The Liberals say, “We know best. We are the federal government.” Here in Ottawa, in their wisdom, even though the price of oil is now down to $10 a barrel, a price differential of $50 between a barrel on the world market and what Albertan oil companies can sell it for, in their wisdom the Liberals say that is not a problem and that their hearts go out to them.

With Bill C-88, they are saying that since Bill C-69 devastated the resource economy in the rest of Canada, they need to partner it with legislation specific to the north, which would be Bill C-88, and would prevent oil and gas development in that region. What these Liberals do not seem to understand is that when capital investment is driven away, it does not simply turn around on a dime and come back when the moratorium might be lifted some day in the future.

It is the same as we have seen in Alberta. When these companies pack up and leave, when they are driven out of the country by government policies, as they have been by the Liberal government, they do not simply turn around and come back with their billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs on a whim. It will take decades to repair the damage the government has done in three short years. It will take decades to build back the capacity and investor confidence that has evaporated since the Liberal government has taken office.

Why has it evaporated? The government has taken the processes in place and politicized them for its own gains. The Liberals have said, “We do not care that the National Energy Board has conducted an independent two-year long, $750-million investigation of the northern gateway pipeline, with 209 conditions placed upon it. We do not care about that because we know best. We are going to cancel that pipeline. We are going to make it impossible for the energy east pipeline to go ahead. We are going to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, just park it and see what happens in a few years after the next election.”

Companies have abandoned this country in the billions of dollars and in the tens of thousands of workers. This legislation is just another example of that sort of philosophy where Ottawa knows best. The government certainly thinks it knows best when it comes to indigenous communities. Bob McLeod and many others in the north have said to the government, “We earn our living with oil and gas revenues. We work in these industries, and you are taking away opportunity from our people.” However, the Liberal government does not believe it needs to talk to those people who actually support resource development. It believes it only needs to talk to people who support the Liberal government's agenda.

When I hear the Prime Minister say that there is no relationship more important than that with Canada's indigenous people, his record proves it is simply untrue. With certain indigenous people, the ones who agree with him, he is very into maintaining that relationship. However, for those who disagree with the Prime Minister, or those who have an agenda and want to pursue economic development for their people, the Prime Minister does not have to consult with them, because Ottawa knows best. That is what this legislation is, an Ottawa-knows-best, made-in-southern-Canada solution for northerners.

It is unlike our previous government, which wanted to see the north thrive. We wanted to promote northern sovereignty. We wanted to promote devolution of powers to northerners because they know best how to govern themselves. They do not need a prime minister going down to Washington, D.C., to tell them how to do it.

We will proudly vote against this legislation, and when we form government in 2019, we will work to rebuild the damage the Liberal government has done in this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat discouraging to hear the comments of my colleague across the way. Bill C-88 is before us today in good part because of the reaction to Bill C-15. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister of Canada, he completely disregarded what was being told to him regarding how best to manage land and water resources. Stephen Harper came up with his own way, and his way did not work. That is why we have Bill C-88 today.

Now the member opposite is convincing us as to why we have to ensure that the Conservatives do not get power again in the future. All they are saying today is that they want to go back to the Stephen Harper days. It is as if Stephen Harper has not even left the chamber. Stephen Harper is alive and well behind those curtains, possibly.

Why would the Conservative Party continue to follow Stephen Harper when we know Stephen Harper was wrong on this and even a court said so?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder if the hon. member gets a gold star in the Liberal lobby every time he says “Stephen Harper”. Perhaps he gets a bonus cheque of some sort every time he mentions the name “Stephen Harper”.

Bill C-15 was so egregious and outrageous that the member opposite was forced to stand in his place and vote in favour of it. That is what he thought of Bill C-15 then, and now it is a catastrophe that has to be undone today.

Bill C-15 clearly and specifically contemplated all of the boards that were mentioned in the modern land claims agreements. Those were signed, and they all contemplated one larger board, which is the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. All of that had been built into those agreements.

We had over 50 meetings with aboriginal groups in that territory, and we came forward with a plan that was going to work for northerners. The member opposite clearly does not care about that, because as I have said before, for him, Ottawa always knows best when it comes to the north.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Chilliwack—Hope brought up a very important observation. The government talks about having consultation after consultation, but when it considers a project that is going to actually help first nations and indigenous peoples, it does not seem to ask the questions. Whether it is the Eagle Spirit pipeline, the tanker moratorium or the drilling moratorium up in the north, the government follows a pattern. To me, this is a complete gap in the consultation process. Perhaps the member could comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government thought that consultation meant giving Premier Bob McLeod minutes' notice before the decision was made in Washington, D.C. by the Prime Minister. That was the level of consultation there.

I asked an Order Paper question about the northern gateway decision. I asked what consultations the government undertook before ripping away $2 billion in economic opportunity from 31 first nations and the Métis Nation. The answer was that it did none. The Liberals felt that they had no obligation. When they are taking away opportunity, they feel that they do not have to deal with those kinds of rights.

That is why the aboriginal equity partners said, “We are profoundly shocked and disappointed by the news that the Federal Government has no intention of pursuing any further consultation and dialogue with our communities”. That is the pattern of the Liberals. If people disagree with the government, it does not bother talking to them. The Liberals only want people to come to them if they agree with the Liberals to start with and will participate in their photo ops. However, those who disagree with the Liberals are irrelevant, and the Liberals will give them 20 minutes' notice and make a decision in Washington, D.C.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House to talk about Bill C-88, its effects and what it proposes to do in strengthening the relationship that we have with the locals who would be impacted by the legislation in the Northwest Territories.

I would also like to say that it is an honour to stand here recognizing that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I am proud to support a bill that would strengthen the relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples.

Today, we begin second reading of 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. I will use my time to focus primarily on the amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

The north is seeing the effects of climate change in a more significant and faster way than the rest of Canada. In fact, climate change in the north is occurring at twice the global rate as anywhere else that we are seeing. Scientists now predict that the north will be ice-free by 2040 as opposed to what they originally predicted which was 2100.

Climate change is having a profound impact on Canada's Arctic and the northern and indigenous peoples and communities. While some of the effects of climate change such as melting sea ice are creating economic opportunities, they are also creating new health and safety risks for northerners and negatively affecting core traditional lifestyles such as hunting and fishing.

It goes without saying that we are continually hearing more and more rhetoric coming from the Conservatives and the alt-right about how climate change is something that we cannot control and is something that we do not have the ability to really do anything about, that we just have to kind of accept it. There are those who now believe that climate change might actually be happening, but there is a whole host of others on the right who still do not accept it as reality. This is despite the fact that 99% of scientists are saying our climate is changing and a number almost equivalent to that are saying that mankind is creating that impact on our environment and it is only mankind that can actually stop it and reverse it.

To those who would suggest that climate change is something that we cannot control or that we should not believe the 97% of scientists who say it is man-made, I would offer to them if 97% of scientists or doctors came forward and said that someone had cancer, my guess is that most people would probably accept that and react in a way that they would do something about the diagnosis that they received.

It goes without saying that I am very puzzled that we are unable to exercise the same kind of judgment when we talk about climate change and the fact that there is such a worldwide cry out there with respect to what we need to be doing and doing now and acting now and changing our habits immediately so that we can have a lasting impact.

These changes are re-framing Canada's approach to the future development of Arctic offshore oil and gas in three ways.

One, climate change is changing the ecology and distribution of marine species which requires us to have a better understanding of what the risks are.

Two, climate change is altering the northern environment with more unpredictability in weather, ice and ocean behaviour. We need to better understand all of the factors influencing risks for workers and wildlife.

Three, we have to be sure that activities will be pursued responsibly. We want to strike the appropriate balance between economic opportunities and environmental protection. Development must be done in a way that respects and strengthens the reconciliation with indigenous peoples in the north.

I will take the opportunity now to comment briefly on the past 10 years. In the last couple of weeks, I have brought up the past government and its 10 years in power and how it was unable to accomplish anything when it came to our national resource development, in particular oil.

It is not because I do not think the Conservatives had the right intentions. They wanted to develop the resources, but their approach went in a direction that made it virtually impossible for them to develop those resources and get them to new markets.

Stephen Harper did a very good job of touting how the oil industry was going to be a super economic powerhouse for Canada and that we would distribute oil to free markets by getting it to access points for delivery to those markets. The problem is that in the process of doing that, he continually bullied his way through when dealing with environmental movements, climate change experts and indigenous communities throughout the country. He continually and systematically did things, such as bringing in Bill C-15, that were held up because they were dragged through the courts and because various other measures were taken to slow down the government's ability to open up our resources to new markets.

Essentially, while Stephen Harper was touting that this was going to be the next biggest thing in the Canadian economy, he was painting a huge target on the back of the industry, because he was undermining all of the processes and various players that would contribute to the discussion and the regulations to be developed in a responsible way. Our government, however, is doing the latter. That is what we saw with the moratorium and the legislation that came out of it. There was a massive amount of consultation with indigenous communities, and with respect to science and the rule of law, so that when something actually comes into play and new opportunities to explore natural resources occur, it can be done in a responsible way that respects the processes and the various players involved. That is something that Stephen Harper failed to do, but this government is doing it, and that why there is progress.

I respect the fact that the Conservatives are upset time and time again about the economy and how resources are being delivered and with the new approach of our government. Quite frankly, if I had been in their position for 10 years of inaction and then started to see real, tangible change happen in a way that would positively impact our economy and our relationships with scientists and indigenous communities, yes, I would be upset too if I were in their position, because they were unable to do anything about it and now they are seeing that there might be a process to move forward on this. What is their default reaction? It is to be obstructionist. They come here and tout that the way this is being handled is not going to produce any tangible results, but I guess time will tell.

Seven years from now, when we Liberals get to the end of our 10-year run, matching their 10-year run, we will have an opportunity to look back and see how effective we were over a 10-year period versus how effective they were. I would add that after 10 years, we will likely go for another 10 after that in an encore performance, so to speak, because the Canadian people understand it. They buy it and believe in the processes we are putting in place. They believe that a government should not to bully its way through various processes in government but make sure that it is consulting and bringing all players together, which is what this bill attempts to do and has done to get here.

I am aware of the importance of oil and gas activities to the economic prosperity and the social well-being of Canada. We recognize the important potential they have to strengthen Canada's economy in the north. However, acting in haste would be irresponsible and could cause permanent damage to our oceans and communities.

In 2016, the Prime Minister affirmed that commercial activities in the Arctic would occur only if the highest safety and environmental standards were met and if they were consistent with our climate and environmental goals. At least we have something to measure that against because we are taking the initiative to say what our plan is as it relates to the environment.

The Conservatives are going to complain about this all day long, saying that we have to do more to open the oil and gas sector, that we have to continue to make sure we can exploit the resources that we have, but at the same time, they have absolutely nothing to say when it comes to how they are going to protect the environment. As a matter of fact, their leader was asked that at the beginning of 2018, and he said they would be bringing forward their plan really soon. It has been almost 12 months since, and they still have virtually no plan.

I hear members of the Conservative Party laughing at this and heckling. They can put my rhetoric, if they claim that is what it is, to sleep by just standing up when the time comes in about nine minutes and tell us their plan for the environment. What would they do to properly protect the environment? I would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am going to pause for a second. I am sure some members are just talking so that the person next to them can hear them, but their voices carry very well and interrupt everything. I would just remind those with the strong voices to tone it down and not to face the member who has the floor, but maybe face the person next to them when they talk to them so that that person can hear them and not all the rest of us. Then we can concentrate on the member speaking.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for sticking up for me there. Do not worry. I have to deal with it all the time, so I am completely content with it. However, I do respect your desire to maintain decorum in the chamber.

As I was saying, I would absolutely love to hear what the Conservative plan is when it comes to the environment. I know that they want to “protect it” because that sounds really good and makes them feel good, but why do they not tell us what they are going to do to protect our environment? I can almost guarantee that they will not. In seven or eight minutes from now when it is time for them to get up and ask questions, they will stand up, but they will not tell us what they are going to do to protect our environment, other than not to worry because their leader has a plan.

I have laid out what the Prime Minister has done to bring forward safety and environmental standards when making these decisions. We have to respect the fact that these are important decisions. By strengthening and modernizing our regulatory regime, we can ensure as a government that these principles underpin resource development in the north.

The bill's proposed amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are part of this modernization. This is not the first time we have come before the chamber to do this. It has happened in the past while debating an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act. During third reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said that we needed robust processes in place that would protect our rich natural environment, respect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and support a strong Canadian natural resources sector

This bill before the House today aims to do the same thing: to protect the environment, respect indigenous rights and support the natural resources economy. It will also provide the foundation for partnership and future collaboration. We know we can do all of these things if we take the right approach, which I previously talked about and the government is committed to doing in so many different processes than just this bill.

I will now speak more briefly to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and what the proposed amendments would do to it. In short, they would allow us to carefully assess the prospects of Arctic offshore resource development in the context of a changing environment, and enable the government to freeze existing licences held by companies wanting to explore for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea. This change complements the halt to the issuance of new licenses announced in 2016 and allows for a thorough evaluation of the current science around climate change and the effects on oceans so that we can best determine the next steps for Arctic offshore oil and gas.

The Government of Canada will undertake this review with our northern partners, including Arctic indigenous groups and territorial governments. This means that any decisions will be steered by those most affected. This approach supports seven-generation thinking, which is an indigenous principle meaning that actions should be taken only when we have thought through the consequences for people seven generations into the future. This is critical in the context of climate change and the kind of planet we are going to leave our grandchildren.

On that note, I want to take a moment to reaffirm our government's commitment to the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This means that the government will support and collaborate with indigenous and northern communities and territorial governments as they take action on climate change.

Budgets 2016 and 2017 provided over $220 million for new programs under the pan-Canadian framework. To date, these investments have supported hundreds of projects in northern and indigenous communities for marine life monitoring studies, coastal erosion and glacial melt impact assessments, and initiatives for communities to explore wind and solar power alternatives to offset the use of diesel fuel. The funding is also being used to help indigenous peoples participate in policy discussions on climate change. This bill is consistent with critical efforts to understand, mitigate and adapt to climate change. The point is that when dealing with the Arctic, we are dealing with societies as well as ecosystems.

Taking a step back, with no proposed amendments in the bill, enables us to look at the big picture including our interconnectedness and vulnerability as humans in a rapidly changing world. This is why I support Bill C-88 as it relates to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and I encourage all members to do the same.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his speech.

The member talked a lot about climate change. We do recognize climate change but the way to address it is quite different from the Liberal side. As we know, the Liberal side would like to impose the Liberal carbon tax from coast to coast to coast. This is not the way to do it, as far as we are concerned. We have to help the big polluters to make less emissions. That is our view.

Let us look at the facts. As we know, the Province of Quebec has the cap-and-trade system. It has been working since 2013. Therefore, we have experience. Based on the Quebec experience, what is the result? Five days ago, the Premier of Quebec, the hon. Francois Legault, tabled a document that proves the result of cap and trade under Liberal policy.

Do members think we have a decrease in pollution? No, there is not. Do they think there is a light decrease in pollution? No, there is not. Do they think there is zero effect on pollution with cap and trade? No, there is not. The result is an increase of pollution with cap and trade, based on the facts in Quebec.

How can the member explain that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question did not say what the the Conservatives were going to do. All he said was that they believe in climate change. Then he went on to say that he criticized this government's approach to it, and then that they want to help the big polluters make less emissions. Everybody wants to do that. That is a nice visionary statement, but it does not speak to what they would actually do. I would propose to the member that is exactly what a price on pollution does. It is going to help that.

If the member would like to provide an example of what the Conservatives would actually do, that would be really nice to hear, but all he did was criticize the effort of this government and various other governments without proposing an actual solution as to what they would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly interesting to listen to the member as he tries to weave through some tangential brush with the truth in his discussion.

We take a look at the sorts of things that the Liberals have said. The member for Labrador, in 2014, said:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

I was fortunate enough to be able to go into the north as I was with aboriginal affairs. We went through with northern development discussions. I know how important it was to those members that we met with to talk about the opportunity for them to actually deal with the development in their own regions.

I read part B and heard the members who eloquently mentioned how this was going to work with the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, but then we think about what actually is being said. It is going to prohibit oil and gas activity, freeze the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expiring during a moratorium; and then we have the Province of Alberta and everyone else that is involved with oil and gas saying that they have to get rid of that moratorium.

I am just wondering if the member is going to push as hard to get rid of the moratorium, so that we do not have to worry about that particular injunction, as he seems to be pushing for some of the other things he has commented on.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attempt to inform me about what a particular member in the House said five years ago. I am not exactly sure that it relates to the content of what I had to say.

However, I will say that Bill C-15, which was brought in by Stephen Harper, was found by the courts to have significant flaws with it.

What this government has done with this particular piece of legislation is do the proper consultation from a scientific perspective and from a relationship perspective with indigenous communities. It has gone through the processes to make sure that everything is done properly so that when we do come back to the table it is done in a way that we are not bullying our way through particular industries or groups, and that it is done in a consultative way with everybody. That is exactly what we are seeing in the results of Bill C-88 today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and ask a question of my colleague with regard to Bill C-88, and thank him for his support and endorsement of the bill.

It is evident what is happening in the House. The Conservatives realize that in passing the devolution agreement for the Northwest Territories, which all Canadians supported at the time and support today, they had also passed legislation that was unilaterally supported by the Conservative Harper government. It was imposed upon indigenous people in the Northwest Territories and the indigenous government. Since that day, they have been asking that this legislation be amended, and went to the court to do so. They won their case in the court, but even then the Conservative Harper government continued to appeal that decision.

I know my colleague will agree, but for the record, I would like to ask him if the process that our government has taken in removing this from the courts, a process of dialogue and respect for indigenous people, is the right process.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the right process. It is a process that this government has been taking, and a process that the previous government did not take.

This goes back to what I said during the emergency debate on the oil prices in Alberta, which I will reiterate. The reason why Stephen Harper was unable to get any meaningful changes done with respect to the natural resource industry is because he continually bullied his way through the process. Rather than actually try and work with the environmental groups, work with indigenous communities to get them on board and get consensus, he completely ignored them. He forced them to take him to court, which resulted in the decision from the court to put the brakes on Bill C-15. He painted a target on the back of the industry that he was supposedly trying to help and supposedly trying to grow economically.

However, this is a balanced approach that respects all of the players involved. This is exactly the way that not just the Liberal government should do it but any government in this House should do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really impressed with the focus we have in the House on first nations, indigenous, Métis and Inuit people, and on their love for the environment, their love for the outdoors, and their love for making sure that they take care of the land, their hunting and their fishing. We want to hear what their views are. At the same time, these people also want to go forward and make sure that they have the opportunity to succeed in Canada the way all of us do.

However, if they are so responsible for the land already, why is it that we cannot take that into account? Those same people are being shut down by the government, and their indigenous rights to engage in resource development are being stymied by the government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they are not, and that is the whole point of this proposed legislation, which was done in consultation with indigenous peoples and has been brought forward in a way that respects the process.

Our indigenous communities in Canada will have the opportunity to properly make sure that, when it comes time to making decisions around exploration, their views are respected, which is something that the Harper government failed to do. That is why we ended up in this place where the moratorium was put into place and this legislation effectively came forward after that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I am very proud to join my colleagues and speak in full support of Bill C-88. The Prime Minister has stated that no relationship is more important to our government and, indeed, to Canada than the one with our indigenous peoples. I am proud of what we have done to make this commitment real, and that we are continuing to strive to fulfill it with bills such as the one that we have before us today.

Our government is dedicated to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in the true spirit of reconciliation, but this requires real work. One of the key elements in achieving true reconciliation is meaningful consultation. Canada is committed to following the principles laid out by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Furthermore, our Constitution protects indigenous and treaty rights. When those rights may be impacted, Canada must engage in consultation with indigenous peoples. This is not an option. It is a legal obligation. That is only the starting point.

We have reached a moment in our country's history where we are making deep foundational changes to the way that we approach our relationships with indigenous peoples. These changes must be reflected in legislation that we enact here in this place. The only way forward to build a better future for all is by working together in the spirit of respect, recognition of rights, collaboration and partnership.

We are committed to restoring trust and further strengthening our relationship with our indigenous partners in the Northwest Territories by supporting the integrated co-management regime for land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley. That is what we are discussing tonight.

We needed to restore this trust after the previous government ignored their duty to consult, and were therefore found to have violated their obligations as partners. We need to ensure that the management of our natural resources is done in a way that respects the inherent and treaty rights of indigenous peoples.

Through Bill C-88, we can ensure sustainable resource development while at the same time also protecting the long-term health and well-being of the environment. This proposed legislation was created in the spirit of reconciliation, meant to help to renew the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in the Northwest Territories through mutual respect and co-operation.

It is our responsibility to foster and support meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples in order to reach consensus with governments, with industry, and in fact with all Canadians.

This is not always a quick or an easy process, but we cannot, under any circumstances, repeat the harmful mistakes of the past, and that past goes back a long way. For centuries, indigenous people were ostracized and excluded from decision-making processes. Indigenous governments, leaders and communities did not have a say in what happened to their people or their traditional territories. We need to change that.

This disturbing legacy has held indigenous people back for far too long. It has excluded them from fully engaging in Canada's economy and sharing in the abundance of our country's wealth, both our natural wealth and our economic wealth. This bill is a small step to give indigenous groups their voices back.

Bill C-88 is a direct response to the concerns of indigenous organizations and governments respecting the legislative and regulatory framework flowing from their constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements. While previous governments ignored these concerns, we know that in working collaboratively, we can reach a better result.

The amendments proposed by the bill respect the integrity of the land claim agreements that the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories entered into with good faith.

We have heard loud and clear from our indigenous partners that the dissolution of the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho land and water boards by the previous Conservative government denied indigenous groups their hard-won rights. This has been stated by the courts. We also heard from them that this directly contravened their land claims agreements, which include the creation and management of these boards.

Reconciliation is not an empty word to our government. Action must follow words to move forward and work toward real and lasting positive change in the relationship between Canada and our indigenous peoples.

The bill proposes to reverse board restructuring and to reintroduce the other regulatory amendments. Simply put, indigenous peoples have the right to oversee how their lands are used and to share in the wealth. These amendments would result in a better process for all parties involved. They would remove uncertainty for groups from the mining, oil and gas industries and other investors wanting to begin new projects in these areas.

Businesses need certainty to move forward. They do not need to know that things are going to change on the road ahead. We need to do the work up front to make sure that all areas are covered.

Bill C-88 would integrate the perspectives of indigenous peoples in the future uses of land and water on their territories. It would include and incorporate indigenous views and perspectives in any decision-making on land and resources.

We must work together to improve the quality of life for indigenous peoples in Canada, and key to achieving this goal is indigenous control over indigenous lands. To protect the integrity of land claims agreements and treaty rights, the importance of engagement and consultation must be respected.

The Gwich'in, Sahtu and Wek'èezhii made it clear that they wanted their voices heard and their rights acknowledged and respected. The bill would ensure that they would continue to have a say in what happens to the lands and water they preside over and have presided over for centuries.

True reconciliation cannot occur until indigenous governments and organizations are fully included in the management of land and resources in the north. We need to bring the voices of indigenous people into this process to have a broader and more complete view of the future of Canada's natural resources. As the Prime Minister has said, “Together, we can build a world where the rights of Indigenous peoples are respected, where their voices are honoured, and where their communities thrive.”

The bill we are debating today would ensure that the unique perspective of indigenous organizations, leaders and communities were heard and listened to. I urge all my colleagues today to recognize the importance of incorporating an indigenous perspective in the future decision-making of our natural resources sector and to support this important legislation.

It is a new way of looking at things. We are changing the order of how we work together with indigenous people, and that really involves a new way of approaching legislation, such as we see in Bill C-88. It also includes some painful redoing of legislation that did not meet the mark of our future relationship or respect the rights of indigenous people.

That is where we find ourselves today. Bill C-88 would take us down a new road with our northern indigenous neighbours. It is a road that is going to be good for them, good for us and good for the land we all share.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member opposite. In this case, however, the legislation is completely wrong. It is an extension of the terrible mess we see in resource development around the country, and certainly in western Canada.

There are discussions about the environment. When I look at the global aspect, there has to be a relationship. If the oil, gas, minerals and so on are shut down in Canada, they are going to be produced somewhere else. That is the issue I have.

The product we have is produced in the most environmentally effective way. We have good corporate citizens who make sure that they pay taxes to help us build schools and hospitals and have targeted programs throughout the world, not ones we pick up on Twitter. These are the sorts of things we should be doing.

The Liberals opposite have to understand the damage that is happening because of this. I am wondering if the hon. member could talk about the aspect of global emissions and compare Canada's role to what is going to replace it, as the rest of the world fills in for us.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have not agreed on a few things at committee. Usually it has had to do with resource management, a price on pollution and how we can help restore the land we have poked holes in and put pollution above and the waters we have contaminated over the years, things indigenous people have watched us do and have had no control over.

I have travelled in northern Canada extensively, working in mines, in resource development and on hydro resources. They are not going anywhere. That is our land. We cannot transfer our minerals from Canada to other countries for other countries to mine. It is up to us to do that sustainably. It is up to us to work with our local indigenous leaders and indigenous communities to make sure that we are not polluting their water and ruining their air and that together we can create sustainable development in our north. We have to do it together.

In the previous Bill C-15, we saw that the Conservative government worked on jamming four land and water agreements into one without consulting or working on a way forward. That was the old way of doing things, and it did not work. We did not get resources developed, at the end of the day. We have to work together. It is painful for some of my colleagues, but we need a new way of doing business in Canada.

[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.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservative Party is going to, nationally, make comments that it will do whatever it can to disrupt the House of Commons to ensure that the government cannot advance the mandate it was provided by Canadians, yes, I will use the limited tools I have available to ensure that we show up to work and advance legislation that will make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

That member made a fairly rich comment just now with regard to an emergency debate. There have now been two opportunities when the opposition could have raised an emergency debate request. Last Friday, not a single Conservative stood up during the rubric under Routine Proceedings for an emergency debate, and no one asked for it. Members know that it would be a decision for the Speaker to rule on. Today, once again, the Conservatives chose to stand up under Motions rather than stand up under Request for Emergency Debate.

For the Conservatives, the issue is not an emergency, and that is exactly why they asked no questions in question period, yet they are making a mockery of the system by thinking it is a light issue. It is a serious issue when it comes to our farmers. Canola is a serious matter. The government will respond.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, we keep seeing this happening with the Liberals, who shut down debate and then speak to the content of the bill we would all like to be debating here.

What is the whole point of this bill we are supposed to be debating, except that the Liberals would rather shut down debate? It is about giving a voice to people What is the purpose of shutting down the debate? It is to take away the voice of people.

I regret the day my former colleague Dennis Bevington was not re-elected. Why? It is because we never hear a voice for the north in this place anymore. All the representatives of the north are either Liberals or, now, an independent. It is very sad. In the previous term I was in office, we spoke regularly in this place about the north and the need for the protection of the resources and the protection of the environment and particularly about giving a voice to the people of the north. Contrary to what is being expressed by the Conservatives, that is exactly what they did in their bill. They shut down those local voices.

I would prefer that we spend the time in the House talking about the need to give a voice to northerners instead of debating another shutdown of voices for democracy.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, if that member has the permission of her leadership, because I am sure she will not get to speak on her own, she will have plenty of time today to actually debate this important legislation.

When it comes to Bill C-88, it is important to note that it is the result of co-operative, conciliatory discussions that resulted in an agreement to repeal the restructuring provisions in the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. The Government of the Northwest Territories supports these amendments. Indigenous governments and organizations in the Northwest Territories want these amendments. The mining industry that conducts its business in the territory has indicated its support for these changes.

These conversations and discussions have taken place. It is northerners, it is the Northwest Territories, who are asking us to move quickly on this legislation. If that member wants to talk about it, she will have plenty of time today to talk about it. Northerners need action. They need this legislation to go to committee so that we can act. Enough with the talking. Let us move this legislation along. The opposition needs to stop playing games. Let us get to work.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. government House leader will know that being in the position of the Green Party in this Parliament means that we are not part of the discussion.

I sympathize with her concern that we do not have goodwill in planning expediting legislation in this place. However, I really must protest that we cannot continually have time allocation. The debates on bills are shut down far too often.

I support this legislation. I think it is important to get it through the House. However, on the use of time allocation, and I know the member just referred to her having limited tools, a government in this place with the majority of the seats has the ultimate tools all the time. It is very frustrating for members in positions such as mine and for other members who are not part of the two larger opposition parties to try to have our voices heard on legislation.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that we should not have to use time allocation. Everyone knows that when I need to use time allocation, I do it with sincere regret, because I would rather find a way forward. I can assure the member that we will do our best to accommodate her to ensure that her voice is heard in this place.

I can speak to the efforts we have made with many members who are not considered recognized parties in this place to ensure that they can represent their constituents. Whenever we are able to share some of the time provided to us, I am more than willing to do that. I agree that the member should be able to be on the record. She represents her constituents, like everyone else. I will do my best to ensure that she is given that opportunity.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have come to this situation in this place. Bill C-88 is yet another anti-energy policy the Liberals are trying to bring in. They are driving investment out of Canada's north. Just like Bill C-69, Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas extraction by expanding the power of cabinet to block economic development and add to the increasing levels of red tape, hampering investment in the north.

I was at the AME Roundup in Vancouver a few months ago and spoke with numerous mining professionals and people inside the mining and oil and gas extraction industries. They are quite frustrated with the Liberals' plan to take power from the people of northern Canada, in the Northwest Territories in particular. Making the Northwest Territories basically a part is not a way to solve the issues of economic development in Canada's north.

The people spoke loud and clear at that conference. I would like to hear the Liberals' plan for solving the poverty rates in the Northwest Territories if they are actually hampering the industry that could provide jobs, opportunity and wealth.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that it is unfortunate that we have to use these tools. I would encourage the member to perhaps talk to his leadership team to find a better way forward. Let us also understand why we are where we are today.

It was the previous Conservative government, with its rush to weaken environmental reviews and trample on land claims and indigenous governments, that, overall, put a cloud of uncertainty over the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories. The Conservatives added a few extra clauses to the Northwest Territories Devolution Act in 2014 to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. These changes were made to restructure the land and water boards. What they meant by “restructure” was eliminating the regional panels that had been in place and effective for years and that are a significant component of indigenous participation.

The member talks about participation. The Conservatives did whatever they could to bring in a concept of super-boards to take those rights away. They were challenged in court, and they lost. We were elected. We did not appeal that decision, because we knew it was the wrong approach. Therefore, we are trying to correct that.

It is important that we move forward on this bill as quickly as possible to bring clarity to environmental assessment processes in the Northwest Territories for those wanting to benefit from economic opportunities in the north, including indigenous peoples and all northerners. This brings the clarity—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the question I asked earlier that the government House leader has not responded to. I must say that I find the tone the government House leader is adopting in the House to be very disrespectful. All members of Parliament have a responsibility to stand up for their constituents. Whether we are Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, Bloc members or independents, we all have the best interests of the country in mind. The government House leader casting aspersions on all members of Parliament I find completely inappropriate.

I asked earlier why the Liberal government is not supporting the amendments the NDP wanted to bring forward to have references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to include intervenor funding. These are things that have been sent forward. The Liberal government, to date, has absolutely refused to entertain them, and the use of closure today indicates, unfortunately, a trend to try to ram this through committee.

Will the government support these amendments, yes or no?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am on the record numerous times in the House, as well as outside the House, saying that I have a lot of respect not only for this place but for all members of Parliament. I recognize and acknowledge that all member of Parliament have the best interests of their constituents and the country at heart. Whether I agree or not, I believe that when people make decisions, they do so in the belief that those decisions are in the best interests of the country. I have always said that, and I will continue to say that.

I do not need it to be mansplained to me. It is unfortunate that the member does not like my tone. It is my voice. I work hard for my constituents in the same way I am sure he and every member of Parliament does.

That member should take partial responsibility for our being in this situation. He and the opposition House leader do not want to find a way forward on legislation. They have publicly stated that they will do whatever they can to disrupt the work we are doing in the House, because they do not want to see us advance legislation.

This legislation is at second reading. It will be debated all day today, and then it will go to committee, where committee will be able to look at it.

This legislation would undo the restructuring the Conservatives brought in. That needs to be corrected. That is what northerners are asking for. That is what the people of the Northwest Territories are asking for. We have committed to getting it done. We would like to find a way forward. Unfortunately, the NDP is not willing to provide it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise frustrated by the responses of the government House leader. She is trying to tell Canadians why we are in this situation right now. The reason we are here is that we have a government that, instead of doing the work it is supposed to be doing, is obsessed with its scandals and selfies.

This government is actually one of the worst functioning governments since the 1920s. The Liberals are not working with anyone. They are not getting any of the legislation that is important to Canadians put through. They are shutting down debate once more on a very important bill.

Regardless of what the House leader is saying, let us look at the facts. Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of calls from the elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources by giving the federal cabinet the ability to block oil and gas projects. These are key economic activities in the north. This top-down, paternalistic action of the Liberal government would do nothing to reduce poverty in the north.

This is just another sign that the Liberal government is obsessed with what it feels is important: the selfies and the scandals that are going on. Canadians expect us to debate bills in the House, debate them for northerners, so we can get some economic activity and decreased poverty in the north.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments have just confirmed that he has not read the bill and is not aware of what we are debating right now. This legislation would increase local autonomy. It would give back what the Conservatives tried so hard to take away.

The member talks about poverty and all these factors. Let the record once again show that since this government came into office, close to 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty because of the tax-free Canada child benefit, which the Conservatives voted against. Over 800,000 Canadians have now been lifted out of poverty.

I recognize that there is definitely a lot more work to do. That member represents a community that is going through challenging times. We want to be able to provide support. These are the kinds of programs that actually provide those supports.

We have an economy today that has created 900,000 jobs. Canadians have those jobs because of our investments. Every single investment we have made, the Conservatives have voted against. Conservative members take quite literally their job as the opposition. Their job is to hold the government to account. That does not mean they have to oppose every single thing, and that does not mean we cannot be productive.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, and it has become clear to me that the government House leader is talking exactly from the same page as the Prime Minister. They will not take responsibility for their actions.

The truth of the matter is that the Liberal government's agenda is to try to bring forward the work that needs to be done, and it has failed to do so. Who do the Liberals blame? They blame everyone else. In that process, they are exerting something they said they would not do during the 2015 election. I remember, because I was a new candidate at that time. They said that they would not copy the ways of Harper, that they would not shut down debate, yet time and time again they have shut down debate.

What is the NDP trying to do with respect to this legislation? We are trying to do something the government says is its top priority on the question around reconciliation. What do we want to see in the bill? We want to see amendments that recognize exactly that, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberals refuse to allow it, and now they are shutting down debate.

When will the government House leader and her government take responsibility for their actions for a change?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have an open door policy and I try to find a way forward. I will take responsibility for being unable to find a way forward. The New Democrats and the Conservatives did not want to offer a way forward so, yes, I am using time allocation to advance this legislation.

This bill responds to indigenous concerns respecting the legislative and regulatory framework flowing from their constitutionality, protected land claims and self-government agreements. This is what is being asked for. That is exactly why we are advancing this piece of legislation, and we are going to do it by using time allocation because the Conservatives and the New Democrats refused to provide a path forward.

That member and the NDP should definitely take responsibility for abolishing the Kelowna accord as well as the Kyoto protocol. That member and the NDP should take responsibility for turning the clock back on Canada and allowing Stephen Harper to have the platform to do it. When that member takes responsibility, we will actually be able to find a way forward in a better way. Yes, I chose to move time allocation. I take responsibility.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone has the floor, other members who have questions and comments to add will wait until it is the time for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to listen to the questions at this point. It is important that we highlight that the New Democrats have actually supported time allocation. We have seen them support time allocation. They recognize bills that are important to them and then they get behind time allocation. The Conservatives support time allocation.

We need to realize that from the government's perspective there are many bills that are high priorities for this government, and northern Canada is important to the Government of Canada. That is one of the reasons we once again have to use this tool. I wonder if the government House leader can just emphasize why at times we need to be able to use time allocation so we can get important work done for Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a really good question because it allows us to explain the limited tools we have available.

We have debated this piece of legislation in the past, and there was no desire to see it move forward, so I was more than willing to call it back up again. I still have not been provided any insights from the opposition parties as to how much time they would like. Therefore, we are using the tool of time allocation.

This legislation is at second reading stage. After we vote on it, if and when it passes, it will go to committee. The committee will be able to study and scrutinize this legislation to ensure that it responds to the desires of northerners and people in the Northwest Territories, because that is the area that is directly implicated and affected by this legislation. That legislation would then come back to the House for third reading.

This is therefore the beginning of the process, and we would just like to see it move on to committee so the committee can do its important work as well.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we are hearing from the Liberals, every issue they are having is always somebody else's fault, whether it is Omar Khadr's $10.5-million payment, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India or the failure to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built, or any pipeline for that matter. It is always somebody else's fault.

However, I will speak to Bill C-88, which, I want to point out for the member opposite, repeals the restructuring of the four land and water boards, which the member opposite said very emphatically that she is against, and reintroduces regulatory provisions that were included in the Conservative government's Bill C-15. I would like to remind this House and the member opposite that when Bill C-15 was debated in the previous Parliament, Liberals, including the Prime Minister, voted in favour of the restructuring.

The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, speaking to Conservative Bill C-15 on February 11, 2014, stated, “As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought.”

Why does the Liberals' tone change now? Why all of a sudden are they against giving the north the power to control its own destiny and providing jobs, opportunity and wealth to make the north strong again?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that Bill C-88 is the result of co-operative conciliatory discussions that resulted in an agreement to repeal the restructuring provisions of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. The member is correct when he said the Conservative government did important work when it came to this matter. However, what the member seems to forget is that it tried to go further by restructuring a system that was already working. It put forward measures that would create this concept of superboards, which northerners and the people in the Northwest Territories were opposed to. However, because it was trying to diminish environmental assessments and whatever else, it figured it would sneak a couple of these things in.

Therefore, the Conservative government was taken to court. When it was taken to court, it actually lost that case. This is something that happened not that long ago, and this legislation responds to it. I hope the member understands that because the previous government tried to sneak in a couple of extra points, it was taken to court and lost. It lost in court because that was the wrong thing to do. We are correcting that wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, the government House leader is very eloquent. She can choose to use that in an effective way, either by advancing the government agenda or by toxically insulting each member of the House as members raise questions. For the life of me, I cannot understand why she is choosing the latter course. The reality is that she is throwing out an array of drive-by insults when members of Parliament ask very legitimate questions about the use of closure by the current government.

In 2015, there was a commitment to make Parliament work. We all remember “sunny ways”. Instead, we are seeing, on the floor of the House of Commons, a completely inappropriate and toxic approach to the parliamentary work that we all must do in common.

I have not, in the weeks since I became House leader, had a single proposal from the government about how to move forward. There have been no proposals from the government to the opposition parties.

Also, when the government House leader suggests that I have in some way said I am going to use procedural tools to block Parliament, that is simply false and she should retract it.

I will ask my question again. Why is the government opposing the reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this bill, and why is it invoking closure?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to say anything, because it feels like the member is offended by anything I comment on or say. I will tell the member that I have not attacked or commented on any individual member of this place. Members choose to do their own work. They represent their constituents no differently from how I represent mine.

What we are debating right now is the use of time allocation to advance Bill C-88. We are using time allocation because we have not been able to find a way forward.

The member needs to be proposed to, it turns out, but he is more than able to provide me insights as to how much time is needed. The previous House leader was able to communicate for her team and provide us a way forward. I know this member has come back into this role. I acknowledge that he is new to this role this time, I guess, and I will definitely do a better job at providing proposals with respect to a way forward. I will take that as feedback from the member.

However, when it comes to this legislation, it will go to committee. The committee will be able to scrutinize and study this legislation, and the amendments will definitely be considered. The minister responsible and members will definitely have their opportunity to debate them. I am sure there will be a fruitful discussion.

I thank the member for his great question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to the House]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1287

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

I will inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from December 3, 2018, consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak 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.

The bill would make two amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998, and I will refer to this in my speech going forward as MVRMA. Part A reverses provisions that would have consolidated the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one. These provisions were introduced by the former Conservative government within Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act of 2014.

Part B would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities, and freezes the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expiring during a moratorium.

Bill C-88 is yet another Liberal anti-energy policy in a long list of policies from the government that are driving energy investments out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and increasing poverty rates in the north.

First, I will speak to part A of the bill, the section that reverses the previous government's initiative to consolidate for the devolution of governance of the Northwest Territories, wherein the federal government transferred control of the territories' land and resources to the Northwest Territories government.

Part of that plan sought to restructure the four Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into a single consolidated superboard, with the intent to streamline regulatory processes and enable responsible resource development. For the reasons why this was proposed under Bill C-15, we have to turn back the clock nearly seven years earlier when, in 2007, then-minister of Indian affairs and northern development, the hon. Chuck Strahl commissioned a report on improving regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north.

The consolidation of the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one entity was a key recommendation, which would address the complexity and capacity issues by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources, and allow for administrative practices to be understandable and consistent.

Furthermore, during debates in the House in 2013 and 2014, the then-minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development, Bernard Valcourt and the member for Chilliwack—Hope, or as it was known back then, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, pointed out that the restructured board was included in the final version of the modern land claim agreements.

The proposed changes were not acceptable to everyone, and two indigenous groups, the Tlicho Government and Sahtu Secretariat, filed for an injunction with the Northwest Territories' Supreme Court to suspend the related provisions.

They argued that the federal government did not have the authority to abolish the Mackenzie Valley regulatory regime without consultation with affected indigenous communities. I should point out that, at the time, Liberal members of Parliament voted in favour of Bill C-15 when it was debated in Parliament, including the Prime Minister.

The report commissioned by the then-minister of Indian affairs and northern development was never meant to diminish the influence that indigenous people have on resource management in the north. Rather, it was meant to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development through an effective regulatory system.

This brings us back to today and the bill currently before us. As previously mentioned Bill C-88 would repeal the restructuring of the four land and water boards but also reintroduce regulatory provisions that were included in the previous Conservative government's Bill C-15.

These provisions have been redrafted to function under the current four-board structure and provide for the following: an administrative monetary penalty scheme that will provide inspectors with additional tools to enforce compliance with permits and licences under the MVRMA; an enforceable development certificate scheme following environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews; the development of regulations respecting consultation, which are intended to help clarify the procedural roles and responsibilities respecting indigenous consultation; clarification of requirements for equal proportions of nominees from government and indigenous governments and organizations; a 10-day pause period between a board's preliminary screening decision and the issuance of an authorization to allow for other bodies under the MVRMA to refer a project to an environmental assessment; regional studies that provide the minister with the discretion to appoint committees or individuals to study the effects of existing and future development on a regional basis; the authority to develop cost-recovery regulations that would provide the federal government with the ability to recover costs associated with proceedings; and the extension of a board member's term during a proceeding to ensure board quorum is maintained until the conclusion of an application decision.

These are good regulations and I am glad to see that the current government is continuing on with that and did not throw away these provisions.

The Liberals will say that Bill C-88 is about consultation, however, under part 2 is where the real motivation for Bill C-88 becomes evident.

Part 2 is simply the Liberals' plan to further politicize the regulatory and environmental processes for resource extraction in Canada's north by giving cabinet sweeping powers to stop projects based on its so-called national interest. So much for the comments from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of indigenous and northern affairs, who, on speaking to the Conservatives' Bill C-15 on February 11, 2014, said:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

I would agree with that.

Bill C-88 exposes the Liberals' full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources. The Liberals have demonstrated disregard for those who speak truth to power, they have demonstrated contempt for indigenous peoples advocating for the health and welfare of their children and now they are adding indifference for northern Canadians' interests to their long litany of groups marginalized by the Liberal government.

The Conservatives strongly criticized the Liberals for a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea, an announcement made in December 2016, in Washington, D.C. by the prime minister, an announcement, I might add, where territorial leaders were given less than an hour's notice. The Liberal government's top-down maternalistic approach to northerners must end. It does nothing to reduce poverty in remote and northern regions of Canada.

Like Bill C-69, the no-more pipelines bill before it, Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of cabinet to block economic development and adds to the increasing levels of red tape proponents must face before they can get shovels into the ground. Like Bill C-68, the convoluted navigable waters bill before it, Bill C-88 adds ambiguity and massive uncertainty in an already turbulent investment climate. Like Bill C-48, the tanker ban bill before it, Bill C-88 aims to kill high-quality, high-paying jobs for Canadians and their families who work in the oil and gas-related industries.

We know the Prime Minister's real motivation. He spelled it out for us at a Peterborough, Ontario town hall in January 2017, when he clearly stated that he and his government needed to phase out the oil and gas industry in Canada. The Prime Minister's plan to phase out the energy industry has been carried out with surgical precision to date.

The Liberals' job-killing carbon tax is already costing Canadian jobs. Companies repeatedly mention that the carbon tax is the reason they are investing in jobs and projects in the United States over Canada. The Liberals new methane regulations could end refining in Canada by adding tens of billions of dollars of cost to an industry that is already in crisis.

The Liberals introduced their interim review process for oil and gas projects in January 2016, which killed energy east, the 15,000 middle-class jobs it would have created and the nearly $55 billion it would have injected into the New Brunswick and Canadian economies, a review process which delayed the Trans Mountain expansion reviews by six months and added upstream admissions to the review process.

The Liberal cabinet imposed a B.C. north shore tanker ban within months of forming government, with no consultation or scientific evidence to support it. The Liberals cancelled the oil and gas exploration drilling tax credits during a major downturn in the oil and gas sector, which caused the complete collapse of drilling in Canada. The Liberals' proposed fuel standard will equate to a carbon tax of $228 per tonne of fuel according to their own analysis.

When the Prime Minister vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he killed benefit agreements between the project and 31 first nations, worth about $2 billion. The unprecedented policy will apply not to just transportation fuels but to all industries, including steel production, heating for commercial buildings and home heating fuels like natural gas.

All this is destroying energy jobs and investment from coast to coast to coast. Now, with Bill C-88, we add another coast, the northern coast.

The Liberals love to champion the Prime Minister's personal commitment to a new relationship with indigenous people through new disclosure and friendly policies. They will, no doubt, due so again with Bill C-88.

This is what some organizations and people have to say, with respect to the Prime Minister's so-called commitment:

Stephen Buffalo, the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, in the National Post, October 19, 2018 stated:

...the government of Canada appears to consult primarily with people and organizations that share its views...It pays much less attention to other Indigenous groups, equally concerned about environmental sustainability, who seek a more balanced approach to resource development.

Here is another quote from that article:

The policies of the [Prime Minister's] government are systematically constraining the freedom and economic opportunities of the oil- and gas-producing Indigenous peoples of Canada. We are not asking for more from government. We are actually asking for less government intervention

Roy Fox, chief of the Kainaiwa first nation, in The Globe and Mail, December 10, 2018 stated:

While the Kainaiwa [nation] continue to fight against high unemployment, as well as the social destructiveness and health challenges such as addiction and other issues that often accompany poverty, my band’s royalties have recently been cut by more than half. Furthermore, all drilling has been cancelled because of high price differentials – the enormous gap between what we get on a barrel of oil in comparison to the benchmark price – which has limited employment opportunities on our lands.

Chief Fox continued:

...it’d be an understatement to say the policies proposed within Bills C-69 and C-48 are damaging our position by restricting access and reducing our ability to survive as a community....I and the majority of Treaty 7 chiefs strongly oppose the bill for its likely devastating impact on our ability to support our community members, as it would make it virtually impossible for my nation to fully benefit from the development of our energy resources.

I can continue to read quotes. However, we here on this side of the aisle are deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister, who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with indigenous communities, blatantly would allow and choose to deny our 31 first nations and Métis communities their constitutionally-protected right to economic development.

This is from the Aboriginal Equity Partners:

We see today's announcement as evidence of the government's unwillingness to follow through on the Prime Minister's promise.

The Government of Canada could have demonstrated its commitment by working with us as environmental stewards of the land and water to enhance marine safety. All 31 AEP plus the other affected communities should have been consulted directly and individually in order to meet the Federal Government's duty to consult.

I have said this many times in my speech. It is time to stop politicizing these projects. Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas development in the far north by providing the cabinet in Ottawa the unilateral power to shut down oil and gas development without consulting the people it affects directly.

I want to point to a few “key facts” from NRCAN's website. It states that in 2017, Canada’s energy sector directly employed more than 276,000 people and indirectly supported over 624,000 jobs; Canada’s energy sector accounts for almost 11% of nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP); government revenues from energy were $10.3 billion in 2016; more than $650 million was spent on energy research, development, and deployment by governments in 2016-17; and Canada is the sixth largest energy producer, the fifth largest net exporter, and the eighth largest consumer

Just last week, in The Globe and Mail, David McKay, the president and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada, stated:

History has placed Canada at a crossroads. No other country of 37 million people has access to more natural resources – and the brainpower to convert those resources into sustainable growth for a stronger society.

And yet, Canada is at risk of taking the wrong turn at the crossroads because some believe there are only two paths: one for economic growth, and the other for environment.

We’re seeing this dilemma play out in Canada’s energy transition as we struggle to reconcile competing ideas.

We aspire to help the world meet its energy needs and move to ever-cleaner fuel sources. We aim to reduce our carbon footprint. We want Indigenous reconciliation and long-term partnership. And we hope to maintain the standard of living we have come to enjoy.

But without a balanced approach to harnessing our energy future, all of this is at risk.

We need to take a third path--one that will help us develop our natural resources, invest in clean technologies and ensure a prosperous Canada....

But we’re reaching a critical time in our country’s history.

As our resources sector copes with a growing crisis, we worry that Canada is not setting up our energy industry for growth and success in a changing world.

When I travel abroad, and proudly talk up our country, too many investors tell me they feel Canada's door is closed when it comes to energy. We need to change that impression immediately, because these investors are backing up their words with action.

According to a recent study from the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada has lost $100-billion in potential investment in oil and gas in the past two years.

We can’t forget that energy is not only part of the economic fabric of Canada, it also funds our social needs. The sector has contributed $90-billion to government revenues over the past five years, which covers about 10 per cent of what the country spends on health care, according to RBC Economics.

And if we squander our huge advantage and cede the dividends to other countries, we’ll also risk losing the opportunity to help combat the most daunting challenge of all – climate change.

The article ends with the following charge to government:

We can’t stay at a crossroads.

It’s time for Canada to pull together on a plan – one that re-energizes our place in the world.

The Conservatives have long viewed the north as a key driver of economic activity for Canada for decades to come. The Liberals, however, view the north as a place to create huge swaths of protected land and shut down economic activity.

Bill C-88 appears to be based in a desire to win votes in major urban centres rather than reduce poverty in remote regions of Canada. Northerners face the unique challenges of living in the north with resilience and fortitude. They want to create jobs and economic opportunities for their families. They deserve a government that has their backs.

We are at a crossroads and it is time for Canada to pull together a plan. The Conservatives are up to that challenge. We look forward to unveiling our plan and growing the economy in the next election for voters to decide for themselves who really has the best interests of Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the 20-minute speech of the member across the way. One of the very important things to point out, which in fact happens a lot when we listen to the Conservatives, is that when they talk about the energy industry and sector, what they really mean to say is energy that is derived from oil-based products. A lot of the facts he brought up may have been true related to fossil fuel energy, but the reality of the situation is that when he talks about driving energy workers out of Canada, he is misleading in the sense that he is not capturing the fact that over the past five years the green energy sector has increased by 37% in Canada. Over $25 billion have been invested into green energy in Canada.

In fact, for the first time, as recently reported by The Globe and Mail, the newspaper the Conservatives like to quote so much in the House lately, the green energy sector now employs 23,700 people whereas the oil sands are at 23,340. Despite what we have heard about the oil sector specifically and its contribution to energy, would he at least not recognize that now, for the first time pretty much ever, the green energy sector is a significant component to producing energy for our country?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend mentioned, green energy has seen investment of about $25 billion. We have also seen about $100 billion more leave the energy sector and the oil and gas sector.

He talks about the 23,700 people working in the clean energy sector. What about the 100,000-plus people in Alberta and Saskatchewan who have lost their jobs?

I do not think it is one or the other; it is both. As we have said many times in the House and elsewhere, Canada has some of the most responsible resource management anywhere in the world. We are a world leader. We should be promoting that. If we want to ensure that the bad actors in this world, like Nicaragua and Venezuela, start to up their game, we need to get our product to markets that want a resource responsibly extracted. We have great labour and environmental laws, and the list goes on.

We should be promoting this. We should be getting our energy to markets. We can have a green energy sector working with the oil and gas sector, not just pick one over the other.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects of Bill C-88 is that it would restore the four water and land co-management boards, which were established by a negotiated agreement between the federal and territorial governments and the first nations of the north, but the Tlicho and Sahtu people went to court and had that bill struck down.

What is important and significant is that the land claim and self-government agreements are now modern treaties entrenched in the Constitution.

Could the member tell us how his party rationalizes arguing against the Constitution of Canada in saying that the boards should not be restored?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been saying the whole time that we need to ensure that the bill lets people in the north decide their own future. We have been talking about this, and even my speech, which was 20 minutes long, talked about how giving more power to the territorial governments and letting them have control over their resource development are good things. These are things we should be championing here.

I do not think having Ottawa make decisions for the people in the north is a very smart path forward. Giving more power over their decisions to those who are there on the ground is the way to go.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the inconsistency in speech by the member opposite. On the one hand he is suggesting that the indigenous people of our northwest should be in control of their destiny. That absolutely should be the case. However, the legislation passed by the Harper administration ran absolutely roughshod over their constitutionally entrenched rights. Their land and water boards were amalgamated and were effectively dealt with so disrespectfully that the courts up north upheld an injunction.

How can the member possibly suggest that our government, in issuing a moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling in the northwest—which I happen to be very proud of—is somehow controlling the future of that resource, when the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, stripped the land and water boards of so much of their authority?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Bill C-15 under the previous Parliament received support from the Liberal Party, including from the current Prime Minister.

I will also point out that we had agreements with the 31 first nations communities along the northern gateway pipeline that was killed. They were directly impacted by the northern gateway pipeline. This was worth about $2 billion in economic activity for those first nations communities. They have spoken up loud and clear to say that there are decisions being made in Ottawa that are are impacting their economic future.

If we want to reduce poverty in some of these northern communities, responsible resource development is a path forward to create jobs, opportunity and wealth. This is what they are asking for, and I think it is something we should heed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really articulated well that the Liberals like consultation by convenience. He gave a number of examples, such as the moratorium up north in the Beaufort Sea for which the leadership had half an hour of notice, or the tanker moratorium, or Bill C-69. Liberals talk a good talk about consultation, but in actual fact they have not done a very good job, including when, as we found out, they had not done a proper job with the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Does the member think this is part of the government's anti-development plan, in which it consults if people want to shut things down but its does not consult when people want to move forward with economic opportunities in their communities?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that Bill C-88 is yet another anti-energy policy from the government. It is driving investment out of Canada. It is taking potential opportunities away from those in the north who want a path forward, a path to prosperity by harnessing resources in a very responsible manner, something in which Canada is a world leader. If people in the north are asking for more power to define their future, to create their own path, that is something we should be doing, rather than having an Ottawa-knows-best approach.

I was at the AME Roundup in Vancouver a few months ago. It is a very large mining conference, although not as big as PDAC in Toronto. When we spoke with people in the north, that was the number one issue they were talking about. These were not mining people from big companies; they were juniors, start-ups, people in the middle, all talking about the fact that there is great potential in the north for responsible resource development, but they do not feel that making the north a park, basically, is a way to do that or to create jobs, wealth and opportunity.

We should be listening to those people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is very positive legislation that ultimately would have a positive impact in northern Canada. That includes being sensitive to the many different stakeholders as well as to the environment in the development of resources and so forth. I believe the Government of Canada has been called upon to do this. I do not share the same pessimism that comes from across the way.

This is a government that has been very good at developing our country as a whole, both from an economic and an environmental perspective. That is one of the reasons we created 900,000-plus jobs.

Does the member feel that there are amendments that the Conservatives will bring forward to try to improve upon the legislation, or is their intention just to vote against it as it is?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Liberals have the majority of seats in this Parliament, so they are going to vote for it and we will be voting against it. We will try within the committee structure to work with the Liberals. Whether not they will be receptive to anything proposed from this side of the House is yet to be seen.

The member opposite talked about the economy. Many economists would agree that it is going very well because of the U.S. economy, which is on fire right now, despite what the Liberals are trying to do in slowing down this economy with red tape, regulations and high taxes.

Jobs are created with low taxes and reasonable red tape and regulations—full stop. It is not because the government says that jobs are going to be created or the Liberals come up with a new next great government program. Jobs are created by low taxes and reasonable red tape and regulations, something they are not doing. That is why this economy is going forward. It is not what they are proposing.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Winnipeg Centre, but first let me acknowledge that we are here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I stand in support of 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.

The proposed legislation now before us would modernize the regulatory regime that governs resource development in the Northwest Territories.

The central goal of Canada's approach to regulating resource development in the north has been to realize a project's full potential value while minimizing and mitigating any negative environmental, social and economic impacts. To achieve this goal, regulatory regimes across Canada include measures to assess proposed projects and to track the progress and performance of approved projects.

Environmental impact is a key consideration throughout all phases. In general, and particularly in the north, environmental impact is defined as any effect on land, water, air or any other component of the environment, as well as on wildlife harvesting.

The assessment includes any effect on the social and cultural environment or on heritage resources.

The northern regime has long been ahead of the southern environmental assessment regime in this respect. In the north, regulatory regimes are notably different from those in the rest of Canada, for several reasons. The most significant reason is that many northern indigenous people have concluded land claim agreements with the Government of Canada, and these agreements have created a robust system through which indigenous governments have a meaningful role in processes to review and license proposed resource development projects, have representation on boards, and have a strong voice in the process from the beginning to the end. This is reconciliation in action.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is part of the legal framework for resource development in the north. The act authorizes a unique regulatory regime that references a series of comprehensive land claim and self-government agreements with indigenous groups, including the Gwich'in, Sahtu Dene and Tlicho.

The regime features an integrated and coordinated system of boards and ensures indigenous representation. The result is co-management. The Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and indigenous governments all participate in reviews of and final decisions about proposed projects.

In recent decades, the north has experienced unprecedented change, and the pace of change continues to accelerate. Territorial governments have acquired new authorities under devolution, for example, and diamond mining has generated billions of dollars in revenues and created thousands of jobs. As well, the impacts of climate change have been greater in the north and have accelerated more quickly there than anywhere else in the world. Given these realities, the regulatory regime governing resource development in the north must evolve to keep pace, and this is the main impetus for Bill C-88.

About eight years ago, the Government of Canada began a process to modernize the regulatory regime at the same time as it moved to devolve greater authorities to the Northwest Territories. In 2014, Canada enacted the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Along with authorizing devolution, this act also made important changes to the regulatory regime. One of these changes was the amalgamation of four existing boards into a single entity, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.

Almost immediately, the Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated launched court actions against Canada. The lawsuits claimed that amalgamation violated land claim agreements. The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted an injunction, which effectively halted amalgamation and prevented the implementation of several elements of the regulatory regime. Bill C-88 proposes to repeal amalgamation, which would resolve the litigation and support Canada's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Bill C-88 would also authorize a series of policy elements that the court injunction also blocked. These elements include development certificates and an enforcement scheme for part 5 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. They also include regional studies, extensions of the terms of board members, regulation-making authorities related to consultations, a 10-day pause in the environmental impact assessment process, and a requirement to give proper notice of government inspections of Gwich'in- and Sahtu-owned land.

Together the changes proposed in the legislation now before us would significantly strengthen the regulatory regime in the north. They would ensure that the assessment of environmental impacts would remain paramount in both the review of proposed projects and the monitoring of approved projects. The changes would also ensure that any contravention of a regulation could result in a stiff penalty, such as a large fine, and possibly, incarceration. Bill C-88 would also ensure that indigenous governments would continue to participate meaningfully in reviews of and decisions about development projects in the north.

Another aspect of Bill C-88 aims to further strengthen environmental protection in the Arctic through the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. As my hon. colleagues can appreciate, Canada's Arctic features some of the most fragile ecosystems in the world. Two years ago, the Prime Minister committed to stepping up Canada's efforts to protect Arctic ecosystems. In particular, he called for a ban on any new Arctic offshore resource exploration and extraction. Rather than set a deadline for the moratorium, the Government of Canada committed to reviewing it every five years. The review will focus on an assessment of the latest climate and marine sciences.

Along with imposing a moratorium, the Government of Canada began a series of consultations with territorial and northern indigenous governments and the holders of offshore oil and gas rights in Arctic waters to discuss their interests. A central focus of these consultations was how best to balance environmental and economic concerns and how to protect the offshore environment while pursuing safe, responsible activities that create jobs and economic opportunities in northern indigenous economies. The result of these consultations are the proposed amendments before us in Bill C-88.

First, to complement the moratorium on new licences, the amendments would allow the Government of Canada to ban any oil and gas exploration or development activities under 11 existing exploration and significant discovery licences in the Beaufort Sea.

The amendments would also fix a problem that came to light regarding the plan for a science-based review every five years. Some oil and gas rights in the Arctic offshore will begin to expire before the completion of the next review period. With a ban on activity in the Arctic offshore, these rights suddenly lost all their value. The discussions identified a solution, that being a freeze on the terms of existing rights for the duration of the moratorium. Bill C-88 would authorize this solution.

Canada's regulatory regime is among the best in the world, because it continually seeks to strike an appropriate balance between economic, environmental and social concerns. Key to this ability is the careful and thorough assessment of potential project impacts. An effective regulatory regime makes it possible to foster both economic activity and environmental protection.

The legislation now before us aims to achieve this goal in the north, and I urge my hon. colleagues to endorse Bill C-88 at second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to a broader issue. The government has consistently talked about what its priority bills are in terms of moving forward, but our time is getting very short.

The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of stalling on Bill C-91, the indigenous languages legislation, and on Bill C-92, the child welfare bill. They have said that it is absolutely critical that we move forward and get them done. They like to lay the blame for their lack of House management on the Conservatives.

We fully anticipated that we would be talking to the important child welfare legislation. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that his government seems to have priority legislation but does not seem to be able to get things through the House in a timely way. The government ends up cutting off debate on every single piece of legislation that comes along due to its poor House management. This is just another example.

I thought we would be talking about Bill C-92, but we are talking about a bill the government introduced six months ago and that has been on the floor for only a short time, and suddenly we have time allocation.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to talk about the priorities of this government, those priorities being helping middle-class Canadians and growing the Canadian economy; lifting thousands of Canadians out of poverty; fighting climate change in a meaningful way; and advancing the most important relationship for this government, that being the relationship with indigenous peoples.

Every time we have brought forth measures to grow the economy and support middle-class Canadians, the Conservatives have opposed them. Every time we have brought forth measures to help lift 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, the Conservatives have opposed them.

We have a plan to fight climate change. What do the Conservatives have? They have an unsolicited, unethical mass texting campaign. That is not a climate change plan.

Every time we bring forward investments and measures to advance reconciliation in this country, including in Bill C-88, the Conservatives oppose them.

Our priorities, our plan and our results are clear to Canadians. Why do the Conservatives continue to oppose them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for taking this important step to reverse some of the wounds the Harper government inflicted on indigenous people.

There are important issues that still have not been addressed and need to be addressed, including adequate drinking water for indigenous peoples, waste water infrastructure, education and the implementation of rights, including in my area, where indigenous people are still in court with the government in an effort to establish the right to catch and sell fish so they can implement rights that are protected under the Constitution. The government continues to fight them tooth and nail. The Liberals have spent over $19 million on lawyers to fight the first nations and indigenous people of my region.

Billions of dollars are needed for many things. I will speak to the housing issue, because the member cannot speak about a case that is in the courts right now.

We know how inadequate housing is. I have 10 first nations in my riding. Ahousaht is one of them. Sixteen people are living in one home in overcrowded, mouldy conditions. They are waiting for adequate housing. The Liberal government promised to build housing for indigenous people.

Could the member speak to why his government has not advanced this promise in the way it needs to so that everyone has healthy, safe and secure housing, as people should?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises the importance of advancing reconciliation and quality of life for indigenous people in this country, and I hope to have many more years to work on that with him in all facets in this chamber.

Our government has made historic investments in overcoming the long-term boil water drinking advisories in first nations communities across this country, and we have had significant results to date. We are on track to meet our target of having no more boil water advisories, long term, in first nations communities in a few years.

We have made significant investments through our $40-billion national housing strategy, a lot of which goes to support indigenous communities.

We have legislation coming forward to deal with the child welfare situation in indigenous communities. We have an important bill in front of Parliament that deals with strengthening indigenous languages in this country, something that is fundamental to the identity of indigenous people here. We also have this legislation, which would advance reconciliation with indigenous people in the north.

These are all elements of the government's broader cross-government agenda to advance reconciliation in a meaningful way. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleague in the years to come to see these important steps taken for all Canadians.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Niwakoma cuntik Tansai Nemeaytane Atawapamtikok.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-88. I also acknowledge that we are here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

This important bill proposes to improve the regulatory regime that governs resource development in the Northwest Territories. Equally important, in my view, is the contribution Bill C-88 would make to reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Throughout much of this country's history, indigenous peoples have been actively prevented from contributing fully to and benefiting equally from the social and economic prosperity that so many of us take for granted. Reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples will help create the conditions needed to close the socio-economic gap that persists between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians.

Today we have an opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past and to unlock economic growth for indigenous peoples and all Canadians. We have a chance to create an environment that supports self-determination. This will not only be good for indigenous peoples but will be good for all of Canada.

The National Indigenous Economic Development Board has estimated that engaging indigenous people in the economy at the same rate as non-indigenous people would boost Canada's GDP by 1.5% and create almost $28 billion in economic growth. Several others have suggested that the number is actually much higher.

Reconciliation is a multi-faceted undertaking that ultimately must involve and engage all people in Canada, indigenous and non-indigenous alike. At the personal level, it involves confronting and erasing all prejudice, embracing fresh ideas and throwing out those racist ideas of the past. For the Government of Canada, it involves sweeping changes to legislation, policies and how we approach policy.

Allow me to quote the Prime Minister's description of the challenge facing Canada. He stated:

Reconciliation calls upon us all to confront our past and commit to charting a brighter, more inclusive future. We must acknowledge that centuries of colonial practices have denied the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples. The recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights will chart a new way forward for our Government to work with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and to undo decades of mistrust, poverty, broken promises, and injustices.

The legislation now before us would support reconciliation in a clear and unequivocal way by re-establishing the land and water boards in a manner requested by indigenous communities themselves. The boards would enable three indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho, to influence resource development in their traditional territories in a direct and meaningful way.

Four years ago, Parliament endorsed legislation to restructure the regulatory regime governing resource development in the Northwest Territories. Part of this plan involved the amalgamation of four boards into a single entity, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.

Soon after the plan became law, the Tlicho Government and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated launched court actions against the Government of Canada. Both indigenous governments challenged Canada's authority to unilaterally eliminate boards that had been legally authorized years earlier. A 1992 comprehensive land claims agreement had established the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, which was given effect by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in 1998, for instance. In 2003, the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement had authorized the creation of the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board.

The court challenges effectively put a halt to some of the restructuring measures included in the 2014 legislation under the Harper regime. The new Government of Canada agreed to work in co-operation with northern indigenous communities, including the plaintiffs in the court actions, to resolve the impasse and to restructure the regulatory regime in a way that would meet the needs of all concerned.

Representatives of indigenous groups, the Government of Northwest Territories and industry met with federal officials. The meetings inspired the Government of Canada to draft a legislative proposal and to share the draft with all interested parties.

This collaborative effort not only exemplifies the spirit of reconciliation but also illustrates reconciliation in action. It is “reconciliaction”, and it abides by the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples established last year. For instance, principle 1 states, “The Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government.”

Principle 5 states, “The Government of Canada recognizes that treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect.”

Following this approach soon produced a negotiated solution. We sat down and we negotiated. It is a solution articulated today in Bill C-88. However, to fully appreciate the value of the solution requires an understanding of how it came into being. This was not a case of the Government of Canada imposing its will on others. In fact, the bill before us incorporates the suggestions made by the negotiators representing other groups, including indigenous governments. They were central to this.

One change to the original draft legislation proposal relates to court jurisdiction for judicial reviews of administrative monetary penalties imposed under the regulatory regime. The change ensures consistency with exclusive jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories' Supreme Court under section 32 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. A second modification to the original draft legislation aims to ensure consistency with comprehensive land claims agreements. New language was added to clarify consultation obligations related to administrative monetary penalties.

Is it not exciting to talk about administrative monetary penalties? These changes came about because the parties negotiated as equals in an atmosphere of mutual respect and mutual recognition of rights and responsibilities.

Should Bill C-88 become law, if it can make its way through this Parliament, its effects would also foster reconciliation. This is because co-management is central to the regulatory regime envisioned in the legislation now before us. Boards comprised of members nominated by northern indigenous governments and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada would render decisions about proposed development projects. Board decisions are legally binding on all parties, including developers. This means that northern indigenous governments would be fully able to exercise their right to self-determination.

The onus has long been on indigenous peoples to prove that their rights exist. For too long, indigenous communities have had to fight to exercise their rights. This is why reconciliation absolutely requires the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, to base all of its relations with indigenous peoples on the recognition and the implementation of existing rights.

On one level, Bill C-88 would repeal the amalgamation of land and water boards in the Northwest Territories. It would also modernize the regulatory regime governing resource development in the region. On a higher level, Bill C-88 would foster reconciliation with indigenous peoples across Canada. It would demonstrate to indigenous communities across the country that the Government of Canada is committed to reconciliation.

Hon. members of this chamber, the people's House, have an opportunity to show their commitment to reconciliation, and I encourage all of them to join me in supporting Bill C-88.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague talking about the importance of consultation and collaboration. Does he not realize that the bill would give a new power to the federal government, which has never been there before, in terms of its ability to prohibit and issue orders when in the national interest and to actually do a complete ban?

The bill does not talk about the government's need to collaborate. It does not talk about consultation. It gives the federal government new powers and authority to completely override both the territorial governments and indigenous governments. Does that not create any concern for the member, given the nature of his speech in which he talked about the importance of collaboration?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that all indigenous governments were involved in negotiating this agreement with Bill C-88, as well as the Northwest Territories government. It has the support of all of these governments because they will be at the table.

Obviously, governments can take actions to try to negate the rights of indigenous peoples. It depends on the government of the day. However, I know that the inherent policy of this government is to work with indigenous peoples. It is not to negate their rights, but to work with them in a collaborative approach.

Perhaps future governments of Canada will move forward in a different manner and try to negate those rights. However, I know that our government is committed to working with indigenous peoples.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of the hon. member on the other side about the need for new measures to show that the government is sincere about reconciliation and about honouring the rights and interests of indigenous peoples.

Surely, then, the member would support the amendment we are calling for, to actually entrench the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the bill. Of course that would deliver on the Prime Minister's promise, from quite some time ago, that he would in fact take action on all 93 of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One of those calls to action is exactly that. It is to move forward and entrench those rights in the UN declaration in all federal laws going forward.

Is the member willing to accept that amendment and entrench the United Nations declaration in Bill C-88?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to have the opportunity of trying to get Bill C-262 passed in the House of Commons. It was a great opportunity. I remember speaking with many of my colleagues, the indigenous caucus, and trying to work with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, to ensure that UNDRIP passed in the House of Commons. I know it is before the Senate and the document is not yet law. The senators in the other place have to decide on what will actually occur with that bill and I hope they are able to come to a final conclusion on that.

For me, I think the bill already does incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the law. It ensures that there is respect and self-determination of government. I talked about principles 1 and 5, which recognize self-determination and the right to self-government, which I think is central to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This goes, part and parcel, with all the other policies we have been doing in the budget, for instance, with water, health, education, economic prosperity, a new fiscal relationship with urban indigenous peoples, and even with emergency management. All of these things are about ensuring that we have an implemented UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, human rights for all peoples across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join the debate on Bill C-88.

I would like to tell my friend from Winnipeg Centre that I certainly support the bill. I worked in the House along with the former member for Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington, who was mentioned earlier in debate, and we miss his voice here, to try to stop the changes that were made in 2014.

I think returning to the status quo, while laudable, is not as good as taking a step forward while we have the chance. Would the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre reconsider? The bill is certainly consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the bill does not commit Canada to exercise its rights in respect of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member.

This is giving life to UNDRIP in an actual bill before Parliament, Bill C-88. It ensures that UNDRIP is fully respected. UNDRIP, in Bill C-262, is a document that governs all of the Canadian government, ensuring all policies and laws come into accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and also with an annual report. I remember putting forward a private member's bill of my own that would require reporting to the House of Commons on an annual basis.

Nonetheless, I still believe that the bill is a good way forward. It was negotiated in full accordance with all the indigenous peoples concerned by the bill. That is what we call respect. That is what we call self-determination: sitting down, having a conversation, talking. That is how we make treaties.

The difficult part will come in the future when we need to make sure that these treaties are respected. That involves the government of the day and making sure that we have a good government that will respect those rights into the future.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-88, another Liberal anti-resource development policy that is driving investment and businesses out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs, costing indigenous people jobs and undermining their aspirations, work and their hopes for self-sufficiency, and increasing poverty rates in the north and in rural and remote regions.

Like the Liberals' no more pipelines Bill C-69, their Arctic offshore drilling ban, and their oil shipping ban bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-86, Bill C-88 would further politicize resource development by expanding the powers of the cabinet to unilaterally block economic development and would add to the mountain of red tape proponents must overcome before they can get shovels in the ground.

The bill is also a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control over the development of natural resources in their territories and would cede more power and control to the federal government. Bill C-88 would reverse Conservative measures to devolve power to the territories and puts new powers in the hands of the federal cabinet. The Liberals clearly believe that Ottawa knows best.

At the AME Roundup in Vancouver in January, I was in a room full of northerners who were unanimous in their opposition to the Liberal government's “one big park” agenda for the north. There were elected officials, Inuit business leaders and corporate executives with decades of experience working with first nations in resource development in the north.

In Canada, it can take 20 years to get from the discovery of a mineral deposit to a functioning mine. The challenge in the north is that most of the mines are in the final decade of production and no new mines are in the approvals process. Resource projects and communities and residents in the north have to overcome big challenges: geography, climate, distance, access to land and a lack of services and infrastructure in the many remote and rural regions in which these projects are located. The north will pay for the Liberals' mistakes with the loss of an entire generation's economic advancement as mining completely leaves the region.

The previous Conservative government rightly viewed the north as essential to Canada's sovereignty, as a key area at stake in global security and as a place of real potential for significant economic activities today and for decades to come. Conservatives know resource development is often the only source of jobs and business potential in remote and northern regions where they are already scarce.

The Liberals meanwhile are arbitrarily creating huge swaths of protected land with little consultation. The regulatory uncertainty caused by their many bills and policies is making capital harder to access. These actions are challenging meaningful engagement and relationships with first nations in the north, including the Inuit, indigenous people and Métis communities. The Liberals' top-down paternalistic actions rob northerners of opportunities and of decision-making authority and do nothing to reduce poverty in remote northern regions of Canada.

Conservatives, by contrast, have sought to devolve power over and ownership of natural resources to the territories, enabling and empowering their abilities and their authority to manage and benefit from their rich and diverse natural resource opportunities.

In 2007, Neil McCrank was commissioned to write a report on improving the regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north. That report, “Road to Improvement”, found the regulatory process in the Northwest Territories at the time was complex, costly, unpredictable and time-consuming. The merging of the three boards into one was a key recommendation. The report said that this approach would address the complexity and the capacity issues inherent to the current model by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources.

Importantly, the report also said that this was not meant to diminish or reduce the influence that aboriginal people have on resource management in the north; rather, it was meant as an attempt to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development.

The option to merge the three separate indigenous boards into the single unified board was also included as an available option in the three modern land claim agreements signed with the first nations in the Northwest Territories.

In 2013, the previous Conservative government introduced Bill C-15 to implement that approach. That bill received overwhelming support in the House. We would not know it from the heckling across the aisle, but including from the Liberal Party. The Liberals and the NDP voted for the bill at the final stage in the House of Commons, but now the Liberals have decided to reverse it, to return to the job-killing overly complex and disjointed “Ottawa knows best” approach, setting back the hopes and aspirations of northern communities that are desperate for natural resource jobs.

It is a myth that indigenous communities, particularly in the north, are opposed to natural resource development. This myth is perpetuated by the Liberal left and elected politicians even in this House of Commons. Indigenous leaders are speaking out against anti-resource activists and in favour of the many benefits and potential for their communities. Bob McLeod, premier of the Northwest Territories, said:

All too often...[indigenous people] are only valued as responsible stewards of their land if they choose not to touch it. This is eco-colonialism.

He went on to say:

...it is oppressive and irresponsible to assume that Indigenous northerners do not support resource development.

PJ Akeeagok of Qikiqtani Inuit Association said, “Absolutely we want to participate in these industries. There’s some real exciting benefits that are out there.” Lee Qammaniq, a heavy equipment operator at Baffinland's Mary River mine, says, “I'm doing it so [my son] can have a better life.”

That ideological and heavy-handed “one big park” agenda in the north is being implemented often without consulting northerners on the use of the land around them. It is threatening the way of life of many Inuit and indigenous communities.

A little farther south, Isaac Laboucan-Avirom, chief of the Woodland Cree First Nation, says:

It frustrates me, as a first nations individual, when I have to almost beg for monies when we're living in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. Why should our people be living in third-class or second-class communities when we are surrounded by natural resources that go into paving our roads, putting in rec centres, and so on?

In northern Saskatchewan, English River chief Marie Black, speaks about mining for many across the country in her direct assessment, saying, “It is very, very important that we go ahead and work with industry. This is for jobs.”

So many indigenous leaders are speaking out. They are leading the fight, really, about the importance of resource development to their communities to meet their needs right now and for future generations. They are fighting against the layers of Liberal anti-resource development policies and laws that violate their abilities to make decisions about their resources on and around their lands and about which they were not consulted by the Liberals in the first place.

Indigenous communities support sustainable and responsible natural resources development in their territories because it offers a real path to self-sufficiency and a real opportunity for actual economic reconciliation. It damages reconciliation when politicians make promises they do not keep, set expectations and then do not deliver, or pass laws in the apparent best interests of indigenous Canadians without actually fully consulting them.

There is no stronger example of the patriarchal, patronizing and quite frankly colonial approach of the current Liberals than their treatment of first nations who want to develop, provide services, and supply and transport oil and gas. When this Liberal Prime Minister vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he killed benefit agreements between the project and 31 first nations that were worth $2 billion. Those 31 first nations said:

We are deeply disappointed that a Prime Minister who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with Indigenous communities would now blatantly choose to deny our 31 First Nations and Métis communities of our constitutionally protected right to economic development.

The Liberals' shipping ban, Bill C-48, is opposed by more than 30 first nations in B.C. and in Alberta because it would kill economic opportunities for their communities. Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom says, “What I don't understand about this tanker moratorium is that there's no other tanker moratorium on other coastlines in Canada. You have oil coming in from Saudi Arabia, up and down the St. Lawrence River right now.”

Gary Alexcee, deputy chief of Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd., said:

With no consultation, the B.C. first nations groups have been cut off economically with no opportunity to even sit down with the government to further negotiate Bill C-48. If that's going to be passed, then I would say we might as well throw up our hands and let the government come and put blankets on us that are infected with smallpox so we can go away. That's what this bill means to us.

He went on to say:

Today, the way it sits, we have nothing but handouts that are not even enough to have the future growth of first nations in our communities of British Columbia.

Then, there is the targeted northern offshore drilling ban, incredibly announced in southern Canada by this Prime Minister without any real consultation with the most directly impacted indigenous communities, their elected leaders or indigenous-owned businesses.

Duane Smith, chair and CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, says:

We are sitting on nine trillion cubic feet of gas and it doesn't make sense for the community to truck in its energy source from 2,000 kilometres away when we should be developing these.

Northwest Territories premier, Bob McLeod, said, “It feels like a step backward.” He went on:

We spent a lot of time negotiating a devolution agreement, and we thought the days were gone when we'd have unilateral decisions made about the North in some faraway place like Ottawa, and that northerners would be making the decisions about issues that affected northerners.

He confirmed that this Prime Minister only informed him about the decision two hours before he made the announcement.

Nunavut's former premier, Peter Taptuna, has said, “We have been promised by Ottawa that they would consult and make decisions based on meaningful discussion. So far that hasn't happened.”

Even Liberal Yukon Premier Sandy Silver, whose territory is not affected by the bans, sided with his northern counterparts, saying, “When you have unilateral decisions being made in any topic on considerations that affect the North, you need to have northerners in those conversations.”

There was also, of course, the announcement made in Washington, D.C. that a large portion of Canada's territories will be prohibited from development, again with minimal or no consultation with actual northerners.

The mayor of Tuktoyaktuk recently said at a House of Commons committee:

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change compared to when you work in oil and gas and you're used to that kind of living. Our people are used to that. We're not used to selling trinkets and T-shirts and that kind of stuff.

He specifically took issue with matters addressed by the bill, saying, “the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.”

The Liberal approach to the north is not empowering first nations. It is trapping the Inuit and indigenous people of the north in poverty by blocking their best opportunities for jobs, for government revenues and for social services to deal with all the needs that colleagues here are raising in this debate, for healthy living and to help make life more affordable.

Northerners know that Bill C-88 would add another roadblock to resource development on top of the Liberals' “no more pipelines” Bill C-69.

While co-management of the assessment process limits some of the damage of Bill C-69, this legislation would still have a significant impact on resource development in the north. Whether it is changes to the navigable waters act, falling investment dollars in natural resource projects across Canada or limited essential services, equipment and expertise to develop projects in the north, this flawed legislation would damage the north.

Dozens of indigenous communities, along with the National Coalition of Chiefs, the Indian Resource Council, the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council, Alberta's Assembly of Treaty Chiefs and the majority of Treaty 7 first nations, as well as hundreds of indigenous companies, are joining premiers and industry leaders in opposing Bill C-69.

Experts in indigenous law and rights are clear. Bill C-69 does nothing concrete to improve indigenous consultation, either by expanding the scope of indigenous rights or by practically increasing the measures, expectations and standards for the Crown's duty to consult. In fact, it actually weakens indigenous voices in the assessment process by removing the standing test and opening up project reviews to literally anyone, anywhere, instead of focusing on input from locally impacted Canadian citizens, indigenous communities, and subject matter and technical experts.

Mark Wittrup, vice-president of environmental and regulatory affairs at Clifton Associates, has said, “The proposed [impact assessment] process will create significant delays, missed opportunities and likely impact those that need that economic development the most: northern and Indigenous communities.”

Indigenous leaders have also noticed. Roy Fox, chief of the Blood Tribe first nation and a former CEO of the Indian Resource Council, has said, “I don't have any confidence in Bill C-69. I am fearful, and I am confident, that it will keep my people in poverty.”

Stephen Buffalo, the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, which currently represents more than 100 indigenous oil and gas developers, has said, “Indigenous communities are on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, one that finally allows Indigenous people to share in Canada's economic prosperity. Bill C-69 will stop this progress in its tracks.”

The more than 30 first nations in the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council say they will take the government to court over C-69, because the bill could make it “impossible to complete a project” and because the removal of the standing test could lead to foreign interests “overriding the interests of aboriginal title holders” in Canada.

Bill C-88 is yet another example of the Liberals' pattern of adding red tape and roadblocks to resource development, which is something a Conservative government will reverse to help northern indigenous communities, all northerners and all Canadians get ahead.

The future of mining in Canada is very much related to opening up the north. Conservatives know how crucial infrastructure is to this ambition, as it can cost up to six times more to explore, and two and a half times more to build mines in remote regions. The Liberal-imposed carbon tax will hike the already expensive cost of living and cost of operations in the north even higher.

The Conservative Party has long believed that this means giving northerners the autonomy to make decisions based on their priorities and to benefit from those decisions the same way the provinces do.

In natural resources, mining is one of the areas where first nations are the most active, having secured 455 agreements in the sector between 2000 and 2017, often including priority training, hiring and subcontracting commitments. In 2016, indigenous people working in the mining sector had a median income twice as high as workers in their communities overall and nearly twice as high as that of non-indigenous people as a whole.

The problem is that mines are currently in the later years of their productive life, and there are no new mines in the approvals process. By reverting to the old, convoluted impact assessment and approvals process, the Liberals are reintroducing a major barrier to proposing and then actually completing projects in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, as I said before, the north will pay for Liberal mistakes with the loss of an entire generation's economic advancement as mining completely leaves the north.

However, there is hope. Conservatives will work to cut unnecessary red tape to bring investment and jobs back to Canada, while maintaining, enhancing and protecting Canada's reputation. Our reputation is second to none as a global leader in environmental standards, performance, and community and indigenous consultation for responsible resource development.

Conservatives know the reality is that when a resource project gets shut down in Canada, the most regulated and environmentally responsible major resource producer in the world, all it means is that the money, the businesses and the jobs go to countries with lower environmental, civil and human rights protections and standards.

The world needs more Canadian resource development, not less of it. Canada can and must still protect the environment while getting to a “yes” on major projects. When approval is given, the projects must be able to get built. Instead of turning the north into one big park, the Liberals should listen to northern first nations and hear their call for empowerment to develop their natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way.

This bill represents a major regression in the ability of northerners to manage their own natural resources to the benefit of their communities and in the best interests of the entire country. This legislation is yet another example of the Liberal government believing it knows better than local communities, indigenous communities, regions and provinces, resource developers and private sector proponents.

Conservatives will work to reverse these damaging legislative changes, eliminate the roadblocks that the Liberals are putting in the path of northern resource projects and of indigenous communities, and help northern Canadians and all Canadians get ahead.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, one of my most cherished times in this House was when I got the Tlicho land claim and self-government agreement, which is referenced in Bill C-88, through the House of Commons. It was a very exciting day for the Tlicho people, but there were some objections from the Conservatives.

I would like to ask the member if the Conservative Party now agrees with the Tlicho self-government and land claim agreement.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the changes that the Liberals made to YESAA and that they made in the Yukon actually have exactly the same impact as Bill C-88 and other legislation, which is a regression of the empowerment of territorial and local decision-making over responsible resource development.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories know best how their resources should be used and managed. By eliminating the regional land and water boards, the Conservative government ignored the spirit, intent and words of the constitutionally-protected land claim and self-government agreements. They failed to listen to first nations and northerners and it led, as we know, to a lengthy legal battle.

I have to ask my colleague and friend from Alberta why the Conservatives are continuing to weaken the rights of indigenous people. That is what they are doing by challenging this very important piece of legislation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are challenging this piece of legislation because in part 2 it gives unprecedented and unilateral power to the federal cabinet to do exactly the opposite of what the member is talking about, by completely unilaterally blocking and banning economic oil and gas development in these territories.

This is the challenge of the Liberals, who constantly say they believe a bunch of things and are putting forward this suite of policies and different legislation. They are probably well intentioned, but the outcome, consequences and the way it actually works defeat the very objectives they said they stood for in the first place.

That is the same with Bill C-88. Members cannot really, in good conscience, stand up here and pretend that this legislation gives further authority to indigenous communities in the north and to territorial leaders, while right in the legislation is an unprecedented granting of power to the federal cabinet to make unilateral decisions that will destroy economic development in those regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the House a bit of personal history.

Back when I was a young biologist, I spent time in the Mackenzie Valley doing some of the initial environmental impact assessment work. I stayed in the community of Norman Wells, which has been producing oil since the Second World War with zero environmental impact. I also lived in the community of Fort Simpson for a while, so for a southerner, I know the area somewhat, and I can guarantee that any project proposed there is done under the most strict environmental standards. In fact, the standards that were in place back in 1973 were world-class even then.

I would like to quote a couple of newspaper articles for the House.

On June 5, 2018, the Edmonton Journal writes, “Investor flight from energy sector is a national embarrassment”.

The CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada said, “Our competitiveness is challenged. Our capacity to grow and advance the economy is stalling.”

The C.D. Howe Institute writes, “C.D. Howe blames Canada’s sclerotic regulatory regime for the killed and stalled projects and the flight of investment capital.”

Can my friend and colleague comment on the downward spiral of the Canadian economy as a result of the sclerotic regulatory regime that the government has implemented?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. The devastating losses of energy projects and energy jobs are a direct consequence of the Liberals' policy and their legislative agenda. The only oil and gas industries in the entire world that are not thriving are Canada's and Venezuela's. The risk is that Canada is being left behind in its potential as a leading global energy producer and exporter, which harms all Canadians and all indigenous communities.

The reality is that the amount of investment that has been lost in Canada's energy sector under these Liberals is more than at any other time in more than seven decades. It is not a matter of external factors; it is a direct consequence of their decisions.

Further to my colleague's experienced, direct and informed comments on Canada's track record, it is not just Conservatives saying it. It has actually been benchmarked in exhaustive and comprehensive comparisons of Canada to the other top 10 major oil and gas-producing countries in the world in 2012 and 2014. The conclusions were that on every single measure—including expertise, independence, consultation, evidence, science-based decision-making and the incorporation of traditional knowledge—Canada's track record and role are second to none among every other major producer on the planet. Canada can do better and strives to always do better, but Canada is already a world leader on exactly all those points my colleague mentioned.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member, like many members on her side of the House today, speaks about the energy sector as though energy can only be the kind that is derived from fossil fuels. When they talk about loss in energy sector jobs, they are actually not being entire truthful, because the green energy sector, which is also an energy producer, is up 37% over the last five years. There are now more people employed in Canada in the green energy sector than in the oil sands. As a matter of fact, 23,700 people work in the green energy sector, whereas 23,340 work in the oil sands. In Alberta specifically, the number of people employed in the green energy sector is doubling every year.

Can the member comment on the fact that the rhetoric we continually hear from the other side of the House when we talk about the energy sector seems to be focusing only on oil-producing energy sectors?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, just to be clear, in case the Liberals do not know, the energy sector is the number one private sector investor in the Canadian economy. It is Canada's biggest export. He is quoting oil sands jobs, but that is not the totality of the energy sector; in fact, the total job numbers are close to a million.

The Liberals are doing everything they can to vaporize those jobs and businesses. There are probably more than 200,000 job losses under their government alone, but contractors and self-employers cannot be included in the statistics.

However, the fact is this. Of private sector investors in alternative and renewable energy technologies, the number one investor right now and for decades, aside from the public sector or public utilities, has been oil sands and pipeline companies. They are major multi-energy integrated companies. They are the innovators and companies that will lead the long-term transition and technological development to alternative and renewable energies in the future.

That is why it makes no sense for the Liberals to keep going down their path of stepping on the throats of oil sands and conventional oil developers and destroying the oil and gas sector. Those are the private sector risk-takers and inventors that can also achieve their long-term transition goals.

What very much worries me every time these Liberals stand up and say something like that is that they seem to have no clue about how the energy sector actually works or where this technology and innovation comes from.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a very large mining region, where we are seeing a number of new mining operations coming on stream. What has become really clear for the success of mining in the north are the indigenous agreements, which are very much tied to an environmental plan. People are being employed and there is new investment, but the other element is that companies are trying to deal with the need for a green footprint. For example, Borden mine has gone 100% green. It is getting rid of diesel underground and going electric. It is much safer for the workers and it actually lowers costs.

I would ask my hon. colleague about the importance of making sure that natural resource projects are tied to an environmental plan and to making sure we are getting the maximum benefit from the resources by limiting greenhouse gas. It is innovative and creates a better profit for companies and communities in the long term.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians want Canada to maintain the highest standards of environmental responsibility, protection, operations and performance. Indeed, I agree with my colleague that it is wonderful to see the countless examples in the mining sector of companies taking measures that make economic sense to them, as they have been doing for decades.

The mining sector is really a leader and role model in terms of engaging and employing indigenous people, as well as in working with indigenous communities and people as owners and partners in responsible resource development. Just as in the energy sector, where a single oil sands company happens to be the largest private employer of indigenous people, the mining sector is the largest employer as a whole. In the same way, oil and gas companies in Canada are world leaders in innovation and technology in protecting the environment, including the major investments in clean technology by a consortium of oil sands companies over the last several decades.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people in support of a bill that proposes to strike a more appropriate balance between environmental protection, social responsibility and economic development in Canada's north. As my hon. colleagues recognize, Canada is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and throughout Canada's history these resources have been a cornerstone of the economy.

While the national economy grows ever more diverse thanks to the rise of other sectors, resource development remains crucial to our national prosperity. Resource development projects create jobs and export sales and stimulate technological innovation. Tempering these benefits, however, are the environmental and social impacts of resource extraction and development. These include pollution, destruction of ecosystems and changes in the fabric of communities and traditional indigenous ways.

Throughout much of our nation's history, while we relied on resource development for prosperity and growth, we often failed to appreciate and take into account its long-term environmental and social consequences. To strike a better balance between economic and environmental concerns, Canada has developed a unique regulatory regime that governs resource development projects in the north, a regime that is co-managed with indigenous partners.

The regime requires that proposed projects undergo stringent reviews of anticipated impacts. This regulatory regime helps to ensure that resource projects maximize potential economic benefits and minimize potential environmental impacts. In this way, the regime restores public confidence and creates certainty and predictability, which are so important in industry, and it sets the foundation for a sustainable and long-term natural resource industry in the north.

I am going to take the opportunity now to advise that I will be splitting my time with the parliamentary secretary, the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

To maintain an appropriate balance between these concerns, the regulatory regime evolves continually as Canada evolves and as our understanding of the environment and of resource development deepens. In the north in particular, the settlement of modern land claims has enabled the creation of unique systems of governance in co-operation with our indigenous partners.

Through the amendments proposed in Bill C-88, our government has established a clear path forward in managing land, water and natural resources in the Mackenzie Valley, one that respects indigenous inhabitants and is fair and equitable to industry. These amendments strengthen trust and provide certainty, and they provide an effective approach to natural resource co-management. They also support a modern regulatory regime that is stable, predictable, coordinated and balanced.

Bill C-88 responds to the concerns raised by indigenous governments and organizations in the Mackenzie Valley about the provisions of the 2014 Northwest Territories Devolution Act. That act devolved the administration and control of public lands and waters to the Government of the Northwest Territories and also made other amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act.

Those 2014 amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act included provisions to amalgamate the regional land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley into a single board. While the government of the day argued that an amalgamated board structure would provide clarity and certainty to the regulatory regime in the Mackenzie Valley, the opposite occurred.

Instead of bringing certainty, the proposed amalgamated boards led to court challenges by indigenous organizations. Indigenous groups argued that their authorities in land and water management, guaranteed by their land claims and self-government agreements, were not being respected, and that their land and water boards could not be unilaterally abolished by the federal government.

A court injunction in February of 2015 halted the provisions of section 253(2) of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, the section that included restructuring of the land and water boards. The injunction also affected important policy measures that are central to the regulatory regime, such as the use of development certificates and their enforcement scheme and inspection notice requirements on Gwich'in and Sahtu lands.

So much for bringing certainty to the regulatory regime. Stakeholders agree that the 2014 legislation has done the opposite; it creates a climate of uncertainty and discourages the responsible development of the Mackenzie Valley's natural resources.

The Government of Canada is committed to exploring ways to fix the restructuring provisions, resolve the legal proceedings and renew the government's relationship with indigenous peoples in the Northwest Territories.

Bill C-88 is the product of productive discussions with indigenous governments and organizations, the Government of the Northwest Territories, resource co-management boards, industry and other stakeholders. Input received has been carefully considered and helped shape the bill.

If passed, Bill C-88 will undo the controversial land restructuring provisions and reintroduce important regulatory improvement provisions from the Northwest Territories Devolution Act that did not come into force due to the court injunctions. Bill C-88 provides certainty to proponents, and it supports a modern-day regime that balances environmental, social and economic well-being.

My understanding is that the Government of the Northwest Territories supports the amendments proposed in Bill C-88, contrary to what the opposition has said. Indigenous governments and organizations in the Northwest Territories also want these amendments. The mining industry that conducts its business in the territory is not opposed to the board restructuring amendments, and supports anything that provides greater clarity and certainty in the regulatory process and gets us through these injunctions.

Companies with commercial interests in the north also understand the importance of protecting the unique arctic environment, while pursuing safe, responsible development, which creates jobs and economic growth right in the northern communities from whence the resources come.

Bill C-88 proposes to improve the regulatory regime in the north through a series of amendments informed by several important developments. These include the court challenges I mentioned earlier, as well as the accelerated impacts of climate change in the Arctic and the Government of Canada's commitment to foster reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Crown.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-88 would increase predictability, consistency and timeliness of regulatory reviews in the north, while strengthening environmental protections. Northerners deserve a fully functional, modernized regulatory regime that meets their particular needs, the kind of regime that promotes growth and prosperity while at the same time safeguards the fragile northern ecosystem, the kind of regime that strikes the appropriate balance between economic and environmental concerns.

Bill C-88 would provide the clarity and certainty that the regulatory process needs in order to encourage industry investment in resource development in the Mackenzie River valley. I call upon all members of the House to support Bill C-88, which will enable us to balance the development of untapped economic potential in the north with strong partnerships and sound environmental stewardship.

One of the main issues that has arisen in my conversations with oil and gas companies around uncertainty, and I know the opposition shadow minister raised this point, actually relates to the uncertainty that arises out of the courts. The biggest fear of companies that have proposed to invest billions of dollars in resource development and extraction is that the courts will impose some type of an injunction late into their process, creating a great amount of uncertainty as to whether or not their capital can be effectively deployed. This is exactly what happened with TMX. It is exactly what happened with the previous 2014 legislation that this bill hopes to amend. It is the greatest source of risk that our government is trying to fend off.

Although some members of the House suggest that these injunctions occurred on our watch and, therefore, must be our fault, the exact opposite is the case. The injunction arose in the cases that I just mentioned from decisions that were made by the previous government and its failure to properly consult, to take indigenous concerns into account, to abide by our constitutional commitments and to abide by the duty to accommodate.

This is what so much of our focus has been on for the last four years, to get our environmental regulatory regime back in line with our constitutional and economic commitments, to help make sure indigenous communities thrive. In this particular instance, we have the right balance and we know we do because the groups that have brought forward the injunction are in favour of the changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I was shocked at the very beginning of his speech when he implied that sound environmental technology is just a recent thing. As someone who has been in the business since 1973, and part of the Mackenzie valley pipeline assessment, I can tell him that we have had 40 years of continuous environmental improvement.

I want to talk about what is happening to the Canadian economy because of what the Liberal government is doing. Interestingly, in March of this year, the United States economy added 196,000 jobs, while in the same month, employment in Canada fell by 7,200. Back in the day, the Canadian and American economies were in lockstep. If the U.S. grew 200,000 jobs, we would grow 20,000. Now our economies are starting to diverge, strictly because of the regulatory regime that the Liberal government has put in place.

C.D. Howe reports that during this time investment in the Canadian oil and gas sector fell from $125 billion in 2014, under the watch of the great former prime minister Stephen Harper, to $75 billion in 2018. This was during a period when global investments in oil and gas have increased, especially in the U.S., which had a 50% rise in oil and gas sector investment in 2017.

How can the member defend this shabby record?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the regulatory regime that we are living under is the regulatory regime that the Conservatives put in place. The legislation that we are trying to get through the House today, as well as Bill C-69, which is before the Senate, is our attempt to fix the regulatory system. If the member's complaint is that our regulatory system does not work, then he only has his own party to blame.

Having said that, we do not pick one month and base the entire job-number argument on it. Since we have been elected, there have been 900,000 new jobs and 825,000 people lifted out of poverty. We are looking forward to getting a number of environmental assessment processes through what we consider to be the failed 2012 process but it is the process we have, with full indigenous consultation where indigenous peoples have been funded for their participation. We are so excited that the Newfoundland offshore will have an opportunity, hopefully, to avail itself of that this summer.

Of course, we look forward to a final decision on an improved process for the NEB, which, again, if it had been done right the first time, we would have had four years of pipeline to our coast to B.C. However, we did not because of the previous government's ineptitude.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to see that Bill C-88 is revisiting the principle of self-determination of indigenous peoples. However, the concept of self-determination of indigenous peoples applies to many other areas, including housing, for example.

The minister responsible for housing put forward a housing strategy over a year ago, but we still do not have a targeted housing strategy for indigenous people. I would argue that self-determination should form the foundation of that strategy.

I would like to know whether my colleague would commit to putting some pressure on his colleague, the minister responsible for housing, first, to bring forward a targeted housing strategy for indigenous people, and second, to ensure that strategy is squarely based on self-determination.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the question relates to our efforts with respect to housing for indigenous peoples.

My neighbour, the Minister of Indigenous Services, is handling the housing situation in indigenous communities. While the strategy may not have been presented by a member from Quebec, it is coming from the Minister of Indigenous Services. Budget 2019 includes a many new investments in that regard.

We are not going to simply enforce our own view of what a housing strategy for indigenous people will look like. Our indigenous services minister will work with indigenous people to make sure that the money in budget 2019 for indigenous housing is deployed in a way that helps them, as I am sure the member will appreciate and respect.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go on, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for mentioning that he will be sharing his time.

There have been more than five hours of debate since the debate began. Accordingly, all speeches from this point on will be limited to 10 minutes, and questions and comments will be limited to five minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-88.

The Government of Canada, our government, is taking a new approach. We are currently conducting extensive consultations with indigenous governments and organizations as well as other key stakeholders on issues that will affect them. By working directly with indigenous governments and stakeholders on developing this bill, we can respond to concerns that are raised and ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples are respected. This process has helped create a law that will benefit all Canadians.

Bill C-88 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in direct response to comments from key stakeholders, as well as concerns expressed to the Government of Canada by indigenous groups affected by the previous piece of legislation.

Our indigenous partners have made their views quite clear. The Tlicho government and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated applied to the courts in 2014 and 2015 respectively for protection of their rights in accordance with their individual land claim and self-government agreements. The bill we are debating today corrects those problems and responds directly to the concerns expressed by indigenous governments and organizations.

As part of the ongoing reconciliation process, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations asked departmental officials to initiate an ongoing dialogue with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories to address their concerns.

On September 23, 2016, the minister sent letters to indigenous groups and stakeholders launching consultations on the draft bill to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in order to address these issues.

Bill C-88 is the result of consultations with indigenous organizations and governments in the Mackenzie Valley, transboundary indigenous organizations and governments, resource co-management boards, and oil and gas industry organizations.

In addition to indigenous organizations and governments, Canada consulted the Government of the Northwest Territories. Our government also consulted members of the mining and gas and oil industries, including the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, the Mining Association of Canada, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The text of the bill was communicated to these groups to get their feedback, and several meetings were held to respond to their concerns.

Ongoing consultations over the long term with key stakeholders have provided Canada with invaluable insight into the practical nature of the bill before us today. The comments from our partners provided unique perspectives and useful guidance which, in the end, led to the drafting of this bill.

Canada recognizes that the previous legislation was drafted without enough consultation. This is why the government of Canada ensured that the voices of indigenous groups, the government of the Northwest Territories and industry representatives were heard at every stage of the process.

Bringing together stakeholders is the key to developing effective policies and practices. Our government is holding extensive consultations in order to create processes that satisfy the needs of all parties. That ensures that the final product serves everyone in a positive manner and gets rid of any possible uncertainty regarding natural resources.

In March 2018, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations met with industry groups to better understand their opinion on developing and co-managing resources in the north. Industry plays a major role in creating a stronger and better relationship with governments and indigenous organizations when it comes to protecting, managing and developing Canada's natural resources. In order to truly make progress on the path to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, industry must be taken into consideration as a key strategic partner alongside all levels of governments.

Consultation and engagement with stakeholders on Bill C-88 began in February 2017. A draft bill was distributed to participants for an eight-week review, during which two meetings were held in Yellowknife. At these meetings, departmental representatives from the former department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada explained the content of the proposal and the accommodation measures in response to the participants' comments.

Throughout the consultation process, changes to the draft bill were clearly communicated to give stakeholders the opportunity to express their opinion.

By engaging stakeholders, we were able to address all concerns as they were raised. With our innovative approach to drafting this bill, we are improving how our government makes decisions, gathers information, and engages with different stakeholders. Today's bill reflects that process.

If passed, the proposed amendments would contribute to the efficient, predictable and coherent management and use of land, water and natural resources in the Mackenzie Valley. By charting a clearer course for governments and organizations with respect to natural resource management, industry will no longer have to contend with potential uncertainty that hinders its ability to invest in northern Canada.

This legislation will enhance economic opportunities and growth while protecting the environment for future generations. It addresses concerns expressed by indigenous organizations and governments and is consistent with constitutionally protected land claim and self-government agreements. It recognizes the importance of indigenous peoples' active participation in the co-management of natural resources and protects their right to oversee the future of their lands.

The environment, the economy and reconciliation go hand in hand. We need to create a more effective system for everyone, and that is exactly what Bill C-88 accomplishes. I invite my hon. colleagues to support it.

We will achieve reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We will work closely with indigenous peoples and all other stakeholders, whether from industry or other levels of government. It is a priority for our government, always has been, and we will stay the course and continue our work.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good that the Liberals have taken this step to repair some of the harm the Harper government inflicted on indigenous peoples. Of course, there is still a lot of work to be done on this file, especially when it comes to housing, infrastructure, drinking water, wastewater, education and the implementation of political rights.

Can my colleague tell us why the bill makes no mention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for her question. To come back to the bill, as I said earlier, the Government of the Northwest Territories and indigenous peoples have been calling for a bill like this. They want to develop their own natural resources and manage their land the way they see fit, based on their own needs.

As I said in my speech, we want to work very closely with indigenous peoples. We want to ensure that they can manage their land and have access to their resources as they see fit, with the co-operation of industry and the various levels of government. That is exactly what we are doing.

With regard to what we are doing for indigenous peoples, I think that our track record speaks for itself. We began the reconciliation process, while the former Conservative government completely ignored the rights of indigenous peoples. We believe that by working more closely with indigenous peoples, the various levels of government and industry on this bill, we will be able to implement the tools and processes necessary to enable them to develop their full potential.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about the importance of indigenous consultation, but what it is not reflecting on is that in part 2 of this particular bill, the federal government would have the ability to be arbitrary in terms of shutting down energy resource development projects.

The more important question is why it is more important for the government to debate this bill today, which would shut down energy resource projects in an arbitrary way for indigenous communities, than to debate what it says is its most important priority, which is the child welfare legislation.

The Liberals clearly believe that the federal government having the arbitrary ability to shut down energy processes without indigenous consultation is more important to debate today in the House than something it has told indigenous communities it would get done, which is the child welfare legislation.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

When I hear the word “consultation” coming out of the Conservatives' mouths, I cannot help but chuckle. I did not think that word was in their vocabulary. In contrast, we have always consulted very closely with indigenous peoples.

The problem was created by the Conservatives in 2014 when they split up the boards. For 10 years, the Conservatives made it clear that they were not interested in working with indigenous peoples to fix this problem. The bill we are introducing today will fix the problem.

Again, the Government of the Northwest Territories asked for this bill. Indigenous peoples want to be able to access and manage their own resources. I think it is advisable to ensure that indigenous communities can access and manage their own resources, but industry and the various levels of government also need to support the indigenous communities.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the last question suggested that the government would be shutting down energy resources. However, this would actually allow the protection of existing energy leases.

To let the opposition know, this bill would just reverse an attempt by the opposition to ride roughshod over the rights of the Sahtu, Gwich'in and Tlicho people by making unconstitutional changes to an act. This bill would reverse that, as indicated by a court injunction. I assume that the member agrees that we should not try to override the constitutional rights of indigenous people by passing laws that are not constitutional.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon, who works very hard for indigenous communities in his region and across the country.

As I mentioned, this problem was created in 2014 when the Conservatives split up the boards. This bill seeks to put more power in the hands of indigenous communities. The Government of the Northwest Territories called for this bill. Indigenous communities want to be able to access and manage their own resources, but they also want the collaboration of the various industry players.

We are again putting indigenous communities at the forefront. With this bill, we are giving them greater assurance that they will be able to manage their resources and their affairs as they see fit.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about the government's instincts. When it comes to many pieces of legislation, the Liberals' instincts are wrong. Their instinct is to manage to bureaucrats and to the wealthiest few in this country.

I want to walk people who are watching through Bill C-88 as an example of why this is the case and also compare it to something that just happened in the last 24 hours that proves that the government really does not care about the environment but does care about bettering the interests of the Liberals' corporate donors and the wealthy companies in this country.

Part 2 of bill C-88 would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities and freeze the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expanding during a moratorium. For those who are watching, what that means is that like Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act, the government is introducing yet another piece of legislation that would allow the cabinet or the Liberal Party of Canada to interfere politically in the review process, or essentially in the economy, in a way that is not positive.

What do I mean by that? Part of what we have seen in terms of the economic downturn in Canada, when it comes to the natural resources sector, and what we will hear from anyone who wants to look at Canada as a potential place to invest, is that the Liberal government, led by the Prime Minister, has made it uncertain and unstable for people to invest in Canada because of pieces of legislation like this.

If we were sitting around a board table or were a small business trying to decide whether to make an investment, one of the questions we would ask is what the government was going to do with regard to regulations or whether a project was going to go forward. What the government has done with bills like part 2 of Bill C-88, which we are discussing today, and Bill C-69 is say that it would politically interfere in their decision and make a decision that would be in the Liberals' best interests politically, whatever they might be. That would not help investment in Canada. That would not help protect the environment.

Liberals might say that this would help protect the environment, but it would not. All it would do is create an environment of uncertainty so that people could not and would not invest in natural resources projects in Canada. It is a convenient way for them to kick the can down the road.

Rather than standing up and saying that as a government, as a political party, this is what the Liberals' vision is for natural resource development in Canada, they are saying, “Maybe we will do something at some point. Why don't you invest? However, we may pull that football away through legal provisions” such as the one they are introducing in the bill. That is why it is important for Canadians to pay attention to this.

With regard to protecting the environment and perhaps protecting average Canadians, we saw something remarkable happen yesterday. The environment minister not only signed off on $12 million worth of taxpayer money going to one of the wealthiest companies in Canada, Loblaws, to buy new fridges, she also staged a taxpayer-funded announcement at a Loblaws store. Twelve million dollars of taxpayer funds went to a company that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to buy fridges, and then tax dollars were used for the minister to get a photo opportunity for doing that.

One could argue that Loblaws is a very successful company. If everyone is so committed to protecting the environment, why could Loblaws not just buy those fridges itself? Why was the government's policy instinct not to incent the company, either through regulations or tax credits or something that would be better for everyone in the country and would put everyone on a level playing field? Why was the Liberals' instinct to give money to this company, which can afford lobbyists to fill out very complicated grant applications? Why was it the Liberals' instinct to give money to a wealthy company that could have done this itself instead of something that would have evened the playing field for all Canadians and incentivized business?

I like to call it “reverse Robin Hood”. The Prime Minister has a really great track record of doing everything possible to take money away from Canadians. It includes this announcement and the SNC-Lavalin scandal and things like the carbon tax, which will never reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as giving opportunities to wealthy companies that have lobbyists.

I believe in the economy. I believe that we should create an opportunity for companies to thrive. What I do not believe is that the government should be using tax dollars to pay for fridges for a company that has done three things that I will describe.

First, it makes hundreds of millions of dollars of net profit every year. It made about $3 billion in net revenue and $800 million in net profit last year. It is doing okay. I think can afford a few fridges.

Then this company was involved for years in a price-fixing scheme on bread that by all accounts impacted poor people in Canada the most.

Also, early last year, reports broke that this company was involved in a fight with the Canada Revenue Agency over $400 million in claims over a bogus offshore account. That was a CBC headline.

What was the minister thinking? I know what she was thinking. I would like to chalk it up to incompetence, but when we look at SNC-Lavalin and this announcement, it is not as if she signed this accidentally. It was not, “Oh, no; I accidentally signed this.” She scheduled a funding announcement for it. She took pictures with somebody.

When I talked about this issue yesterday, somebody named Amanda from Lundar, Manitoba, wrote to my office to say that the dairy cooler in the family grocery store she owns in her community had broken and that she cannot afford to replace it. She said she just cannot afford it. She asked why the government is so out of touch that it thinks the right thing to do is to give $12 million to a big company that makes hundreds of millions of dollars and then increase her taxes to pay for it. That shows how out of touch the government is.

The government has no desire to fix the environment. It is like the Prime Minister saying he is a feminist. Now he is saying he is fixing the environment, but he is finding ways to give money to Loblaws.

Loblaws should be concerned. Loblaws should know better. In terms of any brand credit that Loblaws gets from this, I know the company is managing profit and loss for their shareholders, but did the board members think this was a good idea? Come on. There is $12 million for new freezers when that company made $800 million in profit. Why should Amanda have to go without a dairy freezer—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I know you are very liberal in your interpretation of relevance, but the member has been talking for many minutes about a freezer in southern Canada when this bill is about the mess that the Conservatives created in the Northwest Territories. Perhaps she could actually refer to the act.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his attention to the relevance rule.

As he mentioned, this is something on which chair occupants generally provide members a degree of latitude and liberty. I have been listening to the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill and noted her reference and comparisons early on. I am sure that with less than a minute and a half remaining, she will bring her speech back in line with the subject before the House. I did not note any particular concerns with relevance, broadly speaking.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is such a perfect example of the Liberals trying to shut down debate on the hypocrisy of their policy. Everyone watching will note that a Liberal member just tried to shut me down when I started talking about how out of touch these Liberals are by bringing up Amanda's fridge. They know how wrong this is.

They took a glossy photo opportunity after giving $12 million to a company. The Weston family is one of the wealthiest families in the country. I like seeing people create wealth; I do not like people taking tax dollars when we should be focusing on reducing taxes and creating economic opportunity for all Canadians. That is the difference between this side of the House and the government. I make no apologies for fighting for people like Amanda.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time permitted for the speech portion of this intervention is completed. However, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill will have five minutes for questions and comments. I am sure the House will be interested to know that this time will be available when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

We will now go to Statements by Members, beginning with the hon. member for Repentigny.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill had completed her speech. It is now time for questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate thus far, it is important to recognize that as a government we have put a very high priority on northern Canada and wanting to ensure that we get it right.

The legislation would allow for more empowerment within the local communities. It is something the former government was really unable to do. This is positive legislation that will in fact make a difference. What we are hoping to see is that the official opposition will recognize the importance of northern Canada by getting behind this legislation and recognizing its value in terms of such a wonderful concept as the environment, the economy and our natural resources working together to advance the best interests of not only northern Canada but Canada as a whole.

Therefore, I would ask to what degree the Conservative Party is prepared to bring forward amendments. I understand Conservatives are opposing the legislation, but to what degree are they prepared, at the very least, to bring amendments forward, or do they feel that there are no amendments to be advanced at this point?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, part 2 of this legislation amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to expand the power of cabinet to interfere in the decisions surrounding natural resource projects. This is not helpful for the communities of the north, any of its peoples or for economic growth. In fact, this is the exact type of legislation that is imbedded in Bill C-69 and other bills that do nothing to protect the environment but everything to create uncertainty and instability in the investment climate for natural resource development.

The question is not “Can we protect the environment?” or “Can we have a proper resource development process?” It is ensuring that we have a stable process that the government and the Liberal Party are not interfering in politically depending on whatever way the wind is blowing. That is no way to create an investment climate and that is no way to partner with communities in the north.

This legislation is, again, another overreach of the government's desire to interfere in the natural resource sector in Canada and to stymie jobs and growth in that area.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a very powerful speech outlining the devastating potential effects of the passing of this legislation, not only for the specific resource commitments in the north but also for the precedents that it will set for future legislation and the overreach of the cabinet.

Could the member expand on why this is such a big deal, the severity of the economic impact and the severity of the constraints that this will put on the future of resource commitments in Canada?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals went in and politically vetoed the northern gateway pipeline after it had been reviewed extensively and had over 200 recommendations attached to it, conditions that were required for the build-out. When the government went in and said “no”, it showed that a company can spend millions and millions of dollars for the natural resource review process but a group of politicians can sit around and decide that they do not like the politics of it at a given time and say “bye”.

Guess what happens. Industry looks at Canada and thinks that it is a non-stable place to do business. This is not about getting a “yes” and it is not about getting a “no”. This is about creating a system investors can look at and see that there is a clear arm's length path that is free from political influence.

What the government is doing with this particular bill is to enshrine that principle into more legislation. That is wrong. What they have done is say that, over an environmental review, over any investment, over any other principle, the principle most important to them is to be able to politically interfere in a decision so that they can manipulate the situation for their electoral prospects. That is what is wrong with Bill C-69. That is what is wrong with part 2 of this legislation and, frankly, that is what has ruined the economy in my province.

We have to depart from this ideology that somehow a group of politicians can sit around a table and dictate the investment climate, because then one gets into situations where people and lobbyists start looking at how they can influence the political situation in other ways, which is what we are seeing with SNC-Lavalin. This particular principle is exactly why the government needs to go. We need to have a reset of the government so that we can get back to our democratic processes, arm's length processes, and jobs and growth in Canada.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to focus my comments on the first part of Bill C-88, the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. However, I cannot resist adding that contrary to the remarks the hon. member just made, it was the Harper government that took the power away from the National Energy Board to make the final decision of nay or yea for a pipeline and gave it to the cabinet, so the statement lacks a certain level of credibility.

Forty-five years ago, the federal government commissioned Judge Thomas Berger to lead an inquiry to investigate the social, environmental and economic impacts of a proposed gas pipeline that would run through the Yukon and the Mackenzie River Valley of the Northwest Territories. The Berger inquiry set the bar for proper consultation with communities, in particular with indigenous communities, on proposed major energy projects.

Justice Berger heard testimony from diverse groups with an interest in the pipeline. The inquiry was notable for the voice it gave to aboriginal people, whose traditional territory the pipeline was intended to traverse.

Berger travelled extensively in the north in preparation for and during the hearings, visiting all 35 communities along the Mackenzie River Valley, as well as other cities across Canada, to gauge public reaction. In his travels, he met with Dene, Inuit, Métis and non-aboriginal residents. He heard from experts. He held community meetings across the Northwest Territories and Yukon. This played an important role in shaping his views.

Sadly, despite my request, no similar community-level process was agreed to by the parliamentary committee on review of Bill C-69.

For the first time, intervenor funding was provided to aboriginal communities to ensure their voices would be heard. This inspired many of us to pursue similar rights and open processes for energy reviews in my province of Alberta and before the NEB. My Canadian environmental bill of rights, Bill C-438, is premised on these same basic rights and principles.

The commission recommended that no pipeline be built through northern Yukon and that a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley should be delayed for 10 years.

His report's first volume, entitled “Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland”, highlighted the fact that while the Mackenzie Valley could be the site of the biggest project in the history of free enterprise, it was also home to many people whose lives would be immeasurably changed by the pipeline.

Berger was quoted as saying this:

The North is a frontier, but it is a homeland too, the homeland of the Dene, Inuit and Métis, as it is also the home of the white people who live there. And it is a heritage, a unique environment that we are called upon to preserve for all Canadians.

The commission found no significant economic benefit to northerners from the pipeline. The report was prescient in concluding that large-sale projects based on non-renewable energy sources rarely provide long-term employment and that those locals who did find work during construction could only find low-skill, low-wage positions.

In addition, Berger feared that the pipeline development would undermine local economies, which relied on hunting, fishing and trapping, possibly even increasing economic hardship. Berger ultimately found that the economy of the region would not be harmed by not building the pipeline.

The commission believed that the pipeline process had not taken native culture seriously and that any development needed to conform to the wishes of those who lived there.

Berger predicted that the social consequences of the pipeline would not only be serious; they would be devastating. The commission was particularly concerned about the role of indigenous peoples in development plans. At the time the report was released, there were several ongoing negotiations over native land claims in the area. Berger suggested that the pipeline construction be delayed until those claims were settled.

The commission found that the local population would not accept development activity without some control. In addition, land claims were part of a broader native rights issue that needed to be settled between the government and the first nations.

In Berger's view, rapid development in the north would preclude settlement of these important issues due to the influx of non-native populations and growing business interests.

The north today bears little resemblance to the north of Berger's time. The land is the same and the resources are still there, but the people of the north have changed. Most land claims have been settled. For many, the traditional ways of life have waned, and indigenous peoples are seizing control of their own destinies. Many who fought so fiercely against the Mackenzie Valley pipeline now favour building one, or building other developments, including a highway, but on their own terms, which include making sure the benefits flow to their communities over the long term.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives tacked on to a devolution bill regressive measures that directly contradicted any of the lessons of the Berger inquiry. Those measures also undermined rights within the constitutionally entrenched land claims and self-government agreements or modern treaties. These first nation final agreements provide that those communities most impacted by developments must have a direct voice.

The Conservatives' Bill C-15, contrary to the wish of northerners, eliminated four regional land and water co-management boards created under carefully negotiated first nation final agreements. Lawsuits successfully filed by the Tlicho and Sahtu First Nations succeeded in stopping these measures.

The bill before us, Bill C-88, restores the co-management boards, providing more effective voices for first nations in the development reviews and approvals. However, as my colleague, the MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has pointed out, Bill C-88 could fully recognize and strengthen indigenous rights by entrenching the UNDRIP in this proposed law.

A few years back, I had the honour of attending a Dene gathering in Fort Providence with my former colleague, Dennis Bevington, the then Northwest Territories member of Parliament. I heard first-hand concerns from northerners about an oil spill that was discovered on the land by indigenous hunters and their struggle to receive the necessary assistance to monitor the cleanup of the disaster, so the struggle continues to have a true voice.

However, I also experienced the joy of seeing the mighty Mackenzie River running along the shores of Fort Providence, a magnificent transboundary river basin relied upon by many communities that have long deserved a greater voice in decision-making.

I look forward to supporting the bill before us.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent speech on this topic and I appreciate her support.

The member has been here long enough to know that the Conservatives tried to abrogate the Yukon land claim environmental process. That attempt was turned back. I think the member would agree that we are again turning back an effort by the Conservatives to abrogate the land claims, in particular the Tlicho and Sahtu, with an act. Those land claims, both the ones that occurred in the Yukon and the ones in the Northwest Territories, were constitutionally protected, so we cannot just pass a law that overrides that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question, and also for allowing me to go before him so that I could go to my meeting. It is very gracious of him.

Indeed, it is very important that this measure has come forward. It is regrettable that it has taken this long, but finally we are moving forward with this legislation.

The hon. member represents the Yukon, and I had the pleasure of living and working there for three years. Everything one does in Yukon touches on first nation land claims and final governance agreements.

Nothing could be more important than reversing the changes made by the Harper government. Those land claims and self-government agreements were constitutionally entrenched, and the move the Conservatives made in their bill to erase them was reprehensible.

I look forward to the opportunity to finally have third reading on the bill before us, and I also look forward to the Liberal members at committee accepting that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, must be added into the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's opening remarks about Mr. Harper's record and what he had instructed in the legislation.

My question is specific to the obligation of government, especially in taking into consideration indigenous people as a stakeholder, or rather, indigenous people not as a stakeholder but more as an equal partner in terms of how we can best develop our northern region. There are many different interests out there. I think this legislation, in good part, allows for greater flexibility in having more people engaged in the process. I wonder if the member could provide her comments with respect to that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the concerns raised by the Conservative members goes to the second part of the bill, which is not a part that I have analyzed in depth. I quickly looked at the bill, and I think there are concerns that the federal government would be given unilateral power over the petroleum resources, and it will be important that the indigenous people of the north, particularly the first nations under their first nations final agreements, be given the opportunity to voice their views.

However, I have a slightly different view. Yes, development should proceed in partnership, but there is a higher level of responsibility: It is to make sure that the voices of those people who are going to be most impacted by the development will rule. They are the ones who will have to deal with the impact of the developments. That is exactly why those water and land boards were created to begin with, and to some extent negotiated, many years ago.

Perhaps we need provisions in law to further protect those rights and ensure that development in the north ends up being for the benefit of the people of the north.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify part 2, Conservatives have been saying it inhibits oil and gas rights, but it actually protects them. It protects those leases by freezing them, the ones that were affected by the moratoriums, so again it is not accurate information.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that was a question. These matters obviously will be deliberated at committee, and I am hoping that the Liberal majority will be open to amendments. I know that will be an unusual situation, but we remain hopeful.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I stand today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people to express my support for Bill C-88, which proposes to modernize the regulatory regime governing resource development projects in the north.

Before I start, one of the last Conservative speakers said the decision should be made in the north. The northern governments—the Sahtu, the Gwich'in, the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories—are all in agreement with this legislation. I assume that unless they are going to contradict their own speaker, the Conservatives will be supporting this bill, which leaves the decisions in the north as they were negotiated in the constitutionally protected land claims.

The key reason I support the legislation now before us has to do with the proposed enforcement system. As my colleagues know, the effectiveness of any regulatory regime depends largely on the quality of its enforcement system. As it stands today, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act lacks an effective enforcement system when it comes to assessments of environmental impacts.

While the amendments to the Northwest Territories Devolution Act did create an enforcement system, the court challenges initiated by northern indigenous groups on the decimation of their boards effectively eliminated it. Bill C-88 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to establish an enforcement system based on development certificates.

A development certificate is a form of authorization, a permission slip of sorts. For a project to proceed, an environmental assessment body must first issue a development certificate to the proponent. The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act follows a similar approach.

Under such a system, that environmental assessment body can include specific mitigation measures in the development certificate. The proponent might be authorized to drive heavy vehicles only on frozen winter roads, for instance, or be banned from designated areas during the time of year when caribou typically birth and nurse their calves, which I wish the Trump administration would do in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Under Bill C-88, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board would be authorized to issue development certificates listing mitigation measures within the jurisdiction of the responsible ministers. After completing an environmental assessment or environmental impact review, the board would issue a certificate to the proponent.

Under the enforcement system envisioned in Bill C-88, it would be a violation to proceed with a project without a valid certificate or to contravene the conditions of a certificate. These and other violations could lead to an administrative monetary penalty, or AMP. An AMP is a fine imposed by an inspector. It is a civil sanction imposed through an administrative process, rather than a criminal sentence imposed by a court.

Bill C-88 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to provide all the necessary and appropriate authorities for AMPs and associated regulations. The regulations would specify penalty amounts, as well as the method of calculating penalties for each type of violation. The amendments also specify the maximum fine would be $25,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations. A violation that continues for multiple days would be subject to a separate AMP for each day. I am convinced that the threat of such potentially large fines would promote compliance with the proposed legislation.

There are many advantages to an enforcement system based on development certificates. The threat of a hefty fine removes the potential financial benefit of non-compliance, for instance. By imposing particular restrictions on a project through a development certificate, the system helps regulators to achieve particular goals, such as environmental protection. Civil sanctions such as AMPs tend to be more efficient than criminal prosecutions, which can be lengthy and expensive undertakings.

The enforcement system proposed in Bill C-88 is consistent with those authorized in other federal legislation, including the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the National Energy Board Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Another worthwhile feature of the proposed enforcement system is that it features many effective checks and balances. Development certificates, for example, could not include measures within the jurisdiction of a designated regulatory agency, such as the National Energy Board or the Tlicho government. Anyone issued an AMP could seek to have the notice investigated by an official review body. The review would determine whether the penalty was issued in accordance with the regulations, whether the person committed the violation, or both.

For violations related to part 5 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which pertains to environmental assessment, the federal minister would be empowered to act as a review body. For violations related to part 3 of the act, which deals with land and water management, the board that issued the original authorization would serve as the review body. If a violation was related to an activity that did not involve an authorization, the board responsible for the region where the violation occurred would serve as the review body.

The enforcement system would also include a reconsideration process. A proponent could request an adjustment to a development certificate to address changing circumstances, ineffective or unclear project conditions or new technologies. Reconsideration would be limited to the area of change and to any effects the change may have had on the project. The proponent would not be required to complete another full environmental assessment, and the original decision to authorize the project could not be challenged under reconsideration.

Inspection is another important aspect of the proposed enforcement system. Qualified persons, such as federal or territorial officers, would be authorized under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to inspect projects for compliance with the conditions of development certificates. The inspectors would have broad authority to enter and examine premises. They could also prohibit or limit access to premises. If an inspection uncovered evidence of an activity that contravened part 5 of the act, the inspector could issue an order to cease the activity and to mitigate the effects of the activity.

To deter proponents from interfering with the work of inspectors, this part of the enforcement system would include more stringent measures. Rather than civil sanctions, violators would be subject to criminal prosecution. It would be a criminal offence to obstruct inspectors, for instance, or to knowingly provide them with false or misleading information. It would be an offence to carry out development without the proper authority or to contravene an order to cease an activity.

Offenders would face stiff penalties. Conviction for a first offence, for example, could lead to a fine of up to $250,000 and a one-year prison sentence. The maximum fine for subsequent offences would rise to $500,000. This part of the enforcement system would also feature important checks and balances. For instance, an action could not be subject to both an AMP and a criminal sanction.

As my hon. colleagues can now appreciate, the legislation before us envisions an effective enforcement system. Proponents would be required to abide by specific conditions set out in development certificates. To promote compliance, the system would include sanctions corresponding to the seriousness of a violation or offence. As well, the system would incorporate a series of checks and balances to prevent potential abuses of process.

I am convinced that such an enforcement system would enable northerners to maximize the potential benefits of resource development and to minimize the potential environmental impacts. I will vote in favour of Bill C-88 at second reading, and I urge my hon. colleagues to do the same.

The years involved in negotiating these settlements, land claims and self-government settlements are a remarkable testament to parliamentarians and to Canada. These agreements are working very well. As I said previously, one of my greatest moments in Parliament was to get the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement through Parliament.

We have to maintain the honour of the Crown, maintain respect for those constitutionally protected agreements and make sure that we do not pass legislation that would infringe on those agreements.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his work in advancing the interests of his constituents. On the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affair, the hon. member is always talking about his constituents and speaking very highly of them.

I was wondering if he could speak about the response from local governments, territorial governments and indigenous people in his riding and how they see this bill. What are they telling him on the ground?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, my constituents are not telling me much about this bill, because as the Conservative member referred to obliquely, it is not related to Yukon. It is not in Yukon. I asked the Conservative member a question about the Tlicho, and she answered that the Tlicho are in the Northwest Territories.

That being said, there was a similar situation recently where the same thing happened in Yukon. There was a constitutionally protected land claim and a process requiring consultation and working with first nation governments, as constitutionally protected in the land claim. There was a bill by the previous government that abrogated the spirit, if not the letter, of the law in those agreements. The same thing happened, and it was replaced. In this particular case, the first nations went to the government and won an injunction. What this law does is basically reinstate the law so that it stays in the spirit of the injunction and allows the land claim and self-government agreement to exist as it was originally created.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I first want to compliment my colleague for his general attitude in being a strong advocate for the north.

Even in the days when the Liberal party was the third party, my colleague would contact me and others within the Liberal caucus just to make sure that we had a better sense of the negative impact the Harper government was having through legislation. This spoke to the member's character and to his desire to ensure that northern interests were protected at all times. He has been a valuable asset in our caucus, as he has ensured that the north is always top of mind in many different situations.

It is questions and comments, and that was more of a comment.

As to a question, could the member note the different styles of this government and the former government, as I know that he kept his finger on the pulse when Stephen Harper was the prime minister?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the land claims in the north are a remarkable achievement of successive federal governments, in spite of some opposition. They are unique, so we should apologize for the Conservatives, as they may not understand the differences or may not understand that those agreements are constitutionally protected. We cannot abrogate constitutionally protected land claims by passing a law that changes what has already been protected.

The difference is that the Liberals observe those land claims agreements as they have been negotiated. Ours, in particular, took over 30 years just to negotiate. We respect them with the honour of the Crown. We try to have them as living documents in a government-to-government relationship with first nations people so that we can work out any kinks in those agreements and in the implementation of those agreements.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-88 and explain why I approved it at second reading stage.

First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yukon on his fine speech and thank him for his support for a region of this country that I rarely get to visit. I also want to thank the member for Northwest Territories, who is also a very strong advocate for that region. Goodness knows that they have approached me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations with many requests. I am well aware of how passionately these two individuals advocate in favour of that beautiful part of our country, which is so rarely visited by most Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all my fellow members to visit the far north. It is a beautiful place that reinforces and reminds us what it means to be Canadian.

I would like to use my time to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to the authorization of regional studies. Although this may be a lesser-known aspect of Bill C-88, regional studies should have a significant and positive impact on the review process at the core of the regulatory regime governing resource development in Canada's north.

The changes proposed in the bill before us would allow the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade to establish committees to conduct regional studies. These studies could take very diverse forms. They could, for example, be as narrow as a documentary analysis or as broad as in-depth research to create databases on a body of water or a land mass. The relevant text of the proposed bill is purposely broad in order to allow for a variety of scopes and activities.

One of the reasons why the bill uses non-specific language is that science and scientific knowledge are expanding and becoming increasingly sophisticated. It is impossible to accurately predict today what kind of regional study will be most beneficial 10 or 20 years from now. That said, regional studies can generate valuable environmental and socio-economic information about the potential impacts of a proposed project. The Northwest Territories' regulatory boards would definitely find that kind of information useful.

Although the proposed bill does not specify the form, scope, or subject of the studies, it clearly sets out what these studies and committees are not. Regional studies are not a substitute for the regulatory boards, for example, or any of the roles these boards play in the regulatory regime. The bill also states that a committee has no other role than what is set out in its terms of reference. Asking a committee to undertake a study essentially means hiring an expert or consultant to prepare a report. Under this bill, regional studies would be subject to the general principles of the integrated co-management regulatory regime authorized by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The value of including regional studies in environmental impact assessments has long been recognized. For example, the 1992 version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act referred directly to regional studies. Under subsection 16(1), proponents had to consider the cumulative environmental effects of their projects, while section 16(2) emphasized the role and value of regional studies, outside the scope of the act, in considering cumulative effects. Parliament repealed the act in 2012, replacing it with a new version that explicitly authorizes the minister of the environment to establish committees to conduct regional studies.

Regional studies also feature prominently in a 2009 publication issued by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The publication, which is entitled “Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada: Principles and Guidelines”, lists the benefits of regional studies. These include analyzing, identifying and managing cumulative environmental effects at a more appropriate, regional scale.

According to this publication, regional studies can also contribute to the discussion of alternative sustainable future scenarios and key environmental goals and objectives for a region.

Studies can save time and resources by avoiding environmental effects early on, rather than mitigating cumulative effects much further down the line. Regional studies establish regional environmental targets, limits and thresholds against which to monitor and evaluate subsequent development and management actions. In this way, studies support effective project-based performance assessment. Lastly, the publication suggests that regional studies can provide an early indication of public interest in regional environmental issues.

It is clear that the value of regional studies to environmental impact assessments is increasingly being recognized. Many regulatory regimes in Canada use them as a way to collect environmental data and analyze environmental effects. Besides the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, provisions authorizing regional studies also appear in section 5 of Saskatchewan's Environmental Assessment Act and section 112 of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

Many other jurisdictions in Canada incorporate regional studies into impact assessments even though those studies are not explicitly mentioned in the legislative measure in question. The simple truth is that regional studies are becoming increasingly popular because they are useful. They can provide accurate, up-to-date, relevant data. They are versatile and can be adapted to specific, practical circumstances. For example, a regional study may analyze potential impacts from the perspective of an ecosystem or region as a whole, rather than solely from the perspective of a particular project. Regional studies can provide necessary baseline data from which to analyze the impact of future development projects. These studies can also help to determine environmental thresholds. Ultimately, the reliable data and analyses generated by regional studies help board members make well-informed decisions. That is very important.

By authorizing regional studies, Bill C-88 will make this valuable tool available to regulatory boards in the Northwest Territories. The studies can be used to support project reviews and potentially speed up environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews. By referring to regional studies, the boards would be better able to properly review complex data that exceed the technical expertise of their members. Regional studies can also be used to gather and analyze baseline data, which is not part of the boards' responsibility.

The government is committed to maintaining strong legislation that protects Canada's rich natural environment, respects the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and supports Canada's resilient natural resources sector. Bill C-88 makes a number of significant improvements to the system.

In addition to authorizing the use of regional studies, the bill restores the regional land and water boards and creates a law enforcement system comprising inspections and revised penalties. Other changes will allow the boards to request extensions of their members' terms and enact regulations governing how governments and proponents consult indigenous peoples during the process to issue licences and permits and the environmental impact assessment process under the law.

All these improvements will strengthen northerners' ability to maximize the benefits of resource projects while minimizing their negative impact.

The bill before us deserves the support of the House. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-88 at second reading.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I expected the member to talk about the relationship with first nations and the importance of the honour of Crown and having a trusted relationship. He has good relationships in his riding, and I know that has been assisted by the fact that all parliamentarians have agreed to having indigenous languages spoken in the House of Commons and at committee. The indigenous languages act would increase the trust and reconciliation.

Could the member give us any experiences from his riding of how important this trust and these relationships are with first nations and their governments?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, language is very important. Language is a core element of people's identity and a key to who they are. We should know this, particularly people who come from Quebec and have fought so long for the French language. For indigenous peoples, particularly those in very difficult situations where languages have been ripped from them, it is exceedingly clear how important vitalization of languages is.

For my part, learning a language puts one on a playing field that is equal insofar as learners are able to look at something from a position where they are trying to understand languages, ways of thinking and where people are coming from. That is key to understanding what “honour of the Crown” means in the first place.

Honour of the Crown is a duty that is incumbent upon every single member of Parliament, particularly those in government when negotiating relations with indigenous peoples. As the member highlighted in his speech, a number of these relationships are treaty based. Therefore, it is not a question of enforcing and imposing federal law, which would then be unconstitutional. It is a question of perfecting those rights that have been acquired for a long time. This bill, when enshrined in law, will help perfect that relationship.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP will support this bill, since it addresses a number of the Harper government's failures, which caused a lot of harm to indigenous peoples.

However, the bill is lacking some measures with respect to infrastructure, drinking water and education in indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories. When will the Liberals reinvest to improve indigenous education? For example, 400 students from Kashechewan First Nation have been waiting for a proper school for more than 10 years. The Liberals, and this member in particular, claim that their most important relationship is the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, but this community has been without a proper school for 10 years.

When will they invest so that kids can go to school?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, in Canada, the gap between indigenous people and non-indigenous people is still quite wide, especially when it comes to education.

I am sure she read the budget in its entirety. She will have noted that 25% of the new spending is allocated to indigenous peoples, and rightly so. This is not something that can be accomplished in a four-year span, as many of us like to think. This has to be done in a spirit of reconciliation, in order to build something solid and long-lasting.

Our government is making record investments. We are talking about billions of dollars. We need to take a measured approach to this in collaboration with indigenous peoples.

We will welcome comments on this particular bill in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak 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.

I say it is an honour, but I really question that when I take a look at what this bill is proposing to do. I say “proposing” because I hope we can make changes to it. What we see in this bill is what we have seen in other bills and in actions by the government. Basically, they are anti-resource actions.

The first action we saw on this was in November 2015, barely a month into the government's hopefully very short reign, when the Prime Minister decided to shut down the northern gateway project that would have taken oil resources from northern Alberta to tidewater. Rather than working with the challenges that were identified in that project, the Prime Minister decided, basically unilaterally, without debate in the House and without any criticism of his actions, to shut that down.

People in the north were looking forward to those jobs. People in ports and people right across the country could have benefited from those jobs. However, the Prime Minister made the decision almost single-handedly. Was it single-handedly, or was it a decision by his senior advisers? There was certainly very little input or debate in this House on that decision.

Next was the energy east pipeline, which would have taken high-quality Canadian products, produced and refined in Canada, to meet the fuel needs of eastern Canada. However, instead of allowing that project to proceed, the Prime Minister canned it as well.

Where are we now? We are still bringing in billions of dollars' worth of foreign oil. This foreign oil is produced in countries with lower environmental standards than we have in Canada, with lower human rights standards than we have in Canada and with lower technologies than we have in Canada.

That is the type of choice the Prime Minister and the government have been making. They have been penalizing Canadian resource workers and the companies and businesses that supply the resource sector from right across the country.

A lot of people think that the only jobs affected are those in Alberta or those in the oil sands projects, but those jobs stretch far further than that. I live in the North Okanagan—Shuswap, the south central part of British Columbia, a long way from the Alberta oil sands, but it is very close for some of the businesses and workers in my communities. I visited a machine shop that builds the highest-quality parts and pieces for the oil sector, everything from pipefittings to brackets and attachments used in the oil sector.

When I visited that machine shop and talked to the managers and people there, the pride they took in the quality of products they built, because of the technology that is developed out of the resource sector in Canada, was second to none. They manufacture and machine to a higher quality than anywhere else in the world, and it is because of one thing. It is because we have a strong resource sector in Canada.

They have seen their technology work. They have continuously improved on it. They have decided to go into a niche market of only looking at that top-end, high-quality, high environmental standard, high safety standard product, because there are people and businesses all over the world competing for the 20-year-old technology that is used in some of those countries I just referred to, which have lower environmental standards, lower human rights standards and lower worker safety standards.

The government continues to penalize Canadians for being innovative, for being creative and for taking the risk. They sometimes risk millions of dollars, their personal investments and their family homes to build a business or an industry that is reliant on the Canadian resource sector.

This bill is another step in that direction. The government is taking what we had done in a previous government in reducing the size of bureaucracy, making it easier for projects to move forward still with our the same high environmental standards. Now the Liberals are splitting it up, making it so that a major project like the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would have to go through multiple individual steps all the way through. The bill would do that kind of thing. As I mentioned, Bill C-88 is similar to many other bills in some other ways.

I am very familiar with Bill C-55, the Oceans Act, and the unilateral power that that bill would give to the minister, the unilateral power to shut down activities in an area, regardless of whether there would be scientific evidence as to the effects or not. Bill C-68 does much the same thing.

Bill C-69, which has been referred to as the “never do anything ever again” bill, is now in the Senate, I believe.

Those bills would give unprecedented unilateral power to ministers to make a decision to shut down activities without it being based on science, without it being based on debate.

The other one, which we saw for the first time, was in Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act. There is a paragraph in there that says that the minister on making decisions on a project must consider the intersection of sex and gender into his decision-making process. We saw that clause and it baffled us. What does that mean in a Fisheries Act bill? We also have to wonder what it means in a resource act bill.

The briefing that we received, to summarize and really simplify it, meant that any project moving forward had to look at the impact of outside workers coming into a community, for example, the impact of growth in the community, the impact of, as I said, sex and gender in the project. That did not seem too bad, all in itself, until the Prime Minister actually was questioned on it and started referring to resource and construction workers as a threat to communities. I believe he called them “dangerous” and said that they could present a danger to those communities. We heard the outcry from people in communities where they had seen the benefits of those projects. They absolutely could not believe those construction workers could be considered a threat.

We see this trend continuing, with the government attempting to shut down anything that resembles a major resource project. Those projects are going to be needed if Canada is to continue to prosper and thrive as we move forward. We know countries with strong economies create the best environmental conditions and protect their environments better than others. However, the government seems to want to take away anything that would allow benefits and prosperity in our country. We have seen it in the government's previous budgets, in which it attempted to attack small business or attack family farms and the succession planning of small business to pass their family businesses and farms on to their family members. It would cost them as much as four times higher to sell the family farm to a family member than to a total stranger or a foreign entity. It is an absolutely atrocious attack on small business and family farms.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives had a member of Parliament for the riding Kootenay—Columbia for 21 years up until the election of 2015. One of the reasons I am standing here today is because my constituents were concerned about the attack, and it really was an attack, on the environment by the Harper government. It attacked the federal Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other legislation.

I am curious as to why the member does not support local people being able to make local decisions around their resources, which is one of the things the bill would do, and why the Conservatives oppose proper environmental protection going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's question relates to the changes to the Fisheries Act. Before that bill came before the House, I had foreseen that there would be questions around the changes that were made in the 2012-14 period to the Fisheries Act. I posed an Order Paper question to the government to identify anywhere that changes made to the Fisheries Act actually had negative impact or any harm caused.

The answer from the government was “absolutely none”. The false assumption that the changes by the previous government to the Fisheries Act had decimated the protection of fish and fish habitat was an absolute farce and a manufactured untruth.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his tone. I want to make a clarifying comment.

In earlier comments it was suggested that this act was detrimental to oil and gas. In fact, the opposite is the case. Certain oil and gas leases would have expired in the next few years and the act would freeze them so they would not expire. Therefore, when activity becomes available again, they will still be eligible for that. That was created in discussions with those companies.

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

Madam Speaker, the references were to how the government had continuously shut down any resource or oil and gas development. The Prime Minister basically shut down any oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea and very much angered the premier of the north for not even consulting with northern premiers on that shutdown. We have seen it time and time again.

I did not get to it in my speech about how the Liberals basically shut down the Trans Mountain pipeline. Earlier in this parliamentary session, the Prime Minister stood in the House day after day and said “the pipeline will be built”. We are almost through this session and the pipeline has not even been started, let alone built. I really doubt whether it will ever be built under the Liberal government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we do know one thing. Stephen Harper failed at building any pipelines and 99% of the oil went through to the U.S. when Stephen Harper was prime minister. When he left office, still 99% went through to the U.S.

Could my colleague across the way explain to us why the Harper government was such a dismal failure at getting our oil to markets outside of the U.S.?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap is able to respond to this very well.

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

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

Madam Speaker, the Harper government completed four pipelines. When there was a change in government, there were three major pipelines in the works. Right now, we stand at the big zero.

I thank the parliamentary secretary very much for giving me the opportunity to correct the record.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak 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. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

The bill before us today would not only resolve the litigation resulting from the attempt to amalgamate land and water boards in 2014, but also improve the regulatory regime. The Northwest Territories Devolution Act made a number of changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act, which provides the legislative framework for the regulatory regime.

One of the changes was to amalgamate the Northwest Territories' four land and water boards into a single entity. Two indigenous governments challenged the amalgamation in court, and the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted an injunction that halted amalgamation and other changes designed to make the regulatory regime more effective.

As my hon. colleagues know, in order to work effectively, a regulatory regime must continually earn the trust of project proponents and the general public. It does that by working in a steady, fair, reliable and predictable manner.

This description applies to the resource development regime in the Northwest Territories. The current four-board structure works wonderfully. However, there is always room for improvement. This bill ensures that the current structure will be maintained and adds improvements that were proposed over four years ago.

In reality, the changes proposed in Bill C-88 seek to make the regime more fair, reliable, predictable and efficient. It clearly serves the interests of northerners and all Canadians.

One example of how the changes will improve the regime relates to the members of the boards responsible for reviewing proposed projects.

There are five boards in all: the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board, the Gwich’in Land and Water Board, the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. One or more of these boards can be authorized to conduct a regulatory review, depending on the nature and location of the proposed project.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act sets out the quorum required for some of the boards' activities. For example, a board cannot issue a permit unless it has the minimum number of members. That is completely appropriate because the boards' decisions often have significant consequences. To ensure that the five boards always make sound decisions, each one is made up of members from various backgrounds with different perspectives. This diversity is one of the boards' greatest assets. It helps them consider every nuance from different angles.

The members' diversity also fosters strong public trust in the boards' decisions. Naturally, in some cases, a member may not be able to participate in certain board activities because of illness or some other legitimate reason, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

The Government of Canada realizes it can be difficult for northern boards to maintain a quorum, partly because of how hard it is to recruit and retain members with the necessary experience and expertise.

To help the boards overcome this challenge, Bill C-88 would authorize them to extend the terms of individual members if the term expires during a review. That would help guarantee that the boards maintain a quorum throughout the reviews.

The bill states that the board must request the extension at least two months before the day on which the member's term expires. The request must be submitted to the minister. The temporary extension of the board member's term will end when the review that is in progress at the time of the request is concluded.

The Northwest Territories' five regulatory boards are responsible for conducting complex reviews that often include hearings, scientific reports and economic forecasts. The reviews can take months to complete. It is common for new information and perspectives to emerge during a review. Board members who have been continuously involved in a review are better equipped to understand and contextualize new information and perspectives.

The five boards make decisions that can have a profound impact not only on ecosystems, but also on local and national communities. Given the magnitude of these decisions, the boards need to be part of a modern, functional regulatory regime.

Not only does Bill C-88 propose a mechanism to support continuity, but it also makes a number of other improvements to the regulatory regime. The bill currently before the House establishes an efficient inspection and enforcement system. Under that system, proponents would be required to abide by the conditions imposed by a board when it approves a project following an environmental assessment. These conditions would be clearly set out in a document called a development certificate.

To ensure that proponents are fulfilling their obligations, inspectors would be authorized to carry out activities like site visits. Proponents who do not use valid development certificates, who fail to comply with the conditions set out in the certificate or who interfere with the work of inspectors could face stiff penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

As my hon. colleagues must understand by now, Bill C-88 proposes a long list of measures that will considerably improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories. The bill currently before the House makes improvements to a regime that is already functional and efficient. Such a regime will help maintain the respect and trust of Canadians, proponents and investors. It will help ensure that resource development projects strike an appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental goals. For all these reasons, Bill C-88 deserves the support of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if anyone else in the House finds it a bit ironic that the Liberals are voting wholeheartedly for both parts 1 and 2. They criticize the former Conservative government, saying that we did not do the proper consultation process, even though it was supposably part of the treaties that were going to be available. It was part of the McCrank report, but there was some concern.

They criticize us for what we did in part 1 in the past, yet what they are doing in part 2 is equally as bad or worse. What they are doing is giving the federal government powers it has never had before to completely deny a project on the basis of national interest. This is without consultation. It is consistent with what the Liberals did regarding Beaufort. It is consistent with what they did regarding the moratorium for tankers. It is consistent with them and northern gateway.

I would like to ask my colleague this. Where is his consistency? How can he criticize a former government regarding its consultation with indigenous peoples and its resolution of the process, yet in part 2 have something that, in my opinion, is far worse with respect to trodding on rights?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we have any lessons to learn from the former Conservative government; that is for sure.

When it comes to consultation, Conservatives did not even know what the word “consultation” meant for 10 years. When the Prime Minister of the country is going to various provinces to speak to people without letting the premiers of the provinces know that he is going to be in town, that is just disrespectful. It was definitely not consultation.

Again, the injunction was in place because of the lack of consultation. The Conservatives tried to eliminate, so to speak, the responsibilities of indigenous peoples in the north without consulting with them. Conservatives tried to control regional representation so that indigenous peoples would not have a voice.

On this side of the House, we believe indigenous peoples are Canadians. We are very proud of all Canadians and we will move forward with this very important legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that she had an opportunity to ask her question. If she has anything further to add, she should wait until I ask for questions and comments and attempt to be recognized.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will support this bill. I thank my colleague for his clear, detailed description of the bill.

Since we passed my colleague's bill to recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is important that all bills affecting indigenous communities mention compliance with this declaration.

Does my colleague not think that the bill should be improved by including a reference to compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is clearly very important that we support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill certainly emphasizes the principle of consultation and close collaboration with indigenous peoples and northerners. We want to ensure that these consultations bring out their knowledge, advice and wisdom. We believe that this bill complies with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Vancouver East, Status of Women; the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Transportation.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this traditional Algonquin territory to explain my support for 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.

The legislation before us proposes to strike a more appropriate balance between economic development and environmental protection in Canada's north.

As my hon. colleagues recognize, Canada is blessed with an abundance of valuable natural resources, vast forests as well as deposits of minerals, oil and gas. Throughout our history, these resources have been the cornerstones of the economy and while the national economy grows ever more diverse thanks to the rise of other sectors, resource development remains crucial to national prosperity.

Resource development projects create jobs, generate export sales and stimulate technological innovation. Tempering these benefits, however, are the environmental and the social impacts of resource extraction and development. These include pollution, destruction of ecosystems and changes in the fabric of communities and traditional indigenous ways. Throughout much of our nation's history, while we relied on resource development for our prosperity and growth, we often failed to appreciate and to take into account its long-term environmental and social consequences. Thankfully, this view is no longer prevalent.

To strike a better balance between economic and environmental concerns, Canada has developed a unique regulatory regime that governs resource development projects in the north, a regime that is co-managed with indigenous partners. The regime requires that proposed projects undergo stringent reviews of anticipated impacts. Review processes are structured for fairness, transparency, effectiveness and to consider traditional knowledge. Members of the public, along with stakeholder groups, are encouraged to participate in project reviews and the decisions of review boards are published for everyone to see.

The regulatory regime helps to ensure that resource projects maximize potential economic benefits and minimize potential environmental impacts. In this way, it restores public confidence, creates certainty and predictability, which are so important to industry, and sets the foundation for a sustainable and long-term natural resource industry in the north.

To maintain an appropriate balance between these concerns, the regulatory regime evolves continually as our country evolves and as our understanding of the environment and of resource development deepens. In the north in particular, the settlement of modern land claims has enabled the creation of unique systems of governance in co-operation with indigenous partners.

The proposed legislation now before us lays out a series of amendments to the regulatory regime that governs resource development in the Northwest Territories. The roots of Bill C-88 stretch back to a series of amendments made to the regulatory regime in 2014. Some of the amendments provoked indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories to initiate court actions against the Government of Canada. The Tlicho Government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated filed similar court challenges that effectively put a halt to some of the 2014 amendments.

Since 2015, the Government of Canada has launched a concerted effort to address the concerns that had provoked indigenous communities to initiate court actions. The primary issue is the amalgamation of four regional land and water boards into a single entity: the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. To resolve this issue, representatives of the Government of Canada consulted with indigenous groups, the Government of the Northwest Territories and industry. The Government of Canada then drafted a legislative proposal, shared it with all interested partners and made changes to it in response to the feedback we received. The proposed legislation now before us is the product of this co-operative conciliatory process.

Among other changes, Bill C-88 would end amalgamation, reinstate the regional land and water boards and effectively end the court challenges.

The proposed legislation would promote reconciliation with indigenous peoples, a key priority for this country.

The proposed legislation now before us would also resolve a different problem created by the court challenges related to board amalgamation. To simplify a complex story, the court challenges effectively put a halt not only to amalgamation but to several policy measures that were central to the regulatory regime. These included the use of development certificates and the necessary enforcement scheme, inspector notice requirements on Gwich'in and Sahtu lands and other measures. Bill C-88 would reinstate these measures through specific amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Another effect of Bill C-88 would be to further strengthen environmental protections in the Arctic, home to some of the world's most fragile ecosystems. The effects of climate change are more evident in the Arctic and appear to be progressing more quickly than anywhere else.

In 2016, Canada agreed to take a series of actions to better protect the Arctic. Chief among these was a moratorium on the issuance of new oil and gas rights in Canada's Arctic offshore region, subject to a five-year, science-based review. To ensure the appropriateness of these actions, the Government of Canada initiated year-long consultations with territorial and northern indigenous governments and with existing Arctic offshore oil and gas rights holders to discuss their interests. These consultations highlighted the importance of protecting the Arctic's unique offshore environment while pursuing safe, responsible activities that create jobs and economic opportunities in northern indigenous economies.

The consultations featured many discussions about how best to balance environmental and economic concerns. The result of the consultations was the series of amendments before us in Bill C-88 concerning the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

First, to complement the moratorium on the issuance of new licences, which our Prime Minister announced in 2018, the amendments would allow us to prohibit any oil and gas exploration or development activities under existing exploration and significant discovery licences in the Arctic offshore.

Furthermore, the proposed amendments would fix a gap in the current legislative regime regarding existing licences and the five-year, science-based review. The legislation as it now stands does not allow licences to be suspended to allow for the review to unfold as required. In fact, some existing Arctic offshore oil and gas rights will begin to expire before the next review period is over. Bill C-88 proposes to resolve this issue by allowing the government to preserve existing rights until the review is completed. At that point, we would have a better understanding of the next steps for Arctic offshore oil and gas.

These amendments would be fair to the existing rights holders and would produce an effective compromise. The scientific research could be completed without any pressure associated with existing oil and gas activity in the region, while existing oil and gas rights could not expire in the meantime.

Bill C-88 proposes to improve the regulatory regime in the north through a series of amendments informed by several important developments, including court challenges, the accelerated impact of climate change in the Arctic and the opportunity to foster reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada. The amendments proposed in Bill C-88 would increase the predictability, consistency and timeliness of regulatory reviews in the north while strengthening environmental protections.

Northerners deserve a fully functional modernized regulatory regime that meets their particular needs, the kind of regime that promotes growth and prosperity while safeguarding fragile ecosystems, the kind of regime that strikes an appropriate balance between economic and environmental concerns.

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

Madam Speaker, I am hoping that one of my Liberal colleagues can actually answer the question, which I have asked a number of times. What they have done in part 1 is say that the former Conservative government did not respect rights, although certainly, there were a lot of conversations. What we were trying to do was not to diminish the ability of the communities to have influence. We were actually trying to remove red tape and complications from the process. That is part 1. If the Liberals want to criticize what we did in part 1, it is their right to do so.

What the Liberals have done in part 2 is a direct contradiction of what was done in part 1. They have given the federal government, without consultation with first nations, enormous power, not seen in any other legislation, to end development. If it something to facilitate projects moving forward, the government is against it. However, if it is something that gives the federal government power to stop projects, it does not seem to have any issue with it.

I would like the member to tell me how he can align the extraordinary power the federal government is taking in part 2, something that has never been done before, without consultation with indigenous communities and territorial governments, and justify it to the people, in light of what he said about part 1.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, this bill is intended to fix a problem created by the previous Conservative government, move us ahead on a process that promotes reconciliation, and at the same time, create certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

It is clear to me that what is important is achieving a balance between the environment and the economy. The former government, not only on this file but on many other files, did not do the proper consultation necessary. In what little consultation it did, it paid no heed to the advice it was getting.

What we are doing is correcting a wrong that was mandated by the previous government, and we are achieving the right balance between the economy and the environment.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague and I would both agree that the people of the Northwest Territories know best how their resources should be used and managed. I agree with his assessment of what happened with the previous Conservative government. It ignored the spirit, intent and the word of constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements. It failed to listen, and it has led to lengthy legal battles.

Generally we support Bill C-88. At the same time, there is an important opportunity here for the government to put into action the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although it is not included in the bill, I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments about his support for including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this bill.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was very proud to stand in this chamber, as I believe all members on this side of the House were, to support UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We studied it at committee. I was proud to support it there, as well as on the floor of this chamber, and we now await ratification in the Senate.

What this would do is wholly supportive of UNDRIP. What is most important to this government is reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We have had to clean up after the previous government. This bill strikes the right balance between the economy, the environment and respecting the rights of the indigenous peoples of that territory.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the House to speak 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, at second reading. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade on November 8, 2018.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I have never had the opportunity to visit these northern territories, but I have made two trips to Nunavik, in Quebec's far north. Once someone goes to these areas and speaks with the people who live in Canada's far north, they gain a completely different view, a different perspective, of northerners' potential and desire for self-determination, their desire to take charge of their land. During my two visits, I felt that the people in this area truly wanted to look after their own affairs and contribute to Canada's social and economic development in their own way. They want to be a part of this great big country that we share.

The bill consists of two parts. Part 1 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It repeals the provisions that would consolidate the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into a single board. Those provisions were introduced by the previous Conservative government in Bill C-15. Part 2 amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders to prohibit oil and gas activities, freeze the terms of existing licences and prevent them from expiring during a moratorium, if it is in the national interest to do so.

Part 1 undoes what the Conservatives did, and part 2 announces that the Liberal government is going to make things worse. That is what I get from Bill C-88. Overall, what I get from Bill C-88 is that it is a Liberal anti-energy policy that will drive even more energy investments out of Canada. It will cost Canadian workers their jobs, and that certainly will not help improve the quality of life of residents of northern Canada. Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources.

The previous government believed the north would be a key economic driver for decades to come. Other Arctic nations, such as China and Russia, are exploring similar opportunities. Unfortunately, the Liberal government decided to take a different tack.

I was mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years. My community has grappled with major problems. It was an asbestos mining community where companies dug up white gold, as it was known then, for years. We see asbestos in an entirely different light now. For years, we were exploited by outsiders who came into our community and left nothing but deep scars, from mountains of tailings to infrastructure that still mars the landscape. We wish we had had a say in all of those projects. We wish we could have played a role and worked with the people who operated the mines. We could have influenced how it was done, and we definitely could have told them where to put the massive piles of tailings, how to dispose of it all, and how to improve our people's quality of life.

In some territories, when one is elected to represent a community, the more control that territory has over its own affairs, the more one can contribute, the more decisions are made at the local level, and the more one understands the impact of decisions. Unfortunately, in this case, just before Christmas 2016, the Liberal government cavalierly decided to force the territories to do things its way.

During a trip to Washington, the Prime Minister took the opportunity to announce a moratorium. There was no consultation with people in the north, despite the same old tune from the Liberals that consultation is important. Despite the countless consultations that were held in this case, the Liberal government did not feel obliged to consult the people of the north. The decision was made unilaterally by the Prime Minister's Office. Then we learn that the leaders of these territories were informed just one hour before the government announced important changes that would affect them.

I will quote the leaders of the affected communities. The Premier of the Northwest Territories published a red alert for a national emergency debate on the future of the Northwest Territories. He said that the promises of the north are fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we watch a resurgence of colonialism. Whether we are talking about ill-conceived ways to fund social programs or new, disconcerting restrictions on their economic development, he says, their spirit and energy are being eroded.

Then, he said that staying in the middle class or trying to join it is becoming a distant dream for many. He says that means that northerners, through their democratically elected government, have to have the power to determine their own destiny and that we can no longer allow the bureaucrats and governments in Ottawa to make the decisions. He says that decisions concerning the north have to be made in the north. He says that unilateral decisions made by the federal government without consultation to impose a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic is just an example of how their economic self-determination is thwarted in Ottawa.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories was rather quick to respond.

In an interview on national television on December 22, 2016, another premier, the Premier of Nunavut, said that they want to get to a point where they can make their own determination of their priorities, and the way to do that, he said, is by gaining meaningful revenue from resource development. Meanwhile, when one potential revenue source is taken off the table, it puts them back at practically square one, where Ottawa will make the decisions for them.

Those statements are rather clear. These are not extremists who wanted to attack the government. They just wanted to be consulted on important decisions related to natural resource development on their lands. It is important to hear those messages and act accordingly. When the government is making these kinds of decisions, it is even more important to avoid concentrating too much power within one office, in other words, the Prime Minister's Office. This helps ensure that decisions are not made for purely political reasons. That is unfortunately what happens when the PMO is given so much decision-making power that a moratorium can be imposed without having to consult.

On October 22, 2018, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk said the following to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

I was talking to [the Liberal member for the Northwest Territories], and he said, “Yes, Merven, we should be doing something. We should be helping you guys.”

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change...[We don't just want to sell] trinkets and T-shirts and that kind of stuff.

Those messages are clear. I hope that the government will listen to elected officials from these territories and reconsider Bill C-88.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, while I can appreciate that the member has never been in the north, he seems to say quite a bit about this legislation, which has been worked on for many years. Some of the work started during the days when the Conservative government was in power. Therefore, a lot of the pieces in the bill were started many years ago.

I have been hearing quite a bit from the indigenous governments in my riding. They want the bill to move forward. I have also been contacted, probably on a monthly basis, by the Government of the Northwest Territories. The premier's office is saying that it wants it to move forward. We need the bill to move forward so we can get on with dealing with the issues challenging us in the Northwest Territories, especially in the area of devolution.

The indigenous governments and the Northwest Territories are in a position to negotiate land claims and issues of compensation. It is also moving forward on discussions of self-government. It is able to share in resource royalties. It holds 50% of the seats in the regulatory process. That will also help it move forward on many of the areas that were left hanging from the time the last government was in place.

I want to ask the member this. Could he tell me why he will not support the bill? It supports decision-making being done in the north and he has raised that as an issue. Will he support the bill since it would help the people in the north and the indigenous governments make the decisions that impact them in the Northwest Territories?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I think that everyone involved should have a say on the future of their territory and on natural resource development. Bill C-88 calls for exactly that; it would let those involved decide.

However, in Bill C-88, some decisions are already made without consultation with these same governments and are inconsistent with what they want. This is what we want to avoid.

The government cannot do things and then say it will consult these governments for everything else. Unfortunately this is what happened with Bill C-88. This is unfortunate and is why we cannot agree with or adopt a bill like this. In retrospect, it is easy to support something when you have not been consulted and then pick up the pieces afterwards.

This is quite unfortunate for elected officials in these territories, which is why we will stand with them on this matter.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Northwest Territories. He has worked so hard to get the bill forward for his people, or as the Conservatives say, “the local people”, who really want the bill.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. He is the second Conservative member who I heard say that he wants the decisions to be made by the local people. The vote on this bill is a decision that the local people want. The governments that it would affect are the Tlicho government, the Sahtu government, the Vuntut Gwitchin government and the GNWT. As the previous Liberal colleague from NWT mentioned, those governments were consulted extensively on the bill while it was being created. The member wanted the decision to be made by local people. The bill is totally about that. All of the local governments want the bill. Therefore, I assume the member would support it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable for a short answer.

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

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to give short answers because this is an extremely important issue that concerns the elected officials of the area.

When a bill seeks “to allow the Governor in Council” to issue orders, if in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas operations, I find that this diminishes the legitimacy of local elected officials. We are fighting against the spirit of the bill that strips local officials of the ability to make decisions regarding their own lands.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of a bill that would make a positive difference in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown. In starting my speech, I acknowledge that I stand here on traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

Today we are holding a second reading debate on Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. I will use the time allotted to me to speak about the amendments to both of these and to speak a bit about the issue of Arctic offshore oil exploration.

First, I want to start with some context around the Mackenzie Valley. To understand the mess that we are fixing right now, one has to rewind the clock, back to the 1970s.

In 1974, the federal government, under the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed Justice Thomas Berger of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to hold hearings into a proposed natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley.

At that time, the Dene and the Inuvialuit were asserting their claims to these traditional lands. The Berger Inquiry broke with tradition by hearing evidence, offered not merely by the pipeline companies but also by residents in more than 30 small communities in the Northwest Territories.

The Berger Inquiry heard from over 1,000 indigenous people in seven languages and over 500 southern voices were there as well to give their opinions. The process was groundbreaking. The federal government funded research by indigenous, environmental and community groups. Justice Berger enabled media participation that brought Canadians from far and wide, from coast to coast to coast, into the proceeding.

In May 1977, Berger recommended that, for environmental reasons, no pipeline should ever be built along the northern coastal plains. Although Berger concluded that an environmentally sound pipeline could be built through the Mackenzie Valley, he urged a 10-year moratorium on pipeline construction in the region to allow time to settle indigenous land claims. Ottawa, the federal government, endorsed his recommendations.

This concluded in the delaying of any construction on the pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley and was seen as a turning point in indigenous Canadian relations. In amassing over 40,000 pages of documentation, it also provided a unique and comprehensive window into the Dene and Inuvialuit political resurgence of the 1970s. There would be no turning back on consultations with indigenous people after this inquiry; the precedent was set.

Public sympathy and interest in both indigenous and environmental concerns were heightened as a result of the Berger Inquiry. It was a watershed event for reconciliation. It allowed first nations to speak about their history, their issues related to the land, their culture and the impacts that the southern man's projects would have on their communities.

What we have learned from the Berger Inquiry of the 1970s is that when we consult with indigenous people, we take a first step toward our commitment to reconciliation. We learned lessons that ultimately led to regional land claims agreements and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998.

The 1998 Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act put in place an integrated system for the co-management of the land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories. This act established two boards with jurisdiction over the entire valley, namely the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

Three regional land and water boards were created for the Gwich'in settlement area, the Sahtu settlement area and the Tlicho settlement area, pursuant to the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis and the Tlicho land claim agreements, which conferred on these boards the responsibility for issuing land use permits and water licensing.

Fast forward to 2014, when the Harper administration passed the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, it consolidated four indigenous regulatory boards into one, without their agreement, and in so doing, stifled the voices of indigenous people. It flew in the face of lessons learned through the Berger Inquiry, where we learned of the importance of indigenous people's voices, of incorporating indigenous communities in governance processes.

That is why our government's Bill C-88 is so important. We are fixing the mess of the previous Harper administration.

That is why our government's bill, Bill C-88, is so important. We are fixing the mess of the Harper administration.

The Northwest Territories Devolution Act, the infamous Bill C-15 introduced by the Harper government, transferred land and water management to the Government of the Northwest Territories and amended three existing acts, including the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It included the restructuring of the land and water boards and the elimination of regional boards.

The Tlicho government was totally against those changes and filed a statement of claim before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, stating that the Harper government had no right to unilaterally abolish the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board because such action would go against its land claims agreement and right to self-government. It added that consultation had been inadequate and that the act violated constitutional promises made to that first nation.

The Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated sought injunctions in July 2014 and February 2015 respectively in order to maintain their respective water boards until the major issues in their statements could be resolved.

I will cite the court decision on the injunction, because it is just so damning and clearly indicates why we had to come and clean up the mess. It says:

The Tlicho government has raised a reasonable possibility that Canada has overstepped the bounds of what it is permitted to do under the Tlicho Agreement. ...there is a reasonable likelihood the Tlicho Government will suffer...irreparable losses...as a result of a breach of a constitutionally protected right. ...irreparable harm could result from the breach of a constitutionally protected right. This is particularly so where the legislation...will have the effect of dismantling and disrupting existing infrastructure which will then have to be rebuilt.

The court granted an injunction suspending the application of subsection 253(2) of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which would have brought into effect the provisions related to the restructuring and other regulatory amendments.

In November 2015, the newly appointed Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, began discussions with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories in order to make the legislative changes needed to resolve this issue. The amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are the result of those discussions and discussions with other regional stakeholders.

We have learned from the past that an effective regulatory body and thorough consultation processes are necessary to consider the needs of those directly impacted by these projects. Transparent and thorough consultation also promotes sound decision-making, and it ultimately will help create better projects that will deliver more benefits to regional communities and to the workers.

This is why Bill C-88 seeks to consult with rights holders and northern indigenous governments when it comes to oil and gas projects in the northern offshore, by making consequential amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, or CPRA.

I will provide some context on the history of Canada's Arctic offshore oil and gas issue. Oil spills in offshore regions across the world have underlined the importance of a precautionary approach when operating in fragile marine ecological environments. The BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico put Canada on alert, and Arctic offshore as a possibility was, and still is, seen in that light. We are aware of the vulnerabilities of any marine ecosystem to a potential blowout, and this is especially true for the unique and fragile marine ecology of the Beaufort Sea.

Canadians can be proud that our Liberal government collaborated with the Obama administration to establish a moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling and the issuance of more licences on the basis of the precautionary principle and of science and traditional knowledge.

We know that oil and gas exploration has been part of the northwest economy for many years, so much so that it is part of the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. However, at the same time, we know that northerners and southerners, indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and all Canadians can agree that a catastrophic blowout in the deep water of the Beaufort Sea could cripple the Inuvialuit way of living and their future prospects. This is another reason this bill is important.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, the member provided lot of information. The indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories have all done a lot of work in moving toward land claims and self-governance. Many have signed agreements, expecting the Government of Canada to honour its portion of the agreements. Throughout the Conservative government, that did not happen. We even had the Auditor General's report, which said the government was not meeting its obligations.

On the section that governed the creation of land and water boards in each region, we saw the previous government step in and create one board that would be a superboard to cover all aspects of what we were doing, even though that breached the agreement.

We also saw the fiscal portion of the land claim agreements breached by a new policy that came in. The Harper government said that was what we were going to follow, regardless of what was in the land claim agreement.

I find it ironic that the Conservatives are saying this is not in the best interests of the people in the Northwest Territories, when they were the ones who refused to include the Beaufort Sea in the negotiations. That was hands-off. We could not even talk about it. I know, because I sat in the seat for the Northwest Territories in that government. We also could not include the royalties coming out of Norman Wells. Those things were left off the table. Now we are hearing that we are doing something wrong by letting the people of the Northwest Territories make decisions.

I want to ask the member whether he feel it is fair. The previous government created this really large confusion over this, to the point where it came to a standstill. Now that we have the indigenous governments of the Northwest Territories telling us they want to move forward, is it fair for the Conservatives to say we are doing something wrong?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, through you I will respond to my learned colleague. I appreciate these words, because they come from such a place of experience. Absolutely, I think northerners from the Mackenzie Valley have every right to be offended by the actions of the previous government. The Conservative members continue to articulate it to this day in debates in this House, treating land claims agreements as though they are red tape or something to be cut up and put in the paper recycling bin. It makes no sense. It is offensive to any Canadian who holds indigenous rights and the constitutional protections of those indigenous rights to heart.

At the end of the day, it now falls to our government to respect those agreements that were made and the history of the indigenous people from that region.

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

Madam Speaker, I have the same question again. The member talked about respecting indigenous rights and the rights of the people in the area to make decisions. We now know that part 2 amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities. That is in no other piece of environmental legislation, and it was not done either in consultation with the territories and indigenous communities or in Parliament. It is an order in council allowing the executive branch to take on powers it has never assumed before.

Therefore, how can he argue on the one hand about respecting and on the other hand say it is perfectly fine when it suits the government's interest to arbitrarily impose something like a moratorium?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about a time-bound moratorium that is premised on traditional knowledge and science in a precautionary manner, to ensure we have a complete understanding of what further offshore drilling would entail, in particular where we are talking about deepwater offshore drilling. This will allow for the scientific and traditional baseline knowledge necessary to ensure we can discuss whether or not there is an actual bulletproof spill cleanup plan to account for a blowout that could occur under winter ice.

This was a crucial issue that was raised when I attended the Arctic offshore drilling review in Inuvik back in 2011. Many people up north were very concerned about that eventuality. This moratorium enables the right knowledge to be gathered prior to making decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-88. Despite the use of time allocation, I appreciate that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons earlier today said she would make efforts to give me a chance to speak and has done so. Even with abbreviated debate, I am therefore able to speak to this legislation.

I am also able to speak to what happened to this legislation when the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was brought forward in the 41st Parliament in 2014. It was something everyone wanted to support, but there were many measures with that act that were offensive to the foundational principles of self-government and respect for treaties.

In fact, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek’eezhii Tlicho Land and Water Board, all of which were the result of treaty negotiations between the Crown and those nations, were callously, carelessly, disrespectfully and completely violated with the notion that we could replace them with something described as more efficient.

I protested those changes at the time, as did the previous NDP member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington. We tried quite hard to persuade the 41st Parliament that it was wrong to change the law in this way.

Subsequent to the changes being made, a number of the boards that were impacted went to court to challenge what had just happened. The notion of a superboard was deeply offensive to the principle that had been there, which was that the land and water boards represented fifty-fifty decision-making between first nations and the federal government. It would have reduced the self-government that the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was supposed to respect. It would have taken away rights and reduced the scope of review by those various boards.

Earlier today in debate I heard a Conservative member say that Bill C-88 was another effort by the Liberal government to interfere with development, to thwart development and to drive investment away from Canada.

I am saddened by that kind of commentary. I agree with a number of criticisms of the Liberal government. There are a lot of measures being taken that I find far short of what is required, particularly when looking at the climate crisis, and far short of what is required when looking at the need for thorough environmental assessment. There was a commitment in the election to undo the damage that had been done by the Harper administration in a number of areas, and so far the Liberal government has done really well in some areas and less well in others.

It did extremely well in undoing discriminatory legislation towards trade unions, and that was done relatively quickly by the former member of cabinet responsible for labour issues.

The Liberal government did an extremely good job on a piece of legislation that is still before the Senate, Bill C-68, to repair the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 not only repairs the damage that was done by the previous prime minister and his government and not only brings back protections for fish habitat. It also expands and improves other protections for habitat. It is an extremely important piece of legislation and I hope it passes quickly.

It is also complementary to a piece of legislation that I hope will be passed here. Earlier today in the House, the hon. member for Avalon, the chair of the fisheries committee, presented the report, and Bill S-203 is now back before the House. I hope we move to report stage and third reading expeditiously.

Bill C-68, which I am referencing, is also complementary in saying that we are now going to ban the taking of cetaceans into captivity in Canadian waters.

Again, all of these bills speak to undoing the damage done by the previous government, but Bill C-68 goes beyond that with more progressive measures.

Unfortunately, Bill C-69 is also before the Senate. I hope it will be amended and sent back here quickly. The Minister of Transport did an excellent job of repairing the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are some innovative changes to energy regulations. Unfortunately, the middle piece of legislation in that omnibus bill, the one on environmental review, does not undo the damage of the previous government, but rather keeps it in place.

However, this legislation is excellent in that it would actually undo the damage the previous government had done. It would set back in place the integrity of self-government, of decisions for land and water boards that reflect the negotiations under self-government agreements and treaties. Now that we are debating this bill at second reading, I would certainly like to see this bill in committee so that it could receive one or two additional amendments.

As was mentioned on the floor of the House earlier today when we started second reading debate of Bill C-88, given the content, the context and the need to take a step further and be more progressive than merely repairing, we should say that this bill operates under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That would be a very welcome amendment and, assuming this bill gets to committee and we are in a position to put forward amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, it is one that the committee can expect to hear from the Green Party.

I certainly support this bill, including the provisions to allow moratoria on drilling to affect such decisions based on evidence. I do hope the bill passes. I would like to see it pass with an amendment to ensure that it operates under the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's history on this bill and the whole devolution process that happened in the Northwest Territories.

I still think the devolution process has a long way to go. As I mentioned earlier, there are certain parts of the Northwest Territories that were off the table during discussions for devolving responsibility. They included the Norman Wells oil fields and the Beaufort Sea. The regulatory process in the Northwest Territories is a model that the rest of this country could compare notes on to see how well it works when it comes to the inclusion of indigenous people. It is also high time that we start looking at the work that is being done on traditional knowledge and the scientific research that is being done on the Beaufort Sea. We also need to start looking the devolution of responsibility for decision-making on the Beaufort Sea to the Government of the Northwest Territories, along with the indigenous government.

I would ask the member to give her view on turning over all responsibilities to the people of the Northwest Territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the process of devolution is incomplete. People in the north should have the decision-making responsibility over their resources, lands and waters. This is behind the principle of devolution, and to the extent that specific areas are excluded, that is an error and should be corrected.

We want to ensure that discussions in the territories represent the concerns of the specific first nations mentioned in this legislation, but much of the territory around our circumpolar north is under the jurisdiction of the Inuit. We need to pay attention to that.

We also need to make sure, as the hon. member mentioned, that we respect and engage indigenous knowledge and science. It is particularly compelling that we do so in the context of a climate crisis in which we know that the warming in Canada's Arctic is occurring three times faster than the warming on the rest of the planet. We have known for quite a while that it was the Inuit and the peoples of the north who raised the alarm that sea ice is changing, that hunting is more difficult and that a way of life is basically at risk. Therefore, the more we consult and the more decision-making is led by northerners, the better our decision-making will be.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's support of our first nations, particularly the battle we have had for over a decade in trying to prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

She mentioned that we are taking back a law that was unfortunate or wrong, but I would say it was illegal, because land claims agreements are constitutionally protected. A law cannot be passed that retracts a constitutionally protected item.

There was a parallel exercise that happened in Yukon on the environmental assessment process. There they once again tried to make a change that was not in line with the spirit or the law of the constitutionally protected land claims, on which the member supported us. We have retracted that change and gone back to the spirit of the agreement and the letter of the law that was originally contemplated in 30 years of negotiation.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, my language was too tepid. It is unusual, but that is the case. What happened under the previous Parliament was unconstitutional.

In regard to fighting together to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the hon. member said it has been a decade. I hate to correct the hon. member's math, but when I could not remember exactly what year I was in Washington, D.C., with the hon. member, fighting to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I made a quick reference to Google, and I found it was 2002. I remember I took my daughter and a young Gwich'in lad to see the opening of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

It was in 2002 that the hon. member and I were together in Washington, D.C., and I want to pay tribute to him, because I know that all those trips to Washington were beyond his parliamentary budget. He paid his own way to go to Washington to work as hard as we could, and now we have to redouble efforts because the Trump administration once again wants to lift protection and allow drilling in the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou, which are essential to the Gwich'in way of life.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development know that there are only about five minutes remaining in the time for debate on the question that is before the House. I will give him the usual signal.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to speak in support of the bill, but first I would like to share my recollections about visits to the Northwest Territories with the member who has spoken several times today so eloquently about the territories and the need for self-determination, in particular for the rights of indigenous peoples to be respected not just on this issue but on a broad range of issues.

In having the honour to go from community to community, to sit down with leadership in the indigenous communities in Behchoko and Yellowknife, to talk with families that are working in the resource sector and to talk to the Government of the Northwest Territories and the municipal leadership there, one thing becomes abundantly clear. Southerners who go north should go there to listen, and if they do, what they start to understand is that the importance that is placed not just on self-determination but on self-determination that respects the modern treaties and respects indigenous communities of the north is fundamental to making sure the progress that happens up there benefits the people who will not only be subject to the changes but also should be the main beneficiaries of whatever changes occur up there.

As we look at the agreement that was put in place, what we are building on is a flawed law that was passed in the previous session, which the Supreme Court struck down. I lost track of the number of laws that the previous government passed that did not make it through the Supreme Court. I think it was eight but it might have been nine. I am sure someone on the other side can correct me if there is a former AG over there, but the reality is that not obeying the law is something that the previous government set a high watermark on.

In the delay to obeying the law and the delay to writing good legislation and in not listening to the opposition as corrections were offered, the development of natural resources in the north was set back, but more importantly, the advancement of self-determination was set back. There are lessons to be learned in terms of how we proceed in the House and how we move with the Northwest Territories, with Yukon, with Nunavut, to make sure that the aspirations and the opportunities in the north are developed in a good way and a sound way.

One of the most important parts of this is that it is consistent with UNDRIP. One of the members opposite talked about why UNDRIP is not referenced in the body of the legislation. This is being asked in several other areas of legislation. UNDRIP has not cleared the other place yet. It has not received royal assent in terms of ratification and as a result we cannot reference a piece of legislation that technically does not exist yet because our system has not yet stamped it into law.

What we heard from representatives from the territories talking about this landmark piece of legislation is that it is consistent with the spirit of UNDRIP and it brings to bear those very principles as we take a look at how resources need to be developed carefully, but more importantly how water needs to be protected and most importantly, how traditional knowledge will be used to preserve and project a stronger future in the north.

The other thing that we need to come to terms with is the value of traditional knowledge. I was talking with one of the Arctic Rangers on a trip that I made to Iqaluit and he came from a part of the country that was even farther north than the maps of Canada often show. He talked to me about what is happening to snow and ice in the far north and how as exploration parties go up there to deliver everything from housing to roads to resources and to take a look at resource development, traditional knowledge is defining what is safe and what is not. Often safety is delivered not by someone from the geographic society but from elders who have passed on their knowledge as to what constitutes safe and unsafe passageway.

The bill recognizes the value of traditional knowledge and understands the value of engaging with all forms of scientific exploration and experience. That, too, is one of the reasons it is consistent with UNDRIP and is a good piece of legislation to be supported.

The most important part of this is that it allows the north to put a stamp of self-determination on its resource projects. It can look at the impact environmentally. It can look at the impact economically. It can look at the impact socially and it can make sure that the profitability of these projects is sustained in the north in a way that delivers sustainable, permanent, social transformation to one of the areas in this country that has the largest economic challenges facing any individual who resides in this country from coast to coast to coast.

This, in and of itself, is reason enough to support the bill, because it changes the nature of the conversation and the formula of the economics in the north to make sure that the process is a strong one.

We are also seeing that leadership from the indigenous communities and from the Government of the Northwest Territories have come to a consensus on how to move forward in a good way. As legislatures, when we see consensus emerge from outside the House and arms link in common cause, our job is not so much to legislate that into reality but to create legislation that dignifies, recognizes and supports that reality.

Another thing has been achieved here as well. Although we often have to lay our legislation onto existing circumstances, in this particular piece of legislation, existing rights holders have been recognized and brought into the legislation in a way that is consistent with not only good resource development but good environmental stewardship and truth and reconciliation.

For those reasons, I will be supporting the legislation and will be forever sad that I will not get to answer questions from the opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1288

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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)