Debates of Dec. 4th, 2013

(Return tabled)

Question No. 52

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to Enbridge’s Line 9 reversal project (Line 9 Phase l Reversal Project and Line 9B Reversal and Capacity Expansion Project): (a) what are the results of all government reports, details of briefing notes, or meeting summaries that were produced between January 1, 2011, to June 1, 2013; (b) what studies, analyses or assessments did the government undertake to determine the safety of the project, (i) what are the dates of all studies, analyses, and assessments, (ii) what are the results of each; (c) what are the details of the studies, reports, briefing notes, or meeting summaries that the government has produced regarding the economic and environmental impacts and, what are (i) the results associated with each, (ii) the costs associated with each; (d) what studies, reports, briefing notes, or meeting summaries has the government undertaken regarding greenhouse gas emissions if the Line 9 pipeline was reversed and filled with diluted bitumen, (i) what were the results of these studies, (ii) how are emissions expected to impact Canada’s ability to achieve its climate commitments; (e) what are the dates of any correspondence between the government or the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Portland Montreal Pipeline Company, and what are the key points for each correspondence; (f) what are the dates of any correspondence between the Minister of Natural Resources and the National Energy Board regarding the hearing process and applications for participation and intervener status; (g) did the Minister of Natural Resources have a role to play in the National Energy Board changing its approach to public participation in hearings, particularly those concerning the proposal to reverse and expand Line 9 and, if so, what was that role; and (h) what effect have the changes adopted in the government’s 2012 budget bills had on the Line 9 review process to date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 57

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With regard to copyrighted material held by the government: (a) what copyrighted material does the government own, broken down by (i) department, (ii) creation date, (iii) publication date, (iv) author, (v) fee charged for use, (vi) total fees collected to date in the lifetime of the material, (vii) format or media type, (viii) cost of production, (ix) future plans, (x) for any material not available to the public, what are the reasons for the secrecy and the name and title of the person responsible for the decision to keep the material from the public; and (b) what enforcement action has the government taken to protect its copyright on any material since January, 2006, broken down by (i) department, (ii) creation date, (iii) publication date, (iv) author, (v) fee charged for use, (vi) total fees collected to date in the lifetime of the material, (vii) alleged infraction, (viii) damages sought, (ix) case status, (x) case outcome or settlement?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 63

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

With regard to the government’s imposition of a vote on Public Service Alliance of Canada members employed at Canada Border Services Agency and the court proceedings that followed, what is the total cost incurred by the government, broken down by costs of (i) research, (ii) preparation, (iii) court fees, (iv) employee time?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 64

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to the letter dated June 12, 2013, I received from former Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews in response to my letter dated May 8, 2013, regarding homicides and attempted homicides among Somali-Canadian males in Canada since 2006: (a) what conferences supported by Public Safety (PS) with the Somali-Canadian community have taken place since 2006, and for each conference what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) funds provided by PS, including but not limited to, funds allocated to advertising, set-up, speakers, reports, and others; (b) what events has PS supported with the Somali-Canadian community since 2006, and for each, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) funds provided by PS, including, but not limited to, funds allocated to advertising, set-up, speakers, reports, and others; (c) what “outreach sessions” has the PS hosted with the Somali-Canadian community since 2006, and for each outreach session what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) funds provided by the PS, including, but not limited to, funds allocated to advertising, set-up, speakers, reports, and others; (d) what meetings has PS hosted or attended since 2010 with “community representatives”, to “discuss issues including the number of Somali-Canadian men killed in gang-related violence”, and for each meeting, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) why was there a delay of four years in hearing about the homicides; (e) what meetings with “Imams” to “discuss issues including the number of Somali-Canadian men killed in gang-related violence” have taken place since 2010, and for each meeting, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) why was there a delay of four years in hearing about the homicides; (f) what meetings with “mothers” to “discuss issues including the number of Somali-Canadian men killed in gang-related violence” have taken place since 2010, and for each meeting, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) why was there was a delay of four years in hearing about the homicides; (g) how many times have “officials” met with mothers who have lost their sons, broken down by location and date, (i) why did the Minister choose not meet with these grieving mothers, (ii) how does his personal absence from such meetings reflect an appropriate level of “concern” that would give the Canadian public the “assurance” that PS is taking this issue “very seriously”; (h) what stakeholder groups amongst the Somali-Canadian community did the Minister meet with in June 2012 in Toronto, (i) what was the location and date of the meeting, (ii) were the homicides discussed and, if so, why was this not mentioned in the June 18, 2013 letter and, if not, why not, (iii) what concerns were identified, (iv) what “possible ways forward” were identified for the homicides; (i) what specific stakeholders had input into the “joint work plan”, (i) what “various meetings over the past year”, their dates, and locations were the basis for developing the work plan, (ii) what stakeholders had input into the prioritization of issues, (iii) what issues were prioritized and in what order, (iv) were homicides included in the priorities and, if so, at what rank, (v) with what stakeholders was the “joint work plan” finalized; (j) how were “Somali-Canadian leaders, youth, mothers and Imams from Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary” contacted to be part of the “October workshop”, (i) what was the date and location of the workshop, (ii) what stakeholders were present, (iii) how many grieving mothers attended, (iv) what issues were on the agenda, (v) what Members of Parliament were invited, (vi) what was the total number of participants; (k) what is the function of a PS “community’s primary point of contact” and how does this function relate to other avenues of contact, (i) how common is it for PS to have a “community’s primary point of contact”, (ii) does PS have a community primary point of contact for other communities than the Somali-Canadian community, (iii) if so, what is the name of each community for which PS has such a contact; (l) is the funding relationship between a “community’s primary point of contact” and other departments of the government considered in the acceptance of such point of contact by PS and, if so, how, including the possibility of conflicts of interest, bias, or incomplete information; (m) is the location between a “community’s primary point of contact” and other departments of the government considered in the acceptance of such point of contact by PS and, if so, how, including the possibility of conflicts of interest, bias or incomplete information; (n) how was the organization of Canadian Friends of Somalia in Ottawa chosen to be PS’s “community’s primary point of contact”, (i) was a memorandum of understanding signed and, if so, on what date, (ii) was any funding provided and, if so, by whom and on what date, (iii) what other organizations were being considered for this role by the community, (iv) is it common for PS’s “community’s primary point of contact” to be funded by other departments of the government; (o) what are all the “community steering committees” established across Canada and, for each, what are (i) their goals and milestones, (ii) the timelines for achieving the established goals; (p) what are the dates, locations, and number of people who attended each “outreach session“ with the RCMP and the Somali-Canadian community, and how were these events advertised and at what cost; (q) why was Ottawa chosen for the February 20, 2013 youth employment session hosted by PS when Toronto has a Somali-Canadian population of 140,000, Ottawa has a population of 20,000, and Edmonton has a population of 17,000; (r) when does PS plan to “extend these sessions to other cities”, (i) what are the planned locations and dates, (ii) at how many of these sessions will the RCMP be present to discuss job opportunities, (iii) why was this information not given in response to my Order Paper question which was answered June 18, 2013; and (s) what input did the Somali-Canadian community have into Bill C-51, the Safer Witness Act, (i) what stakeholder groups were invited to comment, (ii) what stakeholder groups did comment, (iii) did the Canadian Friends of Somalia in Ottawa comment, (iv) did the “community steering committees” comment, (v) did the grieving mothers comment, (vi) what specific comments as to whether the Bill would or would not encourage Somali-Canadians to come forward after a homicide or attempted homicide were made and by what stakeholders were each specific comment made and on what date?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

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

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to open debate today on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act.

It is my privilege to open debate today on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act.

The introduction of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act marks the culmination of decades of hard work towards the devolution of decision-making powers over lands and resources to the people of the Northwest Territories.

This is a critical juncture not only in the political and economic evolution of the Northwest Territories, but also in the constitutional development of our great country.

We know that the north has always held a distinctive place in the life of our great country. A frontier, a homeland, rich with vibrant people, potential and culture, the north defines Canada and what it means to be Canadian.

The Conservative government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to the north. Indeed, I am proud to say that no previous federal government in Canadian history has done more for the north than this Conservative government.

One of the first things we did after coming to power in 2006 was to put in place a comprehensive northern strategy, which was built on four pillars. The first is exercising Canada's sovereignty. The second is promoting social and economic development. The third is protecting our environmental heritage. The fourth and final pillar is improving and devolving northern governance.

While the introduction of the Northwest Territories devolution act is another important step in the implementation of this northern strategy, I would say it is a milestone. We recognize that a key feature of Canadian history has been the evolution of our nation's vast northern region into self-governing territories with resource development as the mainstay of their economies.

Our records stand in marked contrast to those of my friends, the Liberals, who for decades treated the north as an afterthought and northern resources as a federal treasure chest.

Soon after my appointment as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I was privileged to be in Yellowknife with the Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northwest Territories, along with five of our aboriginal partners in the Northwest Territories: the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the Tlicho Government. We marked the conclusion of negotiations on the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement in March of this year.

The Prime Minister said it best at the AIP signing in March, when he said:

Our Government recognizes that Northerners are best placed to make the important decisions about how to run their economies and how to maximize use of their resources.... Once finalized, this historic agreement will provide the Northwest Territories...with greater decision-making powers over a range of new responsibilities which will lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity across the Territory.

Our government believes that the opportunities and challenges in the Northwest Territories are better handled by the people who understand them best, and that is the people of the Northwest Territories.

This act will do exactly that. It will allow the people of the Northwest Territories to seize control of the lands and resources and benefit from those tremendous resources in their own backyard.

For those who may be skeptical about what this bill can achieve, look no further than the Yukon to see the benefits that devolution and a modern regulatory system can have on an economy. It is not merely coincidence that this year is the 10th anniversary of devolution in the Yukon and the territory is in its 10th straight year of positive GDP growth.

Investment is up, unemployment is down and the Yukon has not looked back. To complete the decades-long devolution of decision-making responsibilities, this bill is required to bring the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement into effect.

Bill C-15 would amend the Northwest Territories Act and bring this agreement into effect. It would modernize this legislation by updating its language, by clarifying key provisions and removing archaic ones, and by updating territorial authorities that draw their power from the act. Finally, amendments to the Northwest Territories Act would enshrine current practices in the territory that support responsible government.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has seen significant political evolution since 1967—the year Yellowknife was established as the capital of the Northwest Territories and the seat of government was moved from Ottawa. Since that time, the federal government has transferred to the territorial government power over health care, housing, forestry, education and social services.

Devolution of province-like functions has been a long-standing and shared priority of the federal and territorial governments. Over the last four decades, most of the province-like functions have been devolved to the territorial governments. The devolution of province-like powers over their lands, waters and resources is the last of the major province-like functions in the Northwest Territories which remain with the federal government.

To put it simply, this bill achieves devolution for the Northwest Territories. It gives the territory the tools to chart its own destiny, a destiny we know will end in success.

To reach this goal, we have worked tirelessly with all our partners in the north. In the Northwest Territories, we worked with the territorial government under the impressive leadership of Premier McLeod. If it were not for the rules, I would signal the presence of the premier, but I know I cannot. We also worked closely with various aboriginal stakeholders and governments including the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Sahtu Secretariat, the Tlicho Government and the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, all in order to reach a comprehensive devolution agreement for the territory.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my predecessors. I had the privilege today of introducing this bill and opening the debate on it, but I want to acknowledge the work of the current chief government whip, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, as well as the Hon. Jim Prentice and the Hon. Chuck Strahl, who have all worked hard to make this day happen. Of course, none of this would have been possible without the steady hand of the Prime Minister.

This past June, I was in the Northwest Territories again, this time in Inuvik, to sign the final devolution agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada, along with the Government of the Northwest Territories and five aboriginal groups. We continue to work toward a target effective date of April 1, 2014, as requested by the premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories and agreed to by the Prime Minister and all parties to the devolution agreement. It is also our shared objective with the Government of the Northwest Territories to devolve a modern, efficient and effective land and water regulatory system with the Government of the Northwest Territories in accordance with our 2010 action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Unlike my friend, the member for Western Arctic across the aisle who believes that resource development has not reduced poverty, our government knows that resource development creates jobs and economic opportunity for northerners and all Canadians. We also know the Northwest Territories is full of opportunity, in particular, with its mineral-rich land and vast oil and gas reserves. However, much of this opportunity has gone untapped and the territories have undergone a contraction in its economy over recent years. These are the facts. Bringing forward a modern regulatory regime is an important tool to attract investment and promote growth in the territories.

That is why this bill would also put in place an improved regulatory framework in the Northwest Territories that would ensure that resource development would continue in a manner that would respect the environment, while ensuring the long-term prosperity of the Northwest Territories for generations to come.

To this end, the Northwest Territories devolution act includes amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which would increase predictability and timeliness in the environmental assessment process, reduce regulatory burden, improve environmental protection and ensure meaningful aboriginal consultation. More important, however, this would give the people of the Northwest Territories greater control over decisions setting the nature and pace of development and the regulatory processes and environmental assessments of resource development projects on their lands and waters.

Specifically, Bill C-15 would amend the Territorial Lands Act so it would no longer apply to lands under the administration and control of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories. The act would only apply to federal lands and federally-managed sites in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. For its part, the legislative assembly of Northwest Territories would pass its own legislation to manage land under the administration and control of the commissioner of the territories.

The bill would also repeal the Territorial Waters Act, as the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories would also enact a new territorial law to manage waters in the territory.

The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board would continue to issue licences on territorial and private lands in the Mackenzie Valley, but the new territorial water legislation and its regulations would set out the requirements for issuing licences of these lands.

For water in the Inuvialuit settlement region, licences for water use and waste disposal would be the responsibility of the Inuvialuit Water Board, which would be established under the new territorial act.

Finally, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act would remain a federal statute similar to federal environmental assessment legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada, should the bill be passed.

As a result, Bill C-15 would cause substantial portions of the Northwest Territories Waters Act to be incorporated into the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in order for Canada to continue to regulate on federal lands, of which most public land will have been transferred to the territory as of April 1, 2014.

These changes to the regulatory processes for land and water would continue to generate many benefits for the people of the Northwest Territories. The bill would also promote greater environmental stewardship of all lands and waters in the territories.

The action plan was launched to make improvements to the existing regulatory regimes across the north and to ensure that they are strong, effective, efficient and predictable by making reviews of projects more predictable and timely; reducing duplication for project reviews; strengthening environmental protection; and respecting consultation obligations with aboriginal groups.

Clearly the development of this legislation that hon. members see before them today is the result of years of important, collaborative work. Adoption of the Northwest Territories devolution act by Parliament would mark the legislative conclusion of the vital work in the Northwest Territories we set out in the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. Passage of Bill C-15 will allow us to work with northerners under a regulatory regime that works for all and that will contribute to improved economic outcomes.

I am convinced that all of us in the House would agree that the source of our country's power and legitimacy in the north is derived from the people who live, work and raise families there and from vibrant, self-sufficient northern communities. These are the people and communities that this act seeks to support.

Canadians of the north must be empowered with the legal authority to create northern ways to meet northern needs. The Northwest Territories devolution act would give the Northwest Territories the tools and political freedom to do this.

I urge my colleagues to do their part in building the true north. I urge my colleagues to pass Bill C-15 swiftly into law.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation on Bill C-15. I listened to what he had to say with a great deal of interest.

The bill is really two bills that have been brought together. I have asked the minister in the past if he could put them forward as separate bills so the people of the north could truly debate them in a fashion that would work for them, but that is not the case.

One of the aspects of the agreement that was made between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government was for a review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act after five years. This agreement is not carried forward in any of the legislation. It is not in a devolution implementation bill. It is not within the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

How can the people of the north be sure that with future governments we will get a proper review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which, in the form it is presented in the bill, would give the minister complete control over the terms and conditions of resource development in the Northwest Territories going forward? How can we be sure that this review will take place?

Could the minister give us some assurances that, although it is not in the legislation but it was in the agreement, this review will be wholeheartedly taken on by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the hon. member is answering his own question. He asked how we would know if the five year review would take place since it was in the agreement. Very simply, the answer is that, indeed, it is in the agreement. It is an undertaking and it will be done because it was the agreement.

Some of the comments that have been made by the hon. member is as if this is particular to the Northwest Territories. Federal environmental assessment legislation exists in all jurisdictions in Canada. Retaining the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act as federal legislation is consistent with the approach taken in other jurisdictions, such as Yukon.

In order for regulatory improvement initiatives to be fully implemented, all parties to the devolution agreement agreed that it was desirable to have this legislation remain federal at this time and to utilize delegation as a model to implement devolution with a full review of this model after five years, and that is what we will do.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, as members know, the Liberal Party has been very supportive of devolution agreements in Canada and has certainly worked with Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the past around these issues.

With the devolution of any agreement of this size and magnitude, there comes a financial responsibility to ensure the agreement is followed through and implemented appropriately.

I ask the minister today if there has been agreement with regard to the financial contributions that would be contributed as part of this and if it is satisfactory to the Government of the Northwest Territories to do the job it needs to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one.

Yes, indeed, the government will transfer $26.5 million at one time and $67.3 million in ongoing funding annually to the Government of the Northwest Territories and $4 million at one time and $4.6 million in ongoing funds annually to the aboriginal parties. The ongoing funding to the Government of the Northwest Territories will enable it to cover costs associated with the management of land and resource responsibilities.

If the member recalls, I was before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on the supplementary estimates (B) for 2013-14 and there were $20 million earmarked this year to ensure that this payment be made to the Northwest Territories in the current year.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate today. I know that cutting red tape is an important part of what our government wants to do. The chair of the aboriginal affairs committee was on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which took a look at government operations to see where we could reduce red tape. I have certainly been hearing that the red tape in the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories may be hampering economic opportunity.

I would ask the hon. minister if he could contrast the situation in the Northwest Territories with that in other parts of Canada's north that perhaps have a different regulatory regime.

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

Mr. Speaker, right now the member will know that the government embarked upon a regulatory reform pursuant to an action plan that was adopted in 2010. The House and colleagues will remember that in the last session—late spring of last year—we passed the NUPPAA, which was the first part of the regulatory reform taking place that affected the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

With this bill, we really bring to the Northwest Territories a regulatory regime that will keep the territory competitive in terms of the regime it operates under, vis-à-vis the Yukon or Nunavut.

If we look at the facts right now, the disadvantage of duplication, uncertainty of applications and inefficiencies has not worked well for the Government of the Northwest Territories and its people. It is important that we pass this bill so that they can benefit from the new regulatory regime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to squeeze in two questions to the minister in response to Bill C-15.

The first question is that I am confused by the fact that in Bill C-4, which was an omnibus budget bill, we incorporated a change that would have more properly been done here—the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act, which allows the minister to have complete discretion as to how the funds are used, as opposed to the previous way they were used.

This relates to my next question, which is this. Admittedly the Northwest Territories has a complex jurisdictional framework. Anyone who participated in the Mackenzie gas pipeline hearings is aware of the multiple levels of jurisdiction. However, the regional boards that were established, and which are being conflated through this act, were set up in relation to land claims agreements and were to stay in place until all land claims agreements were resolved. With land claims agreements still outstanding in the area, was it appropriate to devolve and reduce the number of boards? It is fine to say it makes the Northwest Territories more competitive, but what does it say about the consistency with agreements with the federal Crown and various complex regional organizations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question that she knows is particularly sensitive to the aboriginal parties in the region in question.

Currently, there are four land and water boards for the Mackenzie Valley. Three of the existing land and water boards, Gwich’in, Sahtu and Wek’èezhìi, function in each of their respective areas as regional panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, which is responsible for projects that cover more than one region and for the unsettled areas.

The restructured board was envisaged and agreed to when the land claims agreements were concluded. Every aboriginal group with whom these comprehensive land claims agreements were concluded knew that at one point a board could cover the whole of the Northwest Territories. That is exactly what we are achieving in Bill C-15, which is quite respectful of our treaty obligations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as a lifelong northerner, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-15, the devolution implementation bill.

I would first like to congratulate the premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, his cabinet ministers and the staff for the hard work they have put in on this file. That extends back through the time of the Northwest Territories to many other people who have dedicated their service in building a territory with political rights that are equivalent to those in other parts of Canada.

Bill C-15 has two very significant and different parts. One makes changes to the Northwest Territories Act, an act that is virtually the constitution of the Northwest Territories. All actions there fall under the Northwest Territories Act. Other laws are being changed to implement the devolution agreement between Canada and the Northwest Territories.

The second part brings in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, primarily doing away with the regional land and water boards created through land claims agreements with the first nations, replacing them with a single super board.

There are other changes in the act, and I will speak to those as I go along. They are very significant changes that, apart from what the minister has said, will leave even stronger powers for the minister over resource development in the Northwest Territories. It is quite clearly the case.

We in the New Democratic Party support devolution. We see this as a step forward for the Northwest Territories in some respects, and we will look to the bill going to committee. We will look to the opportunity to put forward amendments that may better serve the people of the Northwest Territories.

The devolution part of the bill partially realizes the dream northerners have had for over 50 years: taking more authority over their lives from bureaucrats in Ottawa. I have lived that life and I know what that life is.

The Carruthers Commission in 1966 moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats there, but that was what we could call “second-stage colonialism”. We brought the federal government into the Northwest Territories and to the greatest extent it ruled the north from the north, rather than from Ottawa.

The federally appointed Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was the speaker, premier and lieutenant governor, all rolled into one, up until 1975. In 1975, we had our first elected territorial council of 15 members. This includes the territory known as Nunavut now, under one roof.

Before that a mixture of people elected and appointed by the federal government provided governance. Executive powers still lay with the commissioner, assisted by a deputy and an assistant commissioner.

With the appointment of John Parker in 1979, the move began away from an executive commissioner toward a more ceremonial role as lieutenant governor. I will get back to that point, because it is a point I want to bring up in this speech.

In the late eighties, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories, which has handled all of those as well as can be and deserves great praise for providing services to people across a vast territory with limited resources.

We have taken on education, social services, highways, airport administration and a number of the roles that would be classified as provincial. That was never satisfactory to the north, as after the nineties when we had constitutional development conferences in the north, where we talked about our future and what direction we would take, I think we all felt that we wanted to be a unique place in Canada.

We wanted full respect for aboriginal governments. We wanted partnerships between aboriginal governments and public governments so that we would have a territory that would truly represent the people, the history and the real claim that first nations have to the land and resources of the north. That is a dream that is still held by most northerners.

There were devolution efforts in the early part of 2000, with the Liberals. The deal was virtually the same as this. Perhaps they were offering a little better money, at the time, and I think a little more control over development. That deal was actually rejected by the parties, in the end, because there was not a common agreement.

I think one of the great accomplishments of Premier McLeod, with the devolution file, has been to bring many of the first nations on board. Premier McLeod himself is of aboriginal descent and has a great deal of respect among first nation peoples—among all of us in the north—for his strength and his fairness. I think that is something that has helped the devolution file tremendously.

The MVRMA part of the bill, however, would implement the Conservative desire to move forward with more rapid resource development in the Northwest Territories. That is what we see here. That is the purpose of this. This is the great trade-off that has been made with this bill—the trade-off that we all have been put under.

When I got a comprehensive audit of people's attitudes toward changes in the MVRMA done by outside consultants a year and a half ago, it was pretty clear that most people in the Northwest Territories were not thinking that the regulatory system needed more than some very straightforward tweaking.

One thing we all did agree with was that the land use plans, which are part of the MVRMA, needed to be completed, including McCrank. Everybody agreed with that. The current government has not moved very fast to make that happen, which was one of the biggest problems we had in the regulatory system.

For more than 20 years, the aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories have hung their hat on having some say and control over the resource development process on lands and waters. They have tied this to the MVRMA with their duly developed land claims agreements with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho governments.

These people have agreed to regional boards. They have supported regional boards. Yes, there are provisions that perhaps one single board could be made, but what we have found in the Northwest Territories is that regional boards actually provide a useful and necessary function within the Northwest Territories to, clearly, provide that vision that we talked about earlier, the vision of a territory that had balance between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments.

So, what we would see with this bill is that particular structure would changed to a single board. It might be possible to change it back later. That is very much a question that is up in the air now.

However, certainly, an NDP government would go back to take a look at this. We would go back to see whether this was appropriate for the development of the Northwest Territories according to how the people see their development taking place.

The MVRMA remains a federal legislation, but it is an essential part of how the balance of the Northwest Territories is developing.

Let us talk about the changes to the NWT Act for devolution. The question here is whether we are moving to more province-like powers. Yes, in the administration of environment and the administration of land, we are. In the enforcement of those provisions, yes, we are. Those are things that are valuable. I thank all of those involved in pushing those forward for the people of the Northwest Territories.

However, there are other things that trouble us in the bill, where we look for amendments, perhaps.

When it comes to directions to the commissioner, I mentioned the commissioner was moving more to the state of a lieutenant-governor ceremonial position. This bill would draw him back into the fold of the federal government. Bill C-15, clause 4, states:

The Commissioner must act in accordance with any written instructions given to him or her by the Governor in Council or the Minister.

This is stronger language than in the current NWT Act. The Yukon Act contains no comparable sections, and in Nunavut these instructions are made public through tabling in the Legislative Assembly.

What do we see here, in this particular section of the devolution act? We actually see more control being applied through the commissioner's office. Strengthening the federal control of the NWT, when combined with the provision of section 29 that adds the power of the minister to order the commissioner to withhold assent to bills that are passed in the Legislative Assembly, the commissioner, under the instruction of the minister, can withhold assent to those bills, and has up to a year to do it.

What we see there is fairly strong control over any changes that could be made in the Northwest Territories in the years to come with different governments there that may have agendas different those of the present government or any other government.

Regarding borrowing, this bill would continue the process whereby Ottawa sets the amount of debt the NWT can acquire. NWT debt is not a burden on Canada. This is an outdated and colonial practice that inhibits our development by not allowing us to invest in things like hydroelectric generation capacity. We have to go to the federal government, cap in hand, and ask it to please give us a little more borrowing power and to possibly let us do something that we know is good for our people.

I put a bill forward in the last Parliament. This issue has been very well discussed and is very well understood. The opposition at the time voted unanimously, and we passed that bill through second reading. Only the Conservatives wanted to limit the borrowing capacity of our government.

What is it in like in the provinces? The federal government may not give direction to a provincial lieutenant governor. All natural resources are completely under the control of the provinces, with no Ottawa interference. There is no control over borrowing. The lieutenant governors cannot be directed to not assent to bills.

These are things that are in the devolution agreement. We see that the devolution agreement would give us more in certain areas but would put reins on us in other areas. That would limit our capacity, unlike other Canadians. These things can be changed by amendments, and I encourage the government to support some amendments that would give us more flexibility under this act.

Let us move on to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This measure would eliminate regional boards created through the land use process. It would replace them with one superboard with only 11 members. This bill also would also give the minister the right, in any part of this bill and for any of the boards that will exist in the Northwest Territories, to provide binding policy decisions to those boards. In other words, the minister could tell the board the way it will judge actions.

There is no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision. That would make sense. It would make sense that the people who are taking care of the environment and the land would have some influence over the policy decisions that are going forward to the boards that make decisions about development. What would be wrong with providing that consultation to the Government of the Northwest Territories? Again, with a simple amendment we could put that in place. If the Conservatives want to listen, that is fine.

There have been environmental audits done in the Northwest Territories. The main problem with our regulatory system, according to these independent environmental audits that were done in 2010, was that foot-dragging by Ottawa on appointments and on approvals of developments was the biggest impediment to resource development in the Northwest Territories. Now we would have a system whereby one government would control some things and the other government can have a say over everything when it comes to resource development. This is a difficult situation. This is going to lead to conflicts.

We need one government in charge of making decisions, and that should be the Government of the Northwest Territories in consultation with and working together with the first nations, who have a right to land and resources in the Northwest Territories and who we want to have as complete partners in the development of the Northwest Territories.

This is a goal that we all have. It is a goal that northerners have in the Northwest Territories. We are not interested in matching up to Alberta. We do not want Alberta in the Northwest Territories. That is not what we are here for. We want our own government, under our own rules, with our own relationships, with the groups that make up the north and have lived there for hundreds and thousands of years and have done very well with that.

There is strong opposition among the first nations to the changes to the MVRMA. The Gwich'in Tribal Council made a unanimous decision to reject the changes at a meeting held in Inuvik by community leadership representing all the Gwich'in communities.

These are the words of Gwich'in Tribal Council president Robert Alexie. He said: “My people have spoken, and what Canada is proposing is clearly unacceptable”.

The T'licho government is opposed. Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus has said:

There's no need to change the Wek'èezhli Land and Water Board. There's nothing wrong with it. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's working very well. Why fix something that is not broken?

With regard to appointments, why is the minister holding on tightly to all the appointments to all these boards? Why is he saying that a nomination from the Government of the Northwest Territories to any of these boards must meet his approval? Why do aboriginal governments that make nominations to these boards need the minister's approval? How is that devolution? How is that taking charge of our own affairs, when nominations can be rejected outright? When it comes to the chairs of the new superboard, the minister only has to consult on appointing a chair. The minister's man will be in Yellowknife as head of the superboard. He will be getting instructions, binding policy direction, from the minister about how things develop in the Northwest Territories. How does that represent true devolution?

I do not know if anyone across the way understands, but if they go talk to their provincial counterparts, they may understand what provincial-like powers actually are. The minister said the Yukon is doing extremely well with environmental assessments. Yukon actually makes decisions for itself. The Yukon first nations make appointments to their boards. The Yukon is doing it by itself. Bill C-15 does not permit us to do the same things that the Yukon is doing.

I have been through two phases of colonialism in my life. The first was when the federal government in Ottawa simply sent representatives up to govern us. I was a student in school, and different kids would come from Ottawa because their parents would be sent up there for a couple years to do northern duty. I was great friends with people from Ottawa and with their children, but they were not northerners. That was phase one.

Phase two was when the government came to the north. We have made remarkable progress in that time. We have done a lot with our territory. It is a great territory, one that I am absolutely proud to represent here in the House of Commons every day. I love the place. I want it to grow. I want to be a Canadian just like everyone else, but what we have here is only the third stage in colonialism. It is the stage when we take care of most things on the ground, but the decisions are in Ottawa. That is where we are at.

We will work with the government as much as we can, but in the end, we know that our job as New Democrats will be to give the people of the north a real say, a say that is equivalent to that of other Canadians in how they manage their affairs.