House of Commons Hansard #155 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was consultation.
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, the question I will ask will be very simple.
On September 25, Grand Chief Ruth Massie appeared before the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples and clearly stated that they had been consulted multiple times.
Will the hon. member answer a simple yes-or-no question? Is he saying that this person was providing false information to a committee? Is he stating that she is misleading the committee and that she was not consulted? It is either a yes or a no.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite brings out a quote and reports that somebody said something somewhere. That is all good. I have also read testimony in which that same person said something different. All I can do is report here what I have read and what I understand to be the position of an individual, and that is what I present to this House.
If the government has any other information it wants to table, if it wants to call witnesses back, or if it wants to stand the bill and have a special committee look at it again, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision as it related to the umbrella agreement and the Peel land development decision, I think that will probably have an impact on this particular piece of legislation, but maybe that is what we need to do in order to clarify and deal properly with a piece of legislation that inevitably, once again, will be challenged by the people who are affected by it.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is not just about consultation. Yes, there has been some consultation, but in other areas there has not been.
The whole thing is about the honour of the crown and respecting treaties and respecting agreements that are currently in place. Maybe my colleague could just explain how much the honour of the crown is at risk here, and the fact that we have heard from mining companies that have indicated that the government needs to ensure that they work together to get it right.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, the point is whether the people who participated in the process feel that they have been consulted and whether the process meets the definition clearly laid out by the Supreme Court on the responsibilities of the crown. It has been done. The responsibilities have been laid out.
However, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a quick question. On September 18, the member for Yukon said that he agreed with the idea of having public meetings and public consultation on this matter. Why is it the government did not fulfill his request for having public consultation?
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill. I met with the group of Yukon representatives yesterday, who raised a lot of concern about the fact that the government put in amendments that they had not agreed to. Not only did they not agree to them, but there was no discussion about them.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
The member may be saying that is false, Mr. Speaker, but this is exactly what has occurred.
Let me first talk a bit about the bill. I am going to inform the House that New Democrats are opposed to the bill because there has been a flawed process. I am assuming that if my colleague wants to speak, he will have his turn later or can ask me a question.
Basically, the bill was developed behind closed doors. It actually originated out of the Senate, but it should have been a government bill. That is the lack of respect we see from the government when it comes to treaty obligations and constitutional rights.
There has been a lack of public input because of this. I can say that my colleague from the Northwest Territories actually held a meeting on this issue in Yukon, and there was very little standing room at this meeting. That is how important this issue is to the people in Yukon.
I should provide a bit of background on the bill itself, because it has been a little while since we have talked about it and some people may not be familiar with it. Bill S-6 is an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The short title is the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. It was introduced in the Senate on June 3, 2014.
The objective of Bill S-6 is to change the regulatory regime in Yukon and Nunavut. The bill is composed of two parts. Part 1 proposes a series of amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and Part 2 proposes amendments to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
The problem that needs to be emphasized is that the bill unilaterally rewrites Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system. The system is actually a product of the Umbrella Final Agreement, which settled most of the first nations land claims in the territory. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, the short form of which is YESAA, is seen by most residents of the territory as a made-in-the-Yukon solution to the unique environmental and social circumstances of the territory.
The changes proposed in Bill S-6 are seen as being imposed from the outside to satisfy southern resource development companies. Again we can see that the issue is that the government is listening to industry as opposed to doing it from the ground up, which means starting with the people who actually live and work on these lands.
New Democrats are opposed to this bill, of course, because it was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon first nations and residents of the Yukon and is not supported by the majority of them. Although Part 2's amendments to the Nunavut legislation are largely housekeeping, the Nunavut Water Board did raise some concerns with this part as well.
It is extremely important for us to recognize that Bill S-6 would actually dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process developed in Yukon by Yukoners for Yukon. We can see why people are actually up in arms about what the government is trying to push through.
There has been incomplete consultation, as I have indicated, with Yukon first nations before the amendments were made, but there must be consultations before such amendments are actually proposed. As New Democrats have indicated over and over again, the fact of the matter is that the government has put in amendments that nobody has actually talked about, and it is not the first time that we have seen the government do that. It is grabbing them out of thin air.
The Conservative government, with the full assistance of the Conservative MP and the senator from Yukon, is actually forcing a pro-southern resource company agenda down the throats of Yukoners, so we can see why people are really up in arms about this situation.
As I mentioned, my colleague, the member for Northwest Territories, held hearings on this issue. However, the fact of the matter is that there are four changes that really upset Yukoners.
This is what my colleague said:
One of them is providing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This is something that was established in the NWT and there were real concerns with it there. The Yukon, which has been dealing with a different system for the past 10 years, is looking at anything like this as an abrogation of its rights and hard-fought authority over the lands and resources.
However, we have seen this over and over again with the current Conservative government when it tries to give rights to a federal minister to unilaterally make decisions. I think this is of great concern to these people.
On the second change, I will again quote from the speech of my colleague, the member for Northwest Territories:
The second change is the introduction of legislative time limits for assessments.
The third change is allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all responsibilities to the Yukon government. That is an issue of huge concern to first nations, and Yukoners as well. Yukon has worked out an arrangement between first nations and public government that is critical to the future of the Yukon territory. I do not think anyone would deny that. That relationship is one that the provinces are having more and more trouble with every day. The failure to deal on a nation-to-nation basis at the provincial level is causing all kinds of grief in all kinds of projects right across this country. Therefore, there is concern about how the delegation takes place.
Again, I am quoting from the speech of my colleague from the Northwest Territories when this issue first came before the House:
Then there is the question of creating broad exemptions from YESAA for renewals and amendments of permits and authorizations. People look at that and ask what is going on and wonder how they we make sure it is correct.
Additionally, these amendments favour the Yukon government over Yukon first nations,
—members can see why there are challenges there right now—
the other partner in the YESAA process. The Council of Yukon First Nations has threatened legal action should the bill become law.
As my colleagues have mentioned throughout the debate, the Conservative government is putting forth legislation after legislation that ends up in the courts, and guess what? They lose over and over again. I think when it comes to first nations, the Conservatives have lost something like 200 cases, so we can see that it is not in the best interest of Canadians to table legislation that people are so opposed to.
There is a quick fix here. We can listen to what the changes are, make those changes, and the problem would be solved. It does not cost us a lot of money to do that. However, going through the courts is a different story.
As I mentioned, my colleague held a meeting on this in the Yukon. Talking about the environmental assessment process and having discussions such as this do not normally tempt a lot of people, because a lot of people sometimes do not understand it, but Yukoners do get it. They get it so much that they actually packed that room. Therefore, I think that it is important for the government to listen to the debates that we are having here today, to listen to the comments that were made, to go back and listen to the testimony that was presented, and say, “Hey, maybe we should take a step back here. We can get it right.”
The Conservatives can get it right. All they need is the will to do it.
It is important for me to read some of the testimony that was given before the Senate committee. Grand Chief Ruth Massie of the Council of Yukon First Nations was glad to be there because she wanted to make sure that the council's concerns were heard, in the hope that the government was listening in good faith. She talked about the Council for Yukon Indians that represented Yukon first nations in the land claim negotiations and signed the Umbrella Final Agreement, the UFA, in 1993. The UFA directed the CYFN, Canada, and Yukon to develop legislation to implement the objectives and principles set out in the development assessment found in chapter 12. This is the legislation in the YESAA. They are prepared to do that, but the only thing is that the government has thrown a wrench in there.
I quote from Ruth Massie:
The CYFN has a membership of nine self-governing Yukon First Nations and we work in collaboration with the other Yukon First Nations, including the three unsigned First Nations, with respect to specific projects and initiatives.
This is an organization that has already built a foundation to be able to work together and has been able to move forward on working with mining organizations. It is willing to do that, but it needs to make sure that at the end of the day, mother earth is going to be protected.
She went on to say:
In particular, the CYFN and Yukon First Nations have worked cooperatively to deal with matters relating to the YESAA over the past fifteen years, including its development, implementation and review. The UFA directed the CYFN, Canada and Yukon to complete a comprehensive review of the YESAA in 2008. This is known as the “five-year” review since it was directed to take place five years after the federal enactment of the YESAA. Despite the claims of the federal officials, this review has not yet been completed.
Hold on here. The government put forward this bill, yet there was supposed to be a review and it has not been done yet. There is a problem here.
Grand Chief Massie continued:
For several years during the five-year review the federal officials maintained that no legislative changes would be made to the YESAA in order to implement any recommendations of the five-year review. Canada now proposes that Bill S-6 would amend the YESAA pursuant to its Action Plan to Improve Northern Regulatory Regimes. It is our position that certain amendments to the YESAA proposed by Bill S-6 undermine the spirit and purpose of the YESAA that implements treaty rights of Yukon First Nations and their citizens. These proposed amendments fundamentally alter the operation of the YESAA process. In some cases, these proposed amendments relate to matters that were never discussed during the five-year review or, in other cases, contradict agreements reached by the CYFN, Canada and Yukon during that review.
The government is actually contradicting agreements. We know that is true because we have seen it over and over again.
She went on to say:
If the amendments proposed by Bill S-6 are proclaimed, the Crown will have breached its duty to consult and accommodate owed to Yukon First Nations and its constitutional duty to uphold the honour of the Crown.
In our view, these amendments would infringe rights under our land claim agreements, including the right for independent assessment of certain projects to be carried out in accordance with Chapter 12 of the final agreement. These amendments would also serve to undermine the integrity and effectiveness of YESAA.
Imagine trying to put some legislation in place that undermines the integrity and effectiveness of the act itself. This means that the amendments proposed by Bill S-6 must be rejected or revised. That is why we on this side of the House are standing today to reject this legislation and asking that there be a revision.
There is much more documentation here that I do not have time to speak to.
However, I think it is important to reiterate the fact that representatives came to Ottawa yesterday to raise the issue, to ask that there be some revisions to a bill that will impact their lands and their ability to move forward in certain areas, and on the protection of their environment. Yet we have a minister who has basically shut them down.
I will quote Eric Fairclough, the chief of Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, from a news release from the CBC, dated yesterday. He said:
The minister shut us down by telling us we were not real governments, and therefore he does not need to make us active participants in changing legislation that arises from our treaties.
If the government side of the House is trying to tell me that that is not what the government said, then there is a problem. However, I cannot see anyone saying that the minister told them they were not a real government. They would not just grab that out of the air. That is a serious allegation.
He went on to say that it “...flies in the face of recent court decisions that have affirmed the duty to consult First Nations.”
Again, it is not just this chief who has actually made the comment. I could go on with respect to another northern aboriginal group that governs a New Brunswick-size chunk of the Northwest Territories, who has already asked the Territory's supreme court for an injunction against a similar federal law to the one we are speaking about today. They indicate that it violates their hard-won treaty. That is the Tlicho. They say:
....the law, to take effect next April, would dilute local decision-making by replacing environmental regulators created by land-claim settlements with a single board controlled from Ottawa.
Critics have said the superboard was the price the—Conservatives—exacted from the territorial government in exchange for rules transferring resource royalties to the territory, which were contained in the same bill.
It is not just in Yukon. It is not just in Ontario. It is not just in New Brunswick. We are seeing this in every province and territory where the government is tabling legislation, pushing it through despite concerns about it, with the result that we find ourselves yet again before the courts.
It is imperative for us to indicate that for legislation to work properly and to foster good relationships, and not just good relationship but great working relationships with our first nation, Inuit, and Métis people, we need to make sure that we have that proper dialogue. We need to make sure that we actually listen to changes that they know will impact them negatively. We need to make those changes before we pass the legislation and end up in court.
Another important thing is that we know that our leader would approach resource development in the north in a respectful and consultative manner, unlike the Conservative government. We need to recognize that that nation-to-nation dialogue is extremely important. We need to ensure that any steps taken in northern development are done with the full participation of northern communities.
It is also important to note a few more things. This is from Grand Chief Ruth Massie and Chief Eric Fairclough. The first nations have four concerns: policy direction to the board, delegation of federal powers to Yukon government, exemptions for renewal and amendments, and timelines for YESSA assessments.
I will close by saying that we must emphasize the fact that the government needs to recognize the necessity of making these changes to the bill. I know that the leader of the Yukon NDP has been working very closely with first nations and supports the position taken by them in calling for these amendments to be made to the bill.
With that, I will close and wait for further questions.
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.
Conservative
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal specifically with the issue of policy direction that the member raised in her speech. There are four examples of policy direction provided to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, which she referenced. In each case, policy direction was used to clearly communicate expectations based on interim measures agreements with first nations.
I asked this of the member for Timmins—James Bay, who refused to answer, so I will ask this member. On which of the following does she think the minister erred when he issued policy direction: when he required that notification be provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Denesuline regarding licences and permits in a given region; when he provided instruction to the board regarding its obligation under the Deh Cho Interim Measures Agreement respecting lands withdrawn from disposal; or when he ensured that the board carried out its functions and responsibilities in co-operation with the Akaitcho Dene First Nations and their pre-screening board?
The minister has issued policy directions solely to protect the rights and interests of first nations. Which of those directions would the NDP not have given? Why is the minister wrong to be issuing policy directions that protect the interests of first nations?
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, in any legislation there are some good parts, just as there are some good parts in the budget. However, that does not mean that we have to swallow the bad parts with it.
In looking at this I must reiterate the fact that the majority of the first nations in Yukon have indicated that they are not supportive of this and feel that some changes need to be made to it. They are not against the whole bill, but only against some of the changes the government has made. The government is not listening to the changes being requested.
Again, one of the changes falls under the delegation of federal powers, on which the CYFN has expressedd the following view:
The CYFN opposes any amendment that would allow the AANDC Minister to delegate any or all of his or her powers, duties and functions under the YESAA to the territorial Minister. The CYFN has several concerns relating to this proposed amendment. There is no requirement for the AANDC Minister to obtain the consent of Yukon First Nations before delegating any powers, duties or functions. The AANDC Minister only has to provide notice to the Yukon First Nations.
That is not me saying so, but Grand Chief Ruth Massie of the Council of Yukon First Nations. As I mentioned before, that organization represents a variety of first nations.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from northern Ontario. However, one of the things I noticed that the government has done over the past few years, particularly since the 2012 budget, is to attack environmental legislation and environmental assessments, starting in 2012, when the budget implementation act eliminated the Environmental Assessment Act and rebuilt it in such a manner that it was a sham. As a result, there are portions of that bill that have not yet been enacted. There are regulations that were to come later that have not yet been enacted some two years later.
When the government did that, it said that it was just to avoid duplication because the provinces and territories would be doing their own assessments and it did not want to duplicate those with federal assessments. Of course, we know that the end result is that federal issues do not get assessed at all, because the provinces do not have the right. Now we see the government, through its own actions, taking away or diminishing the right of the territories. It is not allowing the territories themselves to amend this legislation. Instead, the government is taking it away from them and reducing the environmental assessments in the territories.
I think it is appalling that this is happening. Would the member like to comment on that?
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we had that visit yesterday with respect to those concerns.
Here is an article by Kirk Cameron of CBC News about the fact there was a meeting with over a hundred people, who packed a small room at the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre. It states:
In the crowd were people from around Yukon, about one half of First Nation ancestry and the rest equally concerned Yukoners. Most, if not all, were of the view that the amendments, known as Bill S-6, violate the fundamental relationship secured between First Nations, Yukoners and Canadians through land claims agreements, modern treaties that have been in place (at least the first four) since 1993.
It goes on to say:
Most of the crowd saw the amendments for what they are—an affront not just to the aboriginal people of Yukon who spent 20 years in treaty negotiations, but to all Yukoners.
John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing spoke quite at length about how dialogue is extremely important. I could not agree more. It is important that we engage first nations, learn what some of the issues are, and have feet on the ground to discuss them. Unfortunately, it is the member's own party that is stopping us from doing just that.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I would like the opportunity to go to Yukon and discuss first hand with the residents there some of these issues. I would like to hear the member's response and why the NDP is blocking us from doing those important jobs.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is talking about, because we have clearly said that we will actually go to Yukon. Our leader has indicated that there is no problem. If we want to go to Yukon and hear these witnesses—
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am telling them right now. Book the travel. We are on our way.
Here we are. This is from CBC News, posted yesterday, on December 3. It says:
The news release points out that the Yukon First Nations have the backing of at least two mining companies in Yukon, "which have sent letters to Minister Valcourt warning that regulatory reforms without meaningful consultation will create tension and uncertainty and urging the government to find a solution."
I am going to add as well that, during the treaty negotiations, first nations actually agreed to retain less than 10% of their traditional territory in exchange for the partnership and management of all Yukon land and resources, and this is what they get from the government.
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
December 4th, 2014 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
We have time for one more question and response.
Just as a reminder to hon. members, with respect to using the proper name of another hon. member, even if it is included in a citation, it is still not permitted. When one is reading the citation, one would simply change the name to the riding or title of the hon. member.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brant.
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to this debate today and hear the member relay the news that her party was somehow going to change its view on committee travel and travel for members of Parliament to go out to first nations and actually find out.
I am chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and we were doing a study on first nations about job opportunities for them. We had our travel planned and booked, but it was not allowed to proceed because of the NDP's position.
Could the member explain that to the House please?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before I recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, I do note that the question from the hon. member for Brant really does not pertain to the question that is before the House. However, I note that the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing did make those comments in her remarks in response to another question, so I will allow the question and recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have always been willing to meet at committees. It is just that the government did not call the meetings until just this week. We are willing to travel. We are willing to travel to Yukon to hear these witnesses.
With respect to all that is going on here, at the end of the day, with this type of legislation, the government has basically said it is a take it or leave it package, and these people are against the taking of it at this point, the way it is.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Agriculture and Agri-food.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill S-6, a bill that would have a significant impact upon us all, no matter what region of the country we happen to live in. Obviously, it would have a larger impact in our northern region, in particular, Nunavut and Yukon.
I would like to start off by, first, acknowledging and welcoming the suggestion, the possibility of a standing committee being able to travel to get direct input on issues such as this, as it would have a very positive effect in certain situations. We will have to wait and see, through the critics and the minister, whether or not that will actually take place. I was under the impression that the official opposition party was not allowing for committees to travel, but I would hope that position has changed, when in fact there is legitimacy for committees to travel. We will have to wait to see.
One member across the way made reference to the aboriginal affairs committee. I, for one, would welcome the aboriginal affairs committee doing something more tangible on a very important issue, which we saw raised inside the House today; that is, the hundreds of murdered and missing aboriginal women and young girls.
Having said that, I will go right back to Bill S-6.
When I think of Bill S-6, a number of thoughts come to mind. I have been listening very closely to a lot of the questions that have been put forward to the New Democrats, in particular, with respect to the whole issue of consultation. I have had the opportunity to ask some questions, again, with respect to the idea of consultation. I recognize that the bill itself would make some very significant changes. Consultations were in fact warranted, and I think there is a huge question mark in terms of to what degree the government did, in good faith, go into the consultation process.
What I do know is that I have had the opportunity to receive some feedback from a couple of people in particular, from the north. One individual who I had known very briefly when I was first elected in the byelection was the former member of Parliament from Yukon, Larry Bagnell. He was sure that we had an understanding that it would appear as if there was a genuine lack of consultation that had taken place and raised a number of concerns that we felt were important, and one would question why the government was unable to build the consensus that was necessary to get more of a consensus in passing the legislation we have here today. I do not think they have achieved that.
We start to get wind of that, whether it was individuals or stakeholders making contact with caucus critics or caucus offices, but we get that sense in terms of the way in which the government also responds to the legislation.
We have Bill S-6, which has already been time allocated. That says something in itself. It means there will be a limited number of members of Parliament allowed to speak on this legislation. I suspect there might be keener interest from certain members of Parliament, quite frankly, over others, but at the very least, I think that all those who would like the opportunity to share their thoughts on this legislation should in fact be afforded the opportunity. However, like other pieces of legislation, Bill S-6 was time allocated
It does seem, on the surface, that the government uses it as a form of process, that the way it gets its legislation passed in the House is to bring in the time allocation tool.
The unfortunate aspect of that is that we have legislation before us that, ultimately, would have been much better had the government been successful in being able to consult in good faith—and I underline the words “good faith” for the simple reason that many of the answers from the government side are that it has consulted. I have even heard quotes from the government side saying that it has consulted. I suspect that, to a certain degree, it has conducted some form of consultation, but obviously the type of consultation the government espouses has not been effective because of the response we are hearing, that there seems to be a genuine need for the government to go back to the drawing board.
What would Bill S-6 actually do? When we read the summary of the bill, we find that it would, in essence, establish time limits for environmental assessments and a cost recovery regime. It further states:
It also amends that Act to provide for binding ministerial policy directions to the Board and the delegation of any of the Minister’s powers, duties and functions to the territorial minister, and allows for a member of the board who is participating in a screening or review to continue to act for that purpose after the expiry of their term or their removal due to a loss of residency in Yukon, until decision documents are issued....
Part 2 amends the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act to modify the maximum term of certain licences, to establish time limits with respect to the making of certain decisions, to allow for the making of arrangements relating to security, to establish a cost recovery regime....
Very substantial things would be applied through Bill S-6 to two pieces of legislation.
Issues have been brought forward. When I say that there was lack of consultation, a few points were specifically brought to my attention. The government is now proposing some new measures through Bill S-6, and it is questionable as to whether there was consultation to the same degree on these new measures.
The bill would provide sweeping powers for the minister to issue binding policy direction to the assessment board; the minister could unilaterally hand over his power to the territory without the consent of first nations; and there could be exemptions of assessment renewals and amendments to projects. There is also the issue with regard to timelines and whether they are unrealistic. These are some of the areas. The general feeling is that there was no real, genuine consultation on those points, and I suspect others.
In terms of the potential development in the north, it would be wrong for us as a nation, as we continue to evolve and develop, not to recognize the potential of the north, in terms of how Canada as a whole would benefit if it is done properly and well under good stewardship; we can all benefit. That benefit goes beyond just finances. Quite often, when there is legislation of this nature or when we talk about the north, we do not put enough emphasis on the environment, the natural beauty, and how we can help the north become that much more alive for people who have a desire to get the northern experience. There is so much more we can do.
The Liberal Party supports assessing resource wealth in the north in a sustainable way. Unlocking this economic activity is contingent on environmental sustainability and on the impacted aboriginal communities being engaged as equal partners.
The government as a whole has fallen short when it comes to the development of our natural resources. That does not necessarily apply just up north. If we look at the Prairies or any other region in Canada, there has been a vacuum created by the Prime Minister in terms of leadership. We have not seen leadership coming from the Prime Minister's Office on the development of our resources.
We could come up with a number of examples. We could make reference to the legislation before us today or to the controversial issue of our pipelines, where one province is negotiating with another province and the Prime Minister is just standing at the side, not providing any form of leadership to bring the different stakeholders together to try to build consensus.
If we want to develop and promote our resources, we need to build that social contract. Ottawa has a responsibility to be engaged with the different stakeholders and to demonstrate strong leadership. That has been lacking for the last number of years, at a great cost to our community, both economically and socially in terms of development. Opportunities have been lost because the Prime Minister has not seen fit to demonstrate strong leadership in building that social contract.
I have had the opportunity to speak on a number of occasions on legislation affecting our first nations and our aboriginal peoples. If there is a common theme, virtually on anything affecting our first nations or aboriginal peoples, it has been the issue of consultation. That is one of the biggest criticisms, once again.
How can the Conservatives expect an opposition party to get behind legislation if the stakeholders are saying that they were not adequately consulted? We are getting feedback that there are legitimate concerns about the legislation and the impact it would have on development. The government seems to have the attitude that it knows best and does not necessarily need to consult. It wants to say that it consulted, but is it genuine consultation that has taken place?
Eleven self-governing first nations have made it clear that the federal government has not held enough adequate consultation on the bill to merit support. That is a substantial statement. They do not feel that they were adequately consulted. The government has brought things into the legislation that they had no idea were going to be incorporated into the legislation. Were they in fact consulted on all aspects of the legislation that has been brought forward? Based on information we are being provided, that has not been the case, and it has been at a great cost.
I have had the opportunity to fly over, and on one occasion be in, Yellowknife. I used to be a serving member of the Canadian Forces, and what a privilege it was. I was posted out in Lancaster Park, just north of Edmonton. We had the C-130 Hercs, and we would do that northern run for the char up north. Everyone loved having that beautiful fish.
Flying over Yellowknife, one gets a good sense of just how vast our country is. There are so many opportunities there. We can talk about gold, silver, copper, zinc, and many more that are being mined in the north. The potential development there is overwhelming.
The entire population of the north is probably somewhere around 100,000 or maybe a little bit more. We need to play a role, but we need to be working with the territorial governments. We need to be working with the Inuit, our first nations, people of aboriginal heritage, and the communities, those who actually have intelligence on the ground on how we can best develop the north for future generations. It is not just about extracting; it is where we might be able to have additional value.
If we want to move forward, the first priority in bringing in legislation of this nature should be to build consensus. I do not think the government has been successful in building consensus.
I do not think the Liberal Party and the member for Labrador would oppose the idea of the standing committee going to the north to get a better understanding and see first-hand some of the things that are taking place.
At the end of the day, Bill S-6 would have a significant impact. We are looking to the government to deal with the issue in a conciliatory fashion and to respect consultation. That is a word I might have said a dozen times in my speech.
If we are not prepared to do the work, we should think twice before bringing in legislation. If we fail on consultation and force through the legislation, what can happen is more confrontation and problems in the future. It is better to get it right the first time and work in co-operation. If that means taking the extra month or two to get it right, let us take the extra month or two. The attitude the government has demonstrated, even by passing this legislation and bringing in time allocation, speaks volumes.
I realize that my time has expired, so I will leave it at that.
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.
Conservative
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that perhaps another month or two would solve the problem. We have already conducted consultations for over a year, with meetings taking place and, as I stated previously, over $98,000 provided to first nations specifically to consult on the four issues they have raised. They have been reimbursed over $98,000 to compensate them for their time and expertise in participating in that. I would argue that, if over a year of meetings has not solved the issue and brought us to an agreement, another month or two is not going to get the job done.
The member referred to the delegation of federal powers. I want to refer back to the actual umbrella final agreement. The concern seems to be that this violates that somehow. The delegation of federal powers is specifically addressed in section 2.11.8, which says:
Government may determine, from time to time, how and by whom any power or authority of Government or a Minister set out in a Settlement Agreement...shall be exercised.
I have addressed some issues of concern previously in the debate. One of the issues is the delegation of federal powers specifically contemplated and laid out in the umbrella final agreement. Would the member not agree that the delegation of federal powers is already part of the final agreement? The final agreement takes precedence over any legislation that is being contemplated here, so why would that not be acceptable to the hon. member?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member might be somewhat missing the bigger picture here. He makes reference to the fact that the government has done some consultation, and I am not saying that the government has done no consultation. It is an issue of how effective the consultation has been.
If the Conservatives take an approach of saying what they want and what they expect and then go to the table and start consulting but have no flexibility, they can do all the consultation they want, but at the end of the day they will not get that consensus unless they are prepared to be flexible and open to other ideas and thoughts. Maybe that was part of the problem. Maybe they should sit down and listen in some of these consultations that have taken place. I still do not think there were enough consultations, by the sounds of it. Based on what I have been told, it seems as if they cut it off, but it does not seem as if the consultation was one of genuine exchange in which the government was actually listening.
Based on what has taken place in the House in my short period here, I have seen the Conservatives take an attitude of saying what they want, and that it does not matter what we say.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member for Labrador feels about this issue, but the member for Winnipeg North kept on referring to “our first nations” when speaking about aboriginal peoples. I just want to remind the member for Winnipeg North that I am nobody's Indian here, nobody's first nation here.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, if that is the way the member inferred it, I would apologize to him. It was not meant to be expressed in that fashion whatsoever. I am a very proud Canadian and I recognize the important role of our first nations. Maybe the member can enlighten me on how he would rather I had made mention of it, so I could avoid making that same mistake in the future.