Debates of Feb. 11th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. I believe I heard from the member opposite that the problem with this legislation is the people who are presenting it. Does that mean the opposition's opposition to this bill is pure, unadulterated partisan politics? This attitude of standing in the way of very good legislation because of partisan politics is not worthy of a member of Parliament.

I would like to ask the opposition to work with us to pass, support, and commend very good legislation that would benefit all of the people of the Northwest Territories.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just pointed out a problem and found a solution at the same time.

Not only should this legislation have been passed a long time ago, but the amendments we are proposing did not come out of thin air. It was the local people who told us that they need to have this legislation. They do not want half measures. We do not want to present them with partial legislation. We want to present comprehensive legislation that answers their questions.

Questions about the Mackenzie gas project are legitimate. They are concrete. This project could potentially pollute the environment and be a major source of economic growth, and they would like to manage it themselves. That is why I say that this government is not addressing the entire problem. The Conservatives are disclosing only what they are required to disclose.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I want to talk about how the Conservatives have hung their hats on the words in these three land claims agreements that the contemplation of a larger board means that these regional boards would be taken up.

Land claims are negotiated between two parties. They are between the people who hold the treaty with the Crown and the federal government, which represents the Crown. If I had an agreement that I am contemplating buying someone's vehicle, would I not think that before I bought the vehicle, the price would have to be worked out between the parties?

This is the problem right now. It is the failing in the Conservatives' logic in their position on taking away the regional boards. They say that because the land claims say that we can contemplate this, it means we have the authority to put it in place without the agreement of the other negotiating party. How does that sound to the member?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fine example of the problem with the government's attitude toward the first nations.

We cannot tell the first nations that we accept them as a people and then turn around and tell them that they are not smart enough to negotiate with us and that we will determine what is best for them. Therein lies the problem.

When the first nations tell us that they have major social problems that require investment in medical resources, that is not the time to tell them that we are interested in something else and we will prioritize matters for them. No, I do not see that as a solution.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-15 and to talk to this idea of devolution. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, for his work on behalf of the broader constituents of the NWT. I have to admit that I only had the opportunity to go there once prior to my coming to this place a number of years ago. What a wondrous place the NWT is. It is an absolutely marvellous place.

My colleague from the Western Arctic has been very clear about our support for devolution. Let me give it some context in the sense of where I grew up and came from. Scotland also went through a process of devolution. Devolution by its very nature is a difficult process. It is not simple to devolve powers to another entity. It is just not one of those things--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. If members would like to have a conversation, that is understandable, but I am having a hard time hearing the member for Welland, and he is sitting quite close to the Chair.

If we could give him the respect he deserves, the hon. member for Welland has the floor.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is very kind of you. Perhaps the devolved powers of Scotland got passions inflamed at the other end of the House.

Clearly, it is a difficult process, as I was suggesting earlier. How do we walk down that path? In Scotland's case, there were two parties involved. There was the Westminster Parliament and what became the Scottish Parliament after the powers were devolved. There were only two entities involved, because it was an act of union between Scotland and England when the two Parliaments came together. There was a historical context, and devolution after the fact could rely on the historical context. Nonetheless, it did not make it simple to devolve.

On the other hand, with the NWT, there is no precedent in a sense that there was a parliament historically that went away and now wants to come back. The powers have been granted because it is a territory without the same powers the provinces have. Some of us would argue that this oversight has been there for far too long and needs to be addressed. It is being addressed with this particular piece of legislation.

Inside of the territory, a number of nations are signatories to treaties with the crown. The government, through the Governor General, being the agent of the crown, has an obligation to speak to them.

Some would ask how much consultation is enough consultation. I would think one needs to work at it to a point where the parties come to an agreement. One cannot just impose if there was a previous agreement about how to do these things, especially when it comes to the use of water and land.

I was in the municipal world as an elected official at one point. When upper-tier municipalities in Ontario would try to tell lower-tier municipalities how to use water and where to take it from or where they should put it, the lower tier's ability to decide and make decisions about development would be negated. That is usually what a fight would be over. Lower-tier municipalities would say that they wanted the right to decide where development would be, and the only way they could do that would be if the upper-tier municipalities would give them the right to make decisions about water usage and where to put it.

I used that analogy because that is what is happening here. If we take the right away from the regional boards and give it to one board, we ostensibly give, in the eye of the regional boards, an upper-tier board the right to decide what development will look like, especially when it comes to land use, resources, and water. They will see that as something that is being taken away from them and not necessarily as something being given to them as a benefit. That seems to be part of the issue here in the sense of what we do or do not do.

If we are going to devolve, there are aspects that are highly appropriate. The territorial government in the Northwest Territories is saying that it is happy devolving certain powers, and it wants to head along that path. We should respect that, and we do respect it on this side. I believe that the government, to be fair, has also respected devolving powers to the territory. The government should take credit for that, and I am sure it will.

The hiccup on this side is the other issues related to the regional boards. I would ask the government to consider that. I am not suggesting that the government is saying that it is doing it “just because”. I do not think that is the rationale. I think it believes that this is better.

The difficult part is that there are many signatories to the treaties and the agreements.They do not believe that they should give it up at this moment in time.

We would suggest that the government split it. I recognize that the government does not always like to do that. It likes to bundle some things together. It tries to speed things along, and we see it all the time. It tries to speed things along and get things out of the way.

I must admit that the Conservatives did not have time allocation on the bill, and we are grateful that they did not do that.

[An hon. member]

Not yet.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they will. To give them credit where credit is due, they are allowing us to talk to the bill, and I think that is a good sign, and we need to continue to do that.

My colleagues have quoted from a number of sources who say that we need to talk some more. I understand the other side saying that we have had consultations. How much do we talk about this issue? I found in my previous life as a bargaining agent that we have to talk it out to get an agreement, because if we force an agreement, we end up with more trouble at the end of the road.

There have been some suggestions, although not by me, because I am not a lawyer, that it will probably go to litigation. I believe that my friend from Victoria mentioned that, and I know him to be a noteworthy person of integrity who studies the law. In fact, he came from my neck of the woods, in St. Catharines, before he transplanted to Victoria. He has asked if they want to head to litigation.

We know how long litigation takes. I have forgotten how long it took the Mackenzie Valley pipeline initially, because it seems to me, and I hate to date myself, that I was a pretty young guy when that process started. It took a heck of a long time to get through all the court processes and to get to the point where it is now. I am not so sure we want to see that again, but maybe that is where this could head.

No suit has been brought forward. The legislation has not been passed, and there is no royal assent. We have no idea where it would go. Clearly, to look at the history of litigation in the Northwest Territories, the likelihood is that it will be litigated. That would be a shame.

The Northwest Territories has said that it wants to head down the path of devolution. On this side, we want to head down that path with them. We simply ask the government to take into consideration the two pieces that we think should come out.

I recognize that it is a big ask, especially at this stage of the bill, but it may well be something that will be of benefit to the Northwest Territories, to the peoples who live there, and ultimately to the government, because if it ends up being litigated, it will be the government that will defend its legislation in the courts. That means that the folks in Welland will pay for the litigation on the government side, because we will have to pay the government's lawyers. That will be a cost to others across the country, and that would seem unfair.

We should respect the folks in the Northwest Territories. We respect the parts about devolving. That piece the government got right. The other piece, not so much. Some folks are a bit ambivalent about it, and others say we need to slow it down.

I would say to the other side, perhaps we could step away from that piece. Take it back to the discussion phase and hammer out an agreement, because I think we could get one. It seems to me that someone needs to bargain this one out so we get to a resolution. The last thing we want is to put the hammer down on someone who will fight back at some time in the future. It would do no good. The good piece we will lose, because the devolving piece will get lost in the acrimony, and the Conservatives deserve to take credit for the devolving piece.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about some of the legal implications. I just want to speak to that, because one of the concerns we have is what has been happening with the three aboriginal governments and the fact that they feel that their constitutional right is now being breeched, because this decision with regard to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is being taken unilaterally, without their consent.

When the Liberal government of Paul Martin signed a framework agreement with the Northwest Territories, it was with the intention of honouring and respecting the agreements that were in place, of upholding those aboriginal agreements that had been negotiated or were about to be negotiated.

Does the member think the Tlicho and the other aboriginal governments are correct in what they are saying and that this could very well be a breech of their constitutional agreements and could warrant legal action?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am not actually a lawyer by profession, but clearly, if the aggrieved parties believe they are entitled to litigate, they will go forward with that litigation and ask a group of lawyers to look into it.

At least on the surface, I would suggest that it looks as if that may well be the case and that their claim that there may be a constitutional violation is correct. That ultimately would mean that we would head down that road of litigation.

As I said earlier, the initial issue over the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that went to litigation went on for decades, if I remember correctly. I have to admit that I was a very young man then. In fact, I might even have been a teenager. I do not remember my teenage years, actually. It seems like a long time ago. I am not quite sure why I do not remember them. I think it is an aging process. Some others in this place have suggested that they do not remember certain years because of certain aspects of their life; I am not suggesting that. Clearly, in my case, I think it is just age.

To be truthful, the sense is that the groups believe they can litigate. Normally what that means is that they end up going to a law firm. I would bet my bottom dollar that it would not be a law firm in Welland that takes this on. It would be constitutional experts. This would end up in protracted fight, and that is not good for anyone.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to list a number of names. One is NICO mine; one is Dominion Diamond mines; one is Diavik mine; one is Gahcho Kue mine. All of these mines exist in the Tlicho region. If the Tlicho go to litigation over the regional boards, licensing of those mines would be put in jeopardy.

Right now, worldwide, mines are fighting for capital costs. What happens when the market realizes that the current government has upset the process in one of the most prosperous areas of the country right now for mining? What are these people doing? Why are doing this stupidity at this time?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Western Arctic hit it on the head. Business needs predictability. If it does not have predictability in this area, the influx of additional capital that may be needed to either expand the mines or keep them operating can indeed dry up. If that happens, mines can either decide to shut down or throttle back.

As the government has said in its own legislation, this is not just about the economy of the Northwest Territories, because under the act of devolving it keeps 50% of that resource, of that wealth that is generated. If the government causes unpredictability in the mining sector, which generates wealth to the broader Canadian public—because clearly the federal government represents all Canadians across this land—it would actually be harming the broader Canadian economy, simply because it has not given predictability. It would perhaps have actually sent the participants on a path of litigation, which ultimately would end up in a place where no one needs to be, and ultimately the economy would be the great sufferer.

Being the the great manager it says it is, the government apparently is about to once more mismanage this economy.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the Northwest Territories and its effort to take over certain federal responsibilities in the north, so my speech will focus on some aspects of the devolution of environmental liabilities set out in the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

There is one issue I keep coming back to: environmental liability. We talked about this when the witnesses appeared before the committee. We have already spent several hours on the subject and the legislation before us, namely Bill C-15.

The stakeholders who appeared before the committee mentioned this aspect several times. It raises a red flag. I keep coming back to this issue, but it is also an issue that keeps turning up in many of the pieces of legislation put forward by this government with respect to the relationship between the Crown and the first nations.

When I talk about transferring environmental liabilities, I am, of course, referring to abandoned mine sites and sites that have been contaminated by oil and other pollutants.

There is just such a provision, not in the legislation before us, Bill C-15, but in the agreement it refers to, which is already available. Bill C-15 provides for the creation and implementation of regulations that will govern the relationship between the parties once everything is signed. The agreement mentions the transfer of environmental liabilities.

Once the bill is ratified and the measures implemented, a transfer will take place. The witnesses' versions differed, but the government was supposed to provide the parties with a comprehensive list of all of the abandoned mine sites and contaminated sites that were slated for rehabilitation, which implies a massive injection of funds. We know that rehabilitating contaminated sites and abandoned mine sites can cost millions of dollars, or at least hundreds of thousands.

This reminds me of the situations that arose from the First Nations Land Management Act, which provided for the same kind of transfer of environmental liability and responsibility upon signing.

In the case of the First Nations Land Management Act, it was hundreds of thousands of dollars for sites in Mashteuiatsh. Looking at the specific example of Mashteuiatsh from an empirical perspective, we know that rehabilitation and environmental assessment are very costly. That is why I would like to focus on the concept of transferring environmental liabilities today. Judging from my own experience and my own understanding of the situation, that is the real problem.

I always try to play devil's advocate, that is, to take the opposing position and try to find the flaws in the arguments made. That is quite healthy in a democratic process and in a process of discussion, dialogue, exchange and communication.

Consequently, as part of a strategy based on contradictory principles inherent in justice and administration—this is where my professional background comes into play—it is imperative to forge an argument that will identify elements that could be contentious or present risks that could interfere with the implementation of the planned measures in the short or medium term.

I will introduce the systematic transfer of environmental liabilities in the agreements between the Canadian government and the first nations. In this case, as I mentioned, the agreement states that the federal government retains responsibility for abandoned and contaminated mining sites that were identified prior to ratification of the agreement.

The reason I spoke out in committee was primarily to ensure that an exhaustive list is given to the parties, because I do not want this to be an injurious relationship. However, we must remain lucid and conscious of the fact that sometimes the playing field is not level in negotiations because the government has many lawyers. There is a plethora of government lawyers and, in this case, they were asked to help draft the agreement and the bill we are examining today. Thus, when advising the government, its lawyers ensured that they put the government's interests first.

To come back to that exhaustive list of mining sites and contaminated sites, as soon as that list is given to the government, it will assume the liabilities indicated on that list; in other words, all sites identified prior to ratification will continue to be the responsibility of the Canadian government. However—and this is why the list needs to be exhaustive—if other sites are discovered after the agreement is ratified, it is the parties—in this case, the local governments and band authorities—that will be held responsible for rehabilitating those sites.

I would hope—and this is probably the case—that all parties have received legal opinions as well as a substantial amount of legal advice, but given that the balance of power can sometimes be skewed and that the Canadian government is often in a position of strength and authority, it is crucial to insist on these elements in order to avoid any potentially damaging situations.

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, when these provisions systematically reappear, often the whole thing starts to look more and more like an adhesion contract. An adhesion contract is a contract in which everything is provided and it just needs to be signed. It is a ready-made contract, you could say. It is something that comes up over and over, and lawyers always make sure to have these kinds of clauses and measures arranged. The same kind of measures can be found in the agreement associated with Bill C-15. Basically, certain aspects of the bill are strangely similar to an adhesion contract, since they can be found in other matters specific to the fiduciary relationship between the Canadian government and first nations.

The members in the House will acknowledge the preponderance of the authority exercised by the Northwest Territories regarding the use of its resources. This observation must be clarified, however, in light of the testimony gathered in committee, which tends to demonstrate the influence that the government lawyers have when it comes to drafting legislative tools submitted for our consideration.

Representatives of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, including a panel of lawyers and experts, testified at some recent committee meetings. These experts told us that government lawyers have an influence on—or at the very least, considerable involvement in—the drafting. It is quite possible that the other parties, such as provincial and regional governments, as well as aboriginal communities, may have sought informed legal advice, but we know for a fact that the Canadian government has a whole fleet of highly qualified lawyers. I also want to point out that the legislator is not an individual, but a whole group of people who are assigned to the task. There is probably also a litigation section responsible for challenges of the proposed measures.

All that to say that a fleet of government lawyers were called in to work on this. That is also why I want to put this in perspective, since there may be an imbalance with respect to strength and the prejudicial nature of this whole thing.

Canada is often in a position of strength in relation to the other parties, especially in these kinds of cases. Although I have not been to the Northwest Territories myself, I know that these are remote and isolated communities. They pay astronomical costs for lawyers and legal advisors. I have seen the same thing in my own community. It is often people from outside the community who must travel at a high cost. For example, a return plane ticket for the same day between Uashat and Montreal can easily cost over $2,000. In short, these fees can be huge, in the end. Private parties, in this case the regional governments, but also the aboriginal parties, probably had to pay out of their own pockets for this legal advice. The Canadian government would not have had to do so, since it has its own large staff to answer these questions.

I submit this respectfully.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments. No one can deny that he is truly devoted to aboriginal issues, and the work he does on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is truly appreciated.

Can my colleague confirm that the witnesses who appeared before the committee often talked about the fact that the bill should be split and that the authority over the water and land should be individual and should stay the way it is now, since each community has different interests? I wonder whether my colleague can tell us more about the testimony we heard in committee.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

As she said, the matters addressed in this bill and in the agreement—we have to look at everything in perspective—are quite broad and cover many aspects that might be contentious. I am talking about the integrity of the waterways or natural resource extraction. This concerns a number of considerations, including economic, social and environmental considerations.

Each of these topics warranted a case-by-case in-depth study. Under the circumstances, we were unable to do so in committee, given the limited time that was allocated. For example, these matters were brought to my attention just a few months ago. With my training, I can see that a number of considerations deserved a separate and more thorough look.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for this excellent demonstration of the Conservative government's incompetence.

Every time there is a sensitive issue, the government tries to take away the decision-making authority of the first nations and local residents. Communication and relationships are vital to good co-operation between the first nations and the Canadian government. The Conservative government fails every time.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of these good relations between the government and these territories when it comes to social, economic and environmental issues.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I read the comments and briefs that were submitted to the committee, and it seems that the vast majority of local groups support the proposed measures. Furthermore, we must admit that these groups were involved to a certain extent. That is a step in the right direction.

However, there are nevertheless those ready-made measures, the adhesion contract measures. The Canadian government ultimately holds all the power. At present, the government has the upper hand, and that is why this type of clause is found in most agreements that have been brought to my attention, including the First Nations Land Management Act. It becomes automatic to insert this type of clause.

Instead of fulfilling its obligations towards first nations under the fiduciary relationship that must be respected, the Canadian government all too often protects its own interests, the interests of lobby groups and those of major economic powers rather than serving the interests of the people first and foremost.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak again on Bill C-15 at report stage.

We are inching our way to the meaningful devolution of federal powers to the Northwest Territories. Bill C-15 would replace the Northwest Territories Act, implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, as well as other acts, and certain orders and regulations.

In fact, this legislation amends 42 acts that will ultimately allow the Northwest Territories to take greater control of their own destiny, much in the same way that provinces do. It is an important development, which reflects the preparedness of the territory to take on a greater role in their administration and become more financially independent as well.

New Democrats continue to support the idea and have been more than willing to work with the government, and more importantly the people of the Northwest Territories, on this legislation.

The people of the Northwest Territories have been working to gain more province-like powers for decades now. New Democrats stand with them in favour of devolution and fully support the Northwest Territories in taking over federal responsibilities of the north.

As I said when Bill C-15 was heading to committee, there are some items that can be tightened up to address the concerns we heard from our partners in the Northwest Territories throughout this process. It is best that we cross our t's and dot our i's as much as possible, so we can create a strong piece of legislation that makes sense to all involved, as well as an outcome that will be better, not merely acceptable, and will allow the Northwest Territories to grow into a more independent jurisdiction.

We have heard that the pan-territorial regulator for environmental screening of industrial projects is potentially problematic. It does away with a number of regulatory boards and processes that are predictable, as well as known and understood. These are being replaced with a single regulator that will supposedly be more responsive but will also have fewer teeth. This has been very controversial.

We know that the government favours working groups or subcommittees to address more specific concerns, but we do not share their opinion that subcommittees or working groups will have the same strengths as the entities being replaced, such as regional land and water boards.

That is why we are moving that clauses 136 and 137, creating a single regulatory board for lands and waters and eliminating the regional land and water boards, be deleted. We know that this is the wish of the majority of stakeholders who have addressed Bill C-15 and feel the government has to realize that it is the best way to improve this process.

New Democrats are strong supporters of the devolution to give more power and authority to the territorial governments. We have no intention of standing in the way of devolution and are committed to working to make sure that Bill C-15 meets the expectations of northerners. They have waited too long for this.

To that point, we must remind this place that many of the concerns we heard about had to do with the changes to regulatory regimes. With respect to the single regulator, it is important to listen to the dissenting voices. Let me remind the House, once again, of previous comments by the Northwest Territory MLA Bob Bromley. In February 2012, he stated:

The federal government's proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

He added:

...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation.

At the same time, we have to consider how this board will be populated. Given the history of appointments by the Conservative government, it is not surprising that the Conservatives have reserved control over appointments to the environmental review board and also maintained control over the approval of licences.

What we get with that is something like devolution with strings attached, or devolution in name only, if the real power is still dependent on decisions from the minister's desk and his or her hand-picked appointees.

We also have to ask whether this superboard should not fall into place after outstanding land claims have been settled. Is this not a case of reaching further than necessary on one item and not challenging ourselves on another front?

That said, devolution is going to happen, and this will give Northwest Territories residents a greater voice in decisions relating to their economy and environmental protection, even if they do come with strings attached.

If the Conservative government is not prepared to support the changes brought forward by the NDP motion today that reflect the voices of those directly impacted, rest assured, these are matters that the NDP will consider tackling when we form government in 2015.

The NDP recognizes that the proposed legislation before us does some important work that is welcomed as well. The bill would fix the current scheme so that the government of the Northwest Territories would start to receive revenues from resource development and rely less on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. Under the new agreement, it would keep 50% of the revenues collected from resource development on public land, up to a maximum amount that is pegged to its operating cost or gross expenditure base, and the Government of Canada would retain the remainder.

This means that the arrangement would help to generate extra money for the territories other than what is currently provided for by the federal government. However, as we have noted before, it would require resources development to proceed. It is only reasonable for us to assume that development would take place and that those monies would become available.

This is a part of the bill that makes sense, but the strength of certain parts of legislation does not create the authority to ram through the remainder without attempting to tighten up contentious items; otherwise, we would be stuck in a cycle of amending what has been overlooked. As I said, we would be prepared to do that in 2015 when we form the government.

It is true that there is a danger that we could be constantly locked in discussion mode with no action, if it remains the same. However, we have to recognize that it is just as dangerous to consult and ignore.

The Conservative government's ability to listen has been proven to be quite a challenge. It is just as challenging that the voices it is hearing from are not entirely supportive of its initiatives. In those instances, it seems particularly hard for the government to recognize when it does share goals with stakeholders who may have specific criticism or can see a different way to approach that shared goal. That is a shame. I believe it over-politicizes processes and demonizes the voices of honest criticism. We hope that is not the case with stakeholders from the Northwest Territories who can imagine other and better ways to pursue devolution.

To return to the larger concept of devolution, we have to ask ourselves if we are pursuing this in name more than in action. We also have to ask what we want from the process, what a best outcome might and should look like.

We can look at other jurisdictions, as well as the history of devolution in Canada. Surely, the heart of the matter has to do with improving independence and the ability of local populations to control their own lives. To ensure that is the outcome, it is imperative to listen to the voices of people who would navigate the new arrangement that we are debating. This is all the more true for the voices of first nations, who are significant players in this.

Unfortunately for the Conservative government, its record on that front is less than stellar. When people like Jake Heron of the Northwest Territories Métis Nation tells us, and I quote, “It's very frustrating when you are at the table and you think you're involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously”, we have to understand how that is a red flag in this process.

Also, the lukewarm acceptance of the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which would create the environmental screening process for the Northwest Territories, must be viewed for what they are. They are an acceptance that this is the best they are going to get from this government, and not any ringing endorsement.

We know that the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government, along with other individual first nations, have publicly voiced concerns on these changes to the MVRMA. Therefore, it is possible to view the signatures of the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Tlicho government on the devolution agreement as being an incomplete endorsement.

With that in mind, we will continue to work on the bill, as members saw today, to make sure that Bill C-15 meets northerners' expectations.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the words the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing used, while very supportive of the idea of devolution, was “inching“ toward devolution of powers in the Northwest Territories. I want to talk about that inching along, because some of the things proposed by the NDP today would slow down that process.

I want to specifically talk about the idea that there should be more bodies that people have to consult with. This theme of constant consultation seems to come from the NDP. I want to remind New Democrats that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline process was absolutely derailed by 21 years of consultations. By the time it was finally approved, the U.S. no longer needed the natural gas from that area, depriving it of the opportunity to take advantage of that development.

I want to ask the members opposite if they are aware that there will be no resource development in the north if the processes are too long and cumbersome, which is something this bill would fix.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason it took so long is they were not quite ready and there were still things to iron out. The government's definition of consultation is not the same as first nations’ definition of consultation. The member needs to keep that in mind.

Earlier today I read a statement by the Tlicho Nation, dated January 20, 2014. Again, I will remind the member that the Tlicho are the people actually on the ground. It stated:

...Canada is proceeding with an approach that is inconsistent with a proper interpretation of provisions in our Agreement and will constitute a breach of our Agreement and the honour of the Crown.

My question to the member in response to this, if she could have answered, is this. Why are the Conservatives prepared to go to court over something that will show that this legislation is likely unconstitutional?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague quoted from a document by the Tlicho nation, in which it outlined to the government that it feels its constitutional rights as an aboriginal government are being infringed on. The Tlicho nation feels that the government is unilaterally making changes, within the claim and within the agreement, that are not favourable to it. It also implied that those changes violate the constitutional promises that were given to it by the Government of Canada.

My colleague sat through a lot of the discussion in committee with regard to this particular bill. Does she feel that the Tlicho nation and the other aboriginal groups, like the Sahtu and the Gwich'in, have a legitimate case? With the government being unco-operative in accepting any amendments, would she be supportive of their pursuing legal action on this?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Tlicho, the Gwich'in, and the Sahtu all believe that they have a case and I would leave it up to their lawyers to decide to move forward on this. That same thing resounded throughout the testimony, with respect to the lands and water boards and the fact that this should have been two different pieces of legislation.

I want to mention that the document I referred to a while ago was dated November 18, 2013, and the previous one was January 20, 2014. I now have an article dated February 20, 2014, in the Northwest Territories News/North, which states:

Accepting the linkage of the two distinctly different legislative bills affecting the NWT betrays the Sahtu, Tlicho and Gwich'in governments who all worked with the GNWT until they had built the trust to sign onto the devolution.

Now, there is a question as to whether this was done intentionally and what impact this will have on their relationship.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the bill. I know this legislation is of great import not only to the Northwest Territories but also to the first nations of that area of our country. As the House is well aware, there has been considerable support across the Northwest Territories for the first part of the bill, which is, finally, the devolution of additional powers to the Northwest Territories government and to the first nations to be shared.

In Canada's north, there are not just two jurisdictions, there are three jurisdictions: the territorial government, the federal government, and the first nation governments. In this place, we always have to keep that in mind when legislation is coming forward that may impact on each of those three orders of government.

I understand there is a high level of support by the first nations. They like the fact that the north is finally moving toward a jurisdiction of independence and self-government. There are probably still some issues to be worked out between the federal government and the other two orders of government. I know from when I was assistant deputy of resources in the Yukon that it was one thing to negotiate and reach agreement on the legislation which would devolve these authorities, but it was another thing to reach agreement on the person years and the resources that would transfer from the federal government to the territorial and, potentially, to the first nation governments.

We in this place can only hope that with this devolution also comes the fair transfer of resources so that those orders of government can effectively and efficiently deliver those responsibilities in the same way that the federal government previously might have, even if it had shared those responsibilities. That is always something to keep in mind. It is one thing to debate and bring forward legislation, but it is another thing to make sure that there is appropriate transfer and sharing of resources to ensure that this occurs in an effective way.

When I spoke to the bill in the previous reading, I made it clear that those I heard from in the north, the concern that they hold is in the second part of the bill. There are many in the north who had implored the government to separate these bills and have them debated and voted on separately. That would have made it much easier for all members of this place to say resoundingly, absolutely, that it is up to the territorial government to decide how it resolves these issues. We could have looked at this closely, with careful scrutiny, and decided that, yes, we are in favour of this.

Regrettably, the government, in its stubborn will, has again chosen to combine two matters that really merit separate discussion.

As some of my colleagues in the House have mentioned, there is a strong likelihood that the passage of this legislation may trigger litigation by all three first nations in the Northwest Territories: the Sahtu, the Gwich’in, and the Tlicho, all of whom have first nation final agreements, self-government final agreements, that were not only negotiated and signed off among those three first nation governments but also with the territorial government and the federal government. Those agreements, as with all the first nation final agreements, are constitutionally entrenched. Therefore, deservedly, these first nations are raising clear, well-grounded issues.

By what right does the federal government have to unilaterally reopen a first nation final agreement without sitting down and discussing the procedures set forth in that agreement? It is my understanding that the real contention is in the second agreement, which has to do with land use, land use development, land use planning, and land use approvals.

The legislation that stands right now, prior to this bill, established three separate land use regimes for the Northwest Territories, one for each first nation, because there is a clear recognition that each of those first nation governments has the right of governance. The people of each of those first nations have the right to a direct say in decisions about land use and water management in their regions.

It is my understanding that even within those first nation final agreements, where the separate water boards, the separate land use boards, and all the provisions are set out, there is allowance for discussion about moving toward a more consolidated approach. That allows for the beginning of the discussion, the negotiations, and the consent by those first nations, none of which, as I understand, has occurred to the satisfaction of those three first nation governments.

We have here what appears to be strong allegations of a violation of the existing legislation, the requirement for advanced consultation and agreement from that negotiation process. We are hearing from those three first nations that should this legislation go through, they will clearly contemplate litigation.

I have to attest to the fact that an analysis has recently come to my attention that of all the legal actions coming forward by first nations dealing with resource management, almost every one of those cases is won by the first nations. What we are foreseeing is, if not an overthrow eventually, or an order of the court to go back and take a second look, at least considerable delay.

If we go back to successive speeches from the throne by the government, it has said over and over again, not just for the north of Canada but across Canada, that its objective is to streamline, in other words, to fast-track resource extraction, development, and export.

The government has heard the message from those first nations that should this legislation go through, they will contemplate litigation against it and, given that we know from experience that in all cases, the government proceeds at all appellate levels, we can foresee there will be a lot of delay in the eventual implementation of this legislation.

The last thing we need for investment and development in the north is uncertainty. That is one thing that investors do not want. Wherever they look around the globe, they question where they should invest their dollars. They do not want to invest those dollars where there is uncertainty. Certainly, this uncertainty must be hanging over the three to four diamond mines proposed in the Tlicho territory.

It is a complete puzzle to me and to my colleagues why the government did not, first of all, separate out these bills, to allow for much deeper consultation, perhaps provide an option such as moving toward a superboard, and if there were a superboard, how we would ensure that each of the three first nations would be similarly accommodated and heard.

If we look at the provisions in the Gwich'in first nation final agreement, under section 24, “Land and Water Regulation”, it clearly states that “Legislation shall provide for co-ordination of the activities of the boards…”, that “Each of the boards...shall be established…”, and “may establish its own rules of procedure…”.

Most particularly, and this was the concern of these first nations, it states:

The legislation implementing the provisions of this chapter shall provide for a method of monitoring the cumulative impact of land and water uses on the environment in the Mackenzie Valley, and for periodic, independent, environmental audits which shall be rnade public.

All of these provisions relate to the terms of reference and the operation of these distinct land and water boards and authorities for these first nations. Is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater?

I hope that all members of the House will give due consideration to voting for the amendment that the official opposition put forward. We think it is a reasonable amendment. It will not hold up the rest of the legislation, which is welcomed by those in the north, and Canadians and investors across the country. We ask that this amendment be accepted.