Debates of Feb. 14th, 2014

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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, today is Valentine's Day, so I will share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am honoured to speak to the House in support of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, which will really be a major milestone in the history not only of the Northwest Territories, but also of our great and beautiful country.

As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have travelled across the country and throughout the north. I have talked with the warm and welcoming people who live in that vast, amazing and resource-rich territory.

I cannot overstate how important passing this bill is to the people of the Northwest Territories, the people who live and work in that magnificent place. For decades, the people of the north have been asking us to recognize them and give them the power to make decisions about their lands and their resources.

Canadians know that governance is a key pillar of our government's northern strategy. As the Prime Minister said recently, “We want to be able to see northerners...masters of their own affairs to the same degree that southerners are”. That is the purpose of the bill before the House today: to give northerners more control over their own lives.

With the passage of this bill, the people most affected by decisions will now be the ones to make them. The people with intimate knowledge of local priorities, local opportunities and local challenges will be the ones to have the final word on how public land is utilized, how water resources are managed, how mineral resources are developed and conserved, and how the environment is protected.

I cannot overstate the significance of this change for the ability of the Northwest Territories to determine its own political and economic future, but do not just take it from me.

Premier Bob McLeod, of the Northwest Territories, said it best a couple of weeks ago before members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development during committee hearings in Yellowknife. He described the bill as a game-changer for the people of the Northwest Territories.

He went on to say:

Devolution promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories. Supported by an efficient, effective, and integrated regulatory regime, devolution will give northerners the necessary tools and authorities to responsibly develop the Territories' significant natural resource potential, promote investment and economic development, and manage the land and environment sustainably.

There is no doubt that passage of this legislation would bring substantial new economic opportunities to the Northwest Territories. However, the true benefits of devolution will only be realized through a modern, efficient, and effective regulatory system that would make the Northwest Territories a competitive and attractive place to do business.

That is why this legislation also puts in place an improved regulatory framework for the Northwest Territories that would ensure that resource develop continues in a manner that respects the environment while ensuring the long-term prosperity of the Northwest Territories for generations to come.

To see proof of economic opportunities derived from devolution and regulatory improvement, one need only look west to Yukon. Since achieving devolution in 2003, Yukon has experienced a second gold rush of sorts, with investors and skilled labourers streaming in from around the world to capitalize on the region's rich resources. As a result, the GDP of Yukon has grown every year for the past nine years and has exceeded Canada's rate of national annual growth eight times out of ten. Last year the territory's total GDP was $2.5 billion, up more than $1 billion since devolution.

The Northwest Territories is equally endowed, as we all know, with impressive renewable and non-renewable resources from the Beaufort Sea to the Norman Wells oil field to the diamond mines of the southern Mackenzie Valley. It is no wonder the Conference Board of Canada predicts that the GDP of the Northwest Territories could climb nearly $5 billion, to $9.6 billion, by 2020. The potential is there.

The potential is there, but as former premier of the Northwest Territories, Floyd Roland, told the Norman Wells Chamber of Commerce a couple of years ago, “The thing about potential is that that is all it is...until we take action and realize it”.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has assumed more control over province-like responsibilities, such as highways, housing, health care, and education. The power to manage its land and natural resources is the last step in this long journey.

To quote another great northerner, Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, “It's been a long road to get here, but well worth the trip”.

It has been a long road, and we would not be here today if it were not for the impressive leadership of our Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

Since forming government in 2006, our Conservative government has made the political and economic development of the north one of its key priorities.

Our government has made tremendous efforts, more than any previous government, in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments to get to where we are today. All northerners should be proud of their accomplishments.

As the Prime Minister stated on his annual northern tour in August 2012, “those who want to see the future of this country should look north”.

It is a rare moment that we as parliamentarians are able to participate in such a nation-building moment in Canada’s history and contribute to the culmination of the promise of Confederation. That is what we are being called upon to do here, with the passage of this bill.

I therefore urge all members of this House to join with the people of the Northwest Territories in achieving their political and economic aspirations and pass this bill swiftly into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the minister's comments. He knows, as I do, that this bill has been a long time coming.

There was a lot of testimony that referred to having the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the bill. People wanted it split. First, could he confirm that he is aware that a lot of people were against having that act put into the devolution act? Could he also tell us whether the government said that if it was not accepted, the government would not move forward on the devolution act?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that the target date for devolution was 2015. The Premier of the Northwest Territories asked the Prime Minister of Canada to make devolution earlier.

However, one of the conditions for ensuring that devolution works to the advantage of northerners in the Northwest Territories was that its regulatory regime be modernized, because we have seen what happened in the Yukon, and we see what is happening south of 60.

It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to devolve without having a regulatory regime that is competitive. It should be equal to that of the other territories. We know that in Nunavut, the work has been done. The work continues for Yukon. Devolution will work effectively here if that regulatory regime is amended. That is why we incorporated it with devolution in the bill.

I am sure that those who are concerned about--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There being only five minutes for questions and comments, we will need to move on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party recognizes the importance of devolution in certain areas. We talk about our natural resources, land and water management, and the importance of regulations and so forth. By moving in this direction, we are empowering more economic and social activity in a community we care passionately about.

I want to ask the minister how important it is that there be follow-through in ensuring that there are sound regulations and so forth, which we heard from the stakeholders, that would assist in the future prosperity of the community. It is something I think we would all like to see.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member echoes what we have been saying on this side of the House and what we heard during the hearings in Yellowknife.

The importance of that regulatory system can best be understood if I quote the president of Dominion Diamond Holdings Ltd., Brendan Bell. He said:

With respect to the regulatory improvement aspects of this bill, Dominion Diamond is supportive of initiatives to ensure an effective but timely regulatory process. Specifically, we're encouraged that the Government of Canada is bringing forth changes that will ensure clarity and certainty in the review and assessment of proposed projects by establishing firm time limits for these reviews, similar to limits that exist in other regulatory processes.

I submit, with respect to my learned friend, that this is how we can ensure that investors will look favourably at the Northwest Territories for investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people who are watching may find it curious that the hon. minister, perhaps moved by the sentiments of Valentine's Day, has given me half of his time. Members of the House will find it even more curious to realize that the Green Party alone will be voting against Bill C-15 in this House at third reading, as we did at second reading. I thank the hon. minister for giving me the opportunity to explain our position.

To be clear, the leadership on this bill from the hon. member for Western Arctic is nonpareil. I have no interest whatsoever in suggesting that I criticize his vote in favour of the bill. It is a difficult decision to vote against Bill C-15, and I want to explain why my hon. colleague in the Green Party and I will be doing so.

The first part of the bill is unquestionably important, and we would vote for it. It is long overdue. The devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories, as the hon. minister has mentioned, is right. It was of great benefit to the Yukon when that territory had its powers vested locally. It is about time that we have a devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories.

However, the contentious parts of this bill, as the House will now well know, is that Bill C-15 has inexplicably jammed fundamental changes to the water and resource boards of that region down the throats of first nations.

I want to go through some of the history and background on this to underscore how deeply shocking this should be to Canadians from coast to coast, whether they live in the Northwest Territories or not. These are not mere administrative arrangements, or the product of a bunch of civil servants figuring out what is one board, what is two, and what boards should be consolidated. Rather, these boards are the product of government-to-government negotiations. They are the product of the whole structure of negotiations with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Wek'eezhii, and the Tlicho. These boards are the result of government-to-government negotiations in good faith.

There is a tremendous, unassailable, and incontrovertible body of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada that first nations' rights are inherent and protected in our Constitution, and that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure those rights are not infringed upon. Therefore, if a government wishes to ignore treaty obligations and unilaterally rewrite agreements that have stood for some time, we would have to think there is a crisis of some sort that has brought this administration to run counter to the law, to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Haida, Delgamuukw, and Marshall cases. It is rare in any area of law that we would have so many cases that all say the same thing, which is that the rights of first nations are not a fringe benefit but fundamental to first nations. They are part of our Constitution. It is the obligation of the Crown to protect those rights, those treaties, and ensure that first nations are adequately consulted, particularly in cases of resource development.

That is where I find this bill so extremely disappointing. There is no case to be made that there is something wrong with the way the current boards are working. In fact, it is to the contrary. Many witnesses before the Bill C-15 committee said that the only evidence one can find is with regard to the timeliness and predictability of permit approval through the boards, which this act will unravel, and that they have been more predictable, more timely, and more efficient than other boards of a similar type in the region. In other words, if industry wants predictability and to know that its applications will be dealt with on a timely basis, the status quo is the gold standard.

This proposal is a way to unravel something that is working. It will create an untimely, unpredictable environment for resource applications of all kinds. It is also a fundamental insult, and there is no word I can find other than “insult”, to the notion that the Crown negotiates in good faith.

We had the budget tabled this week, and it made reference, at page 145, to the fact that this administration recently commissioned Mr. Douglas Eyford as a special representative on the issues that affect my constituency a great deal: proposed pipelines and tankers on the west coast. These are opposed by most of the first nations that could be impacted by that development. The budget tells us:

The Government has made public the Special Representative's final report and is closely reviewing the recommendations made in all four areas: building trust, fostering inclusion, advancing reconciliation and taking action.

I do not know how we can have an administration that so clearly talks out of the both sides of its mouth. The Prime Minister did not need to commission Mr. Doug Eyford to tell the administration about the status of first nations' rights in this country. They are constitutionally enshrined. There is a direct relationship with the Crown, going back, in some cases for centuries, but certainly decades, and the law is not unclear.

Mr. Eyford, predictably, told this administration what people know, that we cannot ignore first nations' rights. We cannot approve things and call it consultation, if we merely hold meetings where first nations say they absolutely do not agree.

In this case, it gets even more shocking. The only source of any recommendation to do away with these regional boards was a report made some time ago and referred to generally as the McCrank report. Mr. McCrank made a number of recommendations, and one of them was to restructure the board system. It was one of many recommendations. For some reason, this one, to which the first nations immediately expressed opposition, is the one that has been fast-tracked. The McCrank report also said this:

...a fundamental restructuring...would require the agreement of all parties to amend the comprehensive land claim agreements...

In other words, the very source of the recommendation upon which the contentious and unacceptable parts of Bill C-15 are based came from someone who understood it himself, and who included in the body of his report, “Don't do this over the objections of the first nations themselves”.

These boards are the result of land claims negotiations and they represent the good work of the Crown. We should not come along later with a bill like Bill C-15 and dismantle that over the clear objection of the Tlicho, of the first nations in those communities. The fact is that the boards have worked well.

I want to quote something from a letter from the Tlicho government to the department. This was from last fall. It makes it very clear about what would happen if Bill C-15 goes through. They wrote that under the proposed amendment to the Mackenzie Valley Regional Management Authority, the scenario would be changed:

The connection between First Nations and the regional boards would be substantially eviscerated under the larger board. Additional requests for consultation and environmental assessment, and even judicial review in court of the larger board's decisions, would likely become the norm, thus further undermining the system's predictability and timeliness.

This is where it becomes inexplicable. We have heard that a number of industry groups themselves let this administration know that they had no quarrel with the way the current board system is working. In fact, they praised it. On the empirical evidence, to which nothing has been adduced to suggest there is any dispute on this point, the current board system works. It is timely. It is efficient. And, it is respectful of the first nations on whose territory these developments would go forward.

The hon. minister quoted the diamond mining sector which said that they want to hurry up with things. I have heard nothing from any industry group that suggests they do not feel confidence that the current regime works for them. If there has been behind the scenes lobbying from larger developers who do not want to take the time to be respectful with first nations, then it is not just an option for this administration, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to send those developers packing. The government's obligation under the law, its fiduciary responsibility, is to protect first nations' rights, not gut them, as Bill C-15 would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member, and I am disappointed that she has indicated she will vote against this historic piece of legislation that would devolve powers to northerners living in the territory.

I would like to ask her how she can do that. She may often be misguided in her statements, but how can she intellectually affirm honestly in the House that this a breach of the treaty, which the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement has become, and just like the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement have become?

These treaties specifically envisage the very piece of legislation that we have here today. Sections 25.4.6 (a) of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, and 24.4.6 of the Gwich’in agreement, and the Tlicho agreement, section 22, says expressly that where legislation establishes any other land and water board with jurisdiction in any area larger—

Since this is in the treaty, how can she claim in the House to all Canadians that it constitutes a violation of our treaty obligation and section 35? I suggest—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, did I hear unparliamentary language at the end of that question?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I did not hear anything unparliamentary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “dishonest”, but perhaps I misheard it.

I am not going to assert anything based on my own opinion. I am relying on the words of the first nations themselves. To answer the minister's question, I would ask how he can approve this bill when Bertha Rabesca Zoe, whose title is law guardian of the Tlicho government, in reference to Bill C-15, said:

Our input is being ignored, our interests are not being accommodated, and the changes to the regulatory scheme in the Amendments will, if implemented, fundamentally undermine the balance struck in the Tlicho Agreement about how we will have a say about the most important issue—the use of our lands and the effects of those uses on our way of life.

I look at the words she has written and I see a future court case. The accommodation of interests are requirements of the law. The Conservative administration is setting a course to chaos in resource development. Where it wants to creating a steamroller, it has created a road wrecking team.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I found it very interesting.

Clearly, some points warrant our attention. I have a question for her, to follow-up on what the minister is proposing. I also think he should have said it in a more respectful manner.

As everyone knows, the Supreme Court has said many times that the federal government is obliged not only to consult the first nations, but to accommodate them as well. In my opinion, that is what is missing here. There were consultations, but the accommodation does not seem to be on par with what the Supreme Court requires of the government.

I would like my colleague to share her interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings. Has the obligation to consult the first nations truly been respected?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I totally agree with him. It is clear that the Supreme Court requires the federal government to consult the first nations of Canada and to respect and accommodate their interests and rights.

It is clear that in this situation, and since the institutions are the product of negotiations, this is not acceptable. This is against the law and it violates the right of the first nations to have a government that makes unilateral changes. That is why in the future, everyone will understand that it is against the law.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Manicouagan.

I rise today to debate Bill C-15 at third reading. It is definitely an honour to have the opportunity to express the views of my constituents and my party on this bill.

We worked very hard on this bill at second reading stage in committee and at report stage in the House of Commons. We are now at third reading stage, and we have repeatedly pointed out that this bill has some shortcomings.

However, there are some very worthwhile elements. The devolution of power should have taken place a long time ago. I am very pleased that this bill will finally give the people of the Northwest Territories the rights that people in the provinces do not give a second thought to. The fact that they will be able to share in the wealth more directly than before this bill was introduced is reason to celebrate.

I would like to quote Robert Alexie Jr., president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, to emphasize one element of the bill. He said it better than I could.

He said, “We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning”. He is absolutely right. It is a very exciting time to be in the Northwest Territories, and devolution has certainly been a very long time coming.

We have not seen devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories for decades. The last time we saw it was in the 1980s, when we had an agreement where we were going to devolve certain jurisdictions: education, health care, transportation, and renewable resources, in this case specifically forestry and wildlife. At that point, we transferred some powers. The debate then was that perhaps the Northwest Territories was not prepared to go ahead with devolution, just not ready. My reading of what was happening at that time was that, in fact, it was more than ready. It was just that the federal government benefited from the fact that it received a lot of the revenue stream from the exploitation of the natural resources.

This bill before us today would go, in a large measure, to addressing that problem. The Northwest Territories would now be receiving 50% of the royalties for the mineral exploration and other surface exploration of natural resources that will happen, and that is a reason to celebrate. The minister himself said that this is going to lay the foundations towards greater economic prosperity for the Northwest Territories, and he is probably right.

However, the minister made some statements that do not really measure up to where we should be. Because he had discussions with corporate citizens, he said that corporate citizens want to see the changes as fast as possible; corporate citizens have been pushing for not only the devolution, but also modifications to the water management boards. That is the issue that is really sticky. There are some serious difficulties with this element of the bill. I find it abhorrent that the federal government, knowing that it has a duty to consult and that it has a duty to accommodate, tells me that the most important thing here is that a company such as Dominion Diamond Corporation is pushing the bill forward, and that is an important aspect of the bill. It certainly is, but so is the fact that many first nations have told us, on many occasions, that the water management boards are working just fine and that they would like to leave them as they are. This bill would modify that, and that is not respectful of those first nations.

I believe that, when it comes to respecting the direction the Supreme Court is giving us, the government has lost its way. I do not think the Conservatives fully understand what the Supreme Court has said on many occasions: that the duty to consult is not simply to set up a web page and not simply to go and hear people, but also to listen to them and find a way, as best as possible, to accommodate them.

Corporate citizens themselves have said that they believe that the water management boards, as they stand, are beneficial. Many times, the Conservatives make modifications that are poison chalices. They propose changes, saying to corporate citizens that they would make exploration and economic prosperity more accessible, with growth rates that would be larger. All of these things may or may not be true.

The point here is that we need to find consensus on the ground. We need to address the needs of the people in the Northwest Territories. It is their land and their resources. It is up to them how they are going to be exploited. It is up to them to tell us how we should be helping them move forward with economic prosperity. It is paternalistic to the extreme that the House of Commons, over and over again, will tell people in other areas of the country how they should be doing their jobs, especially in areas that are their own jurisdiction.

The recent example is the budget, in which the federal government simply does not want to negotiate a jobs program with the provinces, a skills training program that is acceptable to the provinces. Instead, the government says to take it or leave it because it knows best. There is a reason the separation of powers exists in this country, and it is that we know that local people on the ground, generally speaking, know best. We should be helping them build on that knowledge. We should not be imposing our ideological views, and the government, unfortunately, over and over again, seems to think that ideology trumps anything else. That is the wrong direction to take.

However, that said, the benefits of devolution are clear. The people on the ground are going to get many benefits out of this bill. This bill would address needs and requests that have been made of us over years and years, and we are finally in a place where we can bring some of those aspects forward. Those are the elements we need to support in this bill.

We know that the Northwest Territories knows best how to manage its resources. This bill, in large measure, would help it manage those resources and keep the benefits of that management and of being able to attract the kind of exploration and exploitation of its natural resources that the people themselves want without having to request that Ottawa ask for modifications in their name. The fact that they would be able to do it for themselves is something that most Canadians take for granted. Locally, at the provincial level, we do this all the time. In the territories, such as the Northwest Territories, they have not had that privilege, and that is abhorrent. This bill would address that. I am very pleased with that.

We need to be in favour of devolution in the House. It is important that we support the bill at this stage, knowing full well that there are difficulties with it and that we need to continue the dialogue with first nations in the Northwest Territories.

We have a long way to go. New Democrats presented ideas in committee and they were rejected. We presented ideas in the House of Commons, to all members in the House, and again those proposals were rejected. There has to be a better sense of dialogue. We cannot keep imposing our views on the territories. This is not going to benefit them in the long run. They know, much better than us, where we need to go.

When it comes to the water management boards, I will quote, for instance, Jake Heron, who is a Northwest Territories Métis nation representative. He stated:

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.

This is not dialogue that we should be hearing. We should be hearing that there is a partnership and that the government is in full and respectful consultation with the first nations. Oftentimes, we simply do not get that sense.

The member who spoke before me, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, said it very well when she brought up the comments by Ms. Zoe. I will bring up a quote from Bob Bromley, who is an MLA in that area. 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. ...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation.

These words concern me greatly. We should not be moving forward with that aspect of the bill knowing full well that there is so much opposition back in the Northwest Territories.

Devolution is an important step. We need to address that step. It has been too long in coming. We need to move forward with it. I am happy that this bill would address that. I just wish it were not full of poison chalices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine again for seeing these issues clearly. I think anyone who looks at the bill will agree that the sections that take apart the regional boards are completely in violation of Supreme Court decisions and in violation of the principles of treaty-making. I find it so deeply shocking.

I cannot see any explanation for it other than some sort of back-door lobbying by larger industries that have not been busy in the area before and find that these boards look complicated, as they have not actually worked with them. I cannot see a solid explanation grounded in evidence for forcing through these changes along with the devolution parts that we would all support.

I wonder if the member has any theories as to why we are facing such a terrible bill, which is full of “poison chalices”, as the member said.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a government that seems bent on ideologically driven bills rather than science-based, consultation-based bills. We have seen this on many occasions with so many of the bills in this House of Commons since the Conservative government formed a majority.

The Conservatives are not addressing the real needs of people on the ground. They address their ideological needs, which is a mistake. In the long run, we are going to pay dearly for those choices.

That said, devolution is still important. We need to empower people in the Northwest Territories to the same degree that we empower people elsewhere in this country. People have the right to make decisions for themselves, and the bill would help address that issue. For that reason, it is worth supporting.

However, it is unfortunate that the bill does not address the other concerns that the people of the Northwest Territories have brought to us. We need to address the concerns as best we can. The bill addresses some of those concerns, and we are happy to see that it addresses the major question of devolution, but we are going to have to keep addressing other issues because we have a long way to go yet.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for a very insightful speech on Bill C-15.

One of the things the member mentioned was the way in which particularly the Conservative government tends to ignore local input. For instance, I wonder if he sees some parallels with the way the Conservatives ignore local input and local priorities in the way the rail service in his area has been treated. I wonder if he sees any parallels with the bill before us on that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think many people have seen those parallels on so many levels.

Again, I underline that sometimes the Conservative government seems to make decisions that are ideologically driven. There does not seem to be concern for making sure there is long-term prosperity in our regions. There seems to be more concern that certain people benefit from changes, but the vast majority of people are simply going to have to pay for it in the end.

The train service in eastern Canada is a great example. We keep hearing that it does not make enough money. Well, I challenge any rail service in North America on whether it is actually making money or not.

The question here is why the government seems to be bent on certain decisions more than others.

I will raise a question for the government as far as railways are concerned. Why are we funding a railway between Toronto and Peterborough that has doubtful use when we could be funding railways in other parts of the country that have a proven use?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support of the devolution agreement, which is obviously very important to the Northwest Territories.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked a question and did not really get a clear answer from the member opposite, and so maybe I could help.

The Mackenzie Valley board was looked at from the models they looked at in the Yukon territory. They had an example of devolution to look back on, and they used those lessons to improve upon the situation they have right now.

One of the things that the Yukon does with its regional representation, with the centralized board, is to have district offices in those communities to ensure that they are providing support and input into the board. Therefore, the great people of the Northwest Territories in those communities will still continue to have localized and regional input on a centralized board, which will make the process effective and efficient.

I hope that answers some of the questions that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked. If she would like to talk to me further about the Yukon experience, I would be more than happy to do that. Perhaps the member opposite would like to join in on that conversation with me at a later time as well. I would be more than happy to help them understand that process.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. Unfortunately, it did not really address anything in the bill, but rather questions for the Yukon. We are talking about the Northwest Territories here.

It is too bad the member did not take the time to address the needs of the first nations in the Northwest Territories. I am glad that he found accommodation in the Yukon, but here we will have to try to find a way to accommodate other first nations, which are outside of his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as my last speech on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Today I will talk about the capacity for alienation of the collective heritage in terms of aboriginal rights and the practical outcome of the ratification of modern treaties and agreements between the crown and the first nations. I spoke to this bill at second reading about three days ago, so it is still fresh in my mind.

Bill C-15 provides an opportunity to talk about a number of topics that are too often ignored or that remain obscure to the Canadian public. The prerogatives that are exercised in relation to traditional territories, as well as these matters and clarifications, will help elucidate why certain groups raise objections when the government decides to sit down with a band and sign an agreement or document that could potentially alienate or be detrimental to other communities.

The case we are talking about today has been challenged by other bands. The Canadian public has noticed a lack of homogeneity, and that is true. Dissent and overlapping claims can lead to opposition when an agreement is ratified with a group or a band. That is not limited to this situation with the Northwest Territories. We see it all across the country, which is why it is necessary to focus on this today, so that we can shed new light on the issue.

I want to point out that this particular piece of legislation was negotiated and there was consent. There are no doubts about this in the case of Bill C-15 and the associated agreement and regulations. A number of stakeholders in committee said as much and spoke about economic growth. We must always keep that in mind. Above all, we are talking about an economic agreement and initiative. There is no question that this was negotiated and there was consent. However, there are a number of other similar vagaries and problems that we can examine.

Our support at third reading also shows that we recognize that this economic initiative is based in negotiations. However, this leads me to the issue of overlapping claims and overriding prerogatives.

I often talk about a quasi-proprietary title. This points to the fact that first nations members—even though the title is often collective, it is in fact divisible—enjoy prerogatives in relation to given territories. In this case, we are talking about traditional territories, and the same is true for me and for the Innu and Naskapi communities of Manicouagan. Traditional territories come with prerogatives for first nations members.

When bands are called on to negotiate, there may be a sort of disavowal on the part of community members. It is always important to keep in mind that Indian bands are products of the Indian Act. In my informed view, that is why negotiations and agreements ratified by bands lose legitimacy to a certain extent when members do not fully participate.

It is also important to keep in mind that those titles and prerogatives are divisible even though they are collective. That is why this government should always both consult and seek approval. It must do more than just consult, because consultations are quite restrictive. So far, the Conservatives have demonstrated a rather limited view of consultation, which boils down to taking notes at the bottom of the page and covering up issues that have resurfaced, in order to move forward with their economic development agenda.

When there is consultation or, rather, when it is looking for approval, the government—or future governments, because I hope that this will be considered by whoever governs next—should first and foremost look for approval from the public, from first nations members as individuals, through a referendum or other democratic means. This would limit opposition and there would be more support from the public. It would be easier for the public and first nations members to support a given initiative, and it is clear that certain initiatives in 2014 do not have that support.

Opposition to economic initiatives, even joint ones, that have an effect on the prerogatives of third parties illustrates the need for the government to recognize the pre-eminence of the quasi-proprietary title that first nations members have to their respective traditional territories. I will also discuss the highly contentious and recurrent nature of the overlapping occupation of territories, and I will talk about the collective, but also divisible, nature of prerogatives that are exercised in relation to the territory.

In light of the prerogatives that are exercised in relation to territories—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have been diligently listening to the member's address to the House.

We are three, four, maybe five minutes deep into it and I have yet to hear the words “Northwest Territories” or “devolution” mentioned once. We are here to debate that piece of legislation.

The member has introduced that he is now about to talk about land occupation, which invariably will take another three minutes, and I am certain that might run him up to about eight minutes. That leaves two minutes for him to talk about the Northwest Territories devolution act.

Hopefully we can hear something about the Northwest Territories devolution.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member. Members may recall, however, that members have a great deal of freedom to express their views.

In this case, the hon. member, early in his comments, drew a comparison to the things that he would be saying, related to the question before the House. I am sure the hon. member will be bringing that around before the end of the time that is allocated to him.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.