House of Commons Hansard #184 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hamilton.

Topics

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's presentation just now. I understand that many in the Yukon, and Yukon first nations as well, are much opposed to this legislation, because it removes the kind of made-in-Yukon YESAA they had in the past. As I understand it, the amendments would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide a binding policy direction to the environmental assessment board.

Mr. Speaker, through you, how does this increase the level of confidence we should have that this is truly for Yukon, Yukoners, and first nations, if the minister gets to tell them what to do?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member missed in my speech was that this is an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, and first nations. There is a consultation process to come to these types of agreements. The proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act would allow the minister, after consultation with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, to give this binding agreement. However, it would be after consultation with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, and those consultations would have to take place before these agreements were reached.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the importance of consultations that are required to take place going forward, and this is what he is implying. The Liberal caucus has been informed by stakeholders, both directly and indirectly, about the lack of genuine consultation with first nations and other stakeholders in the north.

Does the member not believe that prior to the legislation even coming to Ottawa, there should have been a more thorough and robust consultation so that there was a sense that Ottawa was listening to what was being said up north from the people who would be most affected by this legislation?

There is a great deal of concern and a sense of frustration that the government is just not listening, let alone responding to the need for genuine consultation.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the question is coming from a member of the party whose leader, when he was doing his northern tour, did not even both to stop in Yukon. For him to give an opinion on consultation with Yukon I find quite disingenuous.

In saying there has not been consultation, he is absolutely incorrect. The changes in the bill were the culmination of a five-year review process. As my colleague mentioned earlier, $200,000 was put aside to fund the consultations, and $98,000 has been claimed by first nations as a result of those consultations.

I think there has been extensive dialogue between the Government of Canada and the first nations communities of Yukon, and I think that dialogue will continue.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I should point out with reference to consultation that a duly elected government in Yukon that is responsive to Yukoners is behind this particular measure.

Mining is a long-term investment. It requires due diligence in looking at the factors that would make for a stable investment or a worthwhile investment, so the regulatory environment is clearly very important.

The fact that Yukon is out of sync, if you will, with other jurisdictions right now in being able to have these types of important, straightforward, simple, single-window reviews is critical for them.

I think the member mentioned that Yukon is losing ground in terms of its desirability as an investment location for mining. I wonder if he could comment on that. Is it possible to quantify how much investment is either at risk or has been lost as a result of potential delay in getting to that regulatory environment?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. I think an issue that has been somewhat overlooked in this debate by the opposition is the impact that passing the bill will have on the economy of northerners.

As a matter fact, I mentioned in my speech that the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Yukon are all in support of the bill. They understand the importance to their economy and the fact that although Yukon was the number one jurisdiction in the world for mining investment in 2011-2012, it has now fallen down to number nine.

We have to take some very aggressive steps to get Yukon back to where it was before and regain that success as a resource extraction economy.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The hon. member for Churchill.

I would advise the member that she will only have five minutes of debate before the debate terminates.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, what a shame it is that we in the opposition have only about five minutes to speak to a piece of legislation at second reading that is critical when it comes to a specific region in the country.

It is a crying shame that the people of Yukon cannot depend on their member of Parliament to bring forward opposing voices to Bill S-6. While we are honoured to do that, I want to point out that it is the Conservative government that is taking away time, time that we could use to share the voices of the people from Yukon, to share the voices of first nations in Yukon, and instead it has chosen to muzzle and silence them in this House.

It is clear that the people of Yukon have not given the mandate or the authority to the federal government to implement Bill S-6.

Bill S-6 will serve to dismantle YESAA which belongs to the people of Yukon, including first nations. It was developed by Yukoners and for Yukon. Yukoners, including first nations and industry, are now saying that they do not want or need the changes imposed on them by Bill S-6. They are actively campaigning against it in astonishing numbers.

In fact, contrary to the rhetoric we have heard in this House, we know that there have been no public consultations on Bill S-6 at any point by the federal government in Yukon.

It does not enjoy first nations consent. For this reason alone, it is incumbent upon the House not to pass this bill. It is unlawful for the federal government to impose regulations upon a regulatory body, such as the YESAA board without the consent of Yukon first nations.

Grand Chief Ruth Massie said, “This whole process attacks the integrity of our constitutionally protected agreements and Yukon First Nations will stand by their agreements even if it means going to court, they give us no choice. We did not sign our agreements to implement them in the courts but we will protect them”.

This speaks to a broader agenda put forward by the government, which is to attack first nations' rights as a result of its failure of consultation and achieving consent, and instead pushing first nations to pursue costly litigation that in some cases is difficult for them to afford, a process that only makes money for federal government lawyers who choose to fight first nations in court.

The people of Yukon and first nations alike are baffled by the content of Bill S-6. Yes, YESAA recently underwent a five-year review through which recommendations were made. However, the four amendments that are the cause of concern appeared nowhere as recommendations in the five-year review. These four changes are contrary to the intent of the land claim agreement and undermine the neutrality of the YESAA process.

Once again, Grand Chief Ruth Massie said, “Yukon first nations have met with the Government of Canada, specifically the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and have asked them to remove four problematic amendments proposed to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act legislation established in Chapter 11 of the Umbrella final agreement and each final land claim agreement of the 11 Yukon First Nations”.

It is not only Yukon first nations that are opposed to Bill S-6, Yukoners have been coming out to public meetings and showing their opposition in public venues in a significant way. It is also industry and members of industry that have been clear in their opposition.

I would like to read into the record a quote from a letter sent by the CEO of the Casino Mining Corporation, Paul West-Sells:

On behalf of Casino Mining Corporation, I am putting forward our company's concerns regarding the fragility of intergovernmental relations in the Yukon surrounding Bill S-6 and the negative impact this is having on the territory's mineral industry. It is imperative for Casino that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act has the broad support of all governments in order to ensure the confidence of both project proponents and Yukon Residents in the YESAA process and to facilitate investments in the territory.

So there we have it. I also want to make a final comment with regard to the Fraser Institute report that we keep hearing about. This has been proven to be a flawed report. In fact, the day it became public, the extent to which this report was flawed, the Fraser Institute itself removed its data collecting portion on its website.

Finally, this is about standing in opposition to a federal government that is seeking to silence the voices of northern Canadians and northern first nations in our country. I am proud to stand with the NDP. We are standing with Yukoners and Yukon first nations, and saying no to Bill S-6.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2015 / 5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #348

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Bill read second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government InvestmentsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #349

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you shall find agreement to apply the results from the previous motion to the current motion, with Conservative members voting yes.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is there agreement?