Debates of June 19th, 2017

Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats are very happy that the bill would roll back changes, so we can continue to move forward with the agreements that will be set up in Yukon, the long-term agreements that everyone worked very hard to accomplish.

I think this is a first step in avoiding litigation in court with indigenous peoples. I would like Liberals to take this approach with the people in my riding, the Nuu-chah-nulth, the Huu-ay-aht, and other indigenous people in this country, go to the table, stop fighting indigenous people in court, and create a real nation-to-nation dialogue that is based on a foundation of consultation, accommodation, and supporting UNDRIP.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a specific point. He asked why we would want timelines for projects, because, after all, the projects are important. That is an interesting question, but the answer is also fairly obvious, which is that any time decisions need to be made, there should be a fair process for evaluating the decision by looking at the evidence. If there is an infinite process with no timeline to it, then, effectively, the decision will always be no. If there is no mechanism for saying the adjudication has happened and it is now time to make a decision, effectively, that is an anti-development decision and it will go on infinitely. I suspect that may explain why some parties in the House are opposed to timelines, because they always want the decision to be no when it comes to development.

What does the member think about my reasoning, that if we are going to have a fair process that involves a decision, sometimes yes, sometimes no, then we have to a time limit to that adjudication process and it cannot go on forever?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we all want certainty when it comes to economic development. We want to find the balance to move forward so that we can find ways to grow our economy, protect the environment, and make sure there is a socio-economic benefit to communities where development takes place. That does not mean we have to rush decisions, especially if they are decisions that are not in the best interests of people locally. When it comes to economic development with indigenous people, they should not pressured to make a decision on land or territory that they have governed or taken care of for thousands of years. They should not be rushed or forced to make a decision when it might have an impact on future generations. They have an important responsibility to generations from the past, the present, and the future.

New Democrats have a different opinion than the Conservatives on how to work with indigenous people. We seek consent. Consent is the foundation of economic development as we move forward and if we have not achieved consent and indigenous people need more time, they should be able to have more time. We should not be pressuring or forcing local communities to move forward with economic development on a timeline that is set by people from outside their communities, or without having conducted the consultation and accommodation that they so desire.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand this evening to talk to Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

I want to note that I have only had the privilege once in my life of going to the Yukon, and what an incredibly beautiful part of our country. As we celebrate Canada's 150th, I encourage anyone who has the opportunity to go up there, to paddle the rivers, or just enjoy the beautiful history and scenery. It truly is a unique and wonderful part of our country.

I also want to note that as a British Columbian, when I went up there I really did appreciate how the Yukon seemed to have a very good, collaborative process in terms of having solved many of its outstanding land claims issues, having a comprehensive process in place. Contrast that to British Columbia, where we still have a lot of work to do to get to the same place.

It is interesting. I am hearing about four amendments, and I am hearing a lot of process concerns. We did not talk about it quite long enough. However, I am not really hearing good arguments about those four elements.

First, I want to make a special note. This was legislation that was enacted in the last Parliament. It has been in place for a couple of years now. I have not heard of any difficult stories coming out of the Yukon in terms of the way the legislation has been established. There has been unhappiness with elements of it, but I have not heard of any challenges in terms of what it has done to move projects forward.

I have heard of a lot of challenges with the uncertainty of the time frames and the fact that people do not know what the government is going to do. It is important to note that the government actually introduced this piece of legislation over a year ago. I think it was in June 2016. If we look at how much of a priority it is for the government, the legislation was introduced well over a year ago and here we are, in the final stages of 2017, before we rise for the summer, and all of a sudden there is now some kind of urgency to it.

We did not have the first debate in the House on this legislation until April. Again, what the government is trying to do in the final days of Parliament is to get legislation through the House, and through committee with hardly any witnesses and hardly any time. There is not really the opportunity for the due diligence that we are responsible for as parliamentarians.

The government is trying to move it through quickly. In terms of the time management and of its record for moving legislation through Parliament, the government has a strong majority and has moved fewer pieces of legislation forward than Conservatives did in a minority government.

I forgot to note at the start that I will be sharing my time with the member for Foothills. Although I would love to speak for 20 minutes, he has a lot of good things that he would like to say as well.

We have a government that is trying to rush things through at the end of Parliament, because it has actually had a bad time management, parliamentary management system in place. It is spending lots of time debating motions that could have been done through ministerial statements. It has been ineffective in terms of what the government says are priority pieces of legislation with important time frames.

The bill before us is going to do four things in terms of the environmental assessment process. I am going to talk a little about each one. I know there was a discussion for five years around the review of ESA. There was an agreement on 72 elements, and there were four elements that perhaps there was not consensus on. I think having consensus on 72 out of 76 elements is pretty darn good. Any municipal government would be pleased to have kind of consensus, in terms of moving forward.

If we had, in this House, agreement on 72 pieces of legislation out of 76, we would have a pretty darn good record. The fact that perhaps there was not as fulsome a discussion as some groups might have wanted on these few elements, I do not think necessarily means that there has not been an important process and good rationale.

First, with respect to time limits on the review process, I heard my colleague from the NDP say time limits do not matter. Time limits do matter because companies and capital investments travel, and they go where they are wanted. If there is uncertainty, or if they know they are going to have to potentially wait 20 or 30 years before getting a yes or a no on moving a project forward, they are going to take their capital and spend it in other places. Therefore, having certainty around time limits is an important and logical step. It has been done, and has been well received in most of the provinces in the rest of the country.

It is interesting that they are complaining about the time limits, but they say we are meeting those time limits anyway, so we do not need it in the legislation. However, in challenging projects, perhaps people might need a little push in terms of having a time limit. As with many people, when they know a paper is due and they have a time limit, it is easier for them to get the work done than when it is open ended and they can turn in the paper whenever they want.

On the concerns about the time limits, especially when they are meeting them anyway, especially when it is consistent across the country, I will use British Columbia again as an example. There is a start process. They might say it is 18 months, but lots of times they put a halt to the process because there is something they need to deal with. I know that even a process that might have an 18-month time frame from submission to when they are supposed to get an answer can often take three or four years because there are certain elements that can trigger a halt in the process. Therefore, it is really not a good argument to suggest that time limits would be inappropriate in this piece of legislation.

Second, on exemptions from reassessment when an authorization is renewed, unless there is significant change, there can be a very minor change in a project. To suggest that they have to go through a fulsome, robust environmental assessment process is simply red tape, time consuming, and inefficient in terms of dollars. I would suggest a very appropriate insertion that says when there are minor changes they do not have to do a major review. It is not an area that is particularly troublesome, nor do I think in general people should be troubled by that.

Third, regarding the ability for the federal minister to provide binding policy direction, I agree we could have some debate on that. Perhaps that is one area where I could argue on both sides. I will concede that although one and two are perfectly appropriate, perhaps we could have a discussion on three.

The fourth one is the ability of the federal minister to delegate powers and duties. That is what we are doing across the country. In the provinces, they are saying, “Get out of our business. You live a long way away. Let us take over. Let us be responsible for making our own decisions in our own communities.”

It is unfortunate that I had the one-minute warning, because I have lots more to say. On the process, we had full consensus on 72 out of 76 recommendations. We have three that are very rational and reasonable, and one on which perhaps there could have been different decisions. I look forward to any questions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make before I ask my question.

Something has happened since the last debate on this.

On May 17, Motion No. 23 was passed unanimously in the Yukon legislature. The motion reads, “supports the efforts of the Government of Canada to restore confidence in Yukon’s environmental and socio-economic assessment process through amendments contained in Bill C-17...” The Yukon Conservative Party was also party to that unanimous motion. Therefore, I am not sure why anyone in the House would want to go against the unanimous view of Yukoners.

The member said the timeline was a little rich. If members remember the day the chiefs were here, expecting this relatively routine bill to go through, the Conservatives, through mischief motions, delayed it until we got to this time.

On recommendation 72, the member made a very good point, but a few things were not agreed to at that time. The problem is that four major items were thrown in at the last moment and they were not part of those five years of review.

There is no shame in this, but the member probably did not know that timelines are in place now. As I mentioned previously this afternoon, it is the policy of the board and they have been gazetted, so there is no need to usurp those timelines by Ottawa when it is already put in place locally in the system in place at the moment.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has said that timelines are in place locally and he does not have an issue with it. Why then is he concerned about having it in the actual legislation? That just makes no sense. To enshrine it in legislation is perfectly appropriate.

Again, what I am hearing is a lot of argument against process. The essence of the bill is to remove four items. In fact, we should leave three items in it because it would be better for Yukon. The arguments I am hearing have not convinced me otherwise, that this is an argument about people being unhappy with the process, but not about the implications of the legislation.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused about the conviction we are hearing. With respect to what we have heard from the Conservatives so far, I am trying to understand how we are helping people if we are encouraging using a court system for a challenge. The status quo is not healthy if we encourage someone to prove us wrong by going to court. Maybe the member can help us understand a bit more some of the objections to what is a healthy process in honouring the real intent through YESAA.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have already complimented the very important YESAA process in Yukon. It has done an admirable job and I know it took it a long time to get there. My point is simply that in the House we would never have consensus on 76 recommendations. We have 72 of 76, and that is a very strong method forward, and it is doing excellent work.

As I indicated earlier, what we have here is one area where there might be legitimate concerns and three areas where the concern is that it was in the legislation, but it is not actually what it is stated.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-17.

I was a member of the aboriginal and indigenous affairs committee when we started to finish up the initial bill, which was through the Senate, Bill S-6. I understand concerns were raised. However, I have heard many times in the House today from the other parties about this lack of consultation.

There was a great deal of consultation as we moved through this process. Again, that was highlighted by my colleague's previous comments with the fact that of the 76 elements of the legislation, 72 had strong support and consent. There were four areas that needed to be discussed and were discussed. There was a great deal of consultation. Our committee even travelled to Yukon to meet face-to-face with government officials, industry, and representatives from indigenous communities. It was a process done in partnership with the communities, which is important to note.

I raised some concern with dismantling some of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA and the precedent the Liberal government was setting. I am very concerned with the future economic development opportunities of the Yukon and other territories if we take some key elements out of YESAA, such as the moratorium on Arctic drilling and the tanker ban off B.C.'s northern coast. Now there is a carbon tax. It seems that limits will be put on communities in Canada's north over and over. They rely heavily on natural resource development and the economic opportunities that brings to those communities. They will be further restricted, not only by taking some of these elements from YESAA, but part of the bill would also add additional bureaucracy and red tape to the approval process.

In my home province of Alberta, more than $50 billion in capital investment have left the province. A big part of that was the downturn in oil prices, but we have been through that before. The most significant impact has been the federal carbon tax, provincial carbon tax, and axing the discovery of well tax credit. All of these things are having an impact, and we have seen the devastating effects this has had on Alberta. I fear the next areas to start to feel this and the implications of these Liberal policies will be Yukon and some of these other northern territories.

However, Bill C-17 would change four key areas. I mentioned that we had near consensus on 72 out of 76 elements of YESAA. Now we want to address time limits on the review process; in fact, removing these timelines. My colleague in the New Democratic Party, who I respect a great deal, talked a little about why it was important to remove these timelines. It is because we need to discuss these issues long term. I think he was saying that we were looking at 500 years down the road.

We are not going to attract investment from the energy sector. We would not have large private-sector companies, maybe in partnership with the public sector, municipalities, provinces, and territories. They will not invest in a project if they do not see a clear goal or clear timeline to approval or denial. If they see there are no timelines in place or very limited timelines on the review process, they will not take that chance. They will take their investment dollars and put them in jurisdictions where they know they have a chance to succeed, or at least a very clearly defined process on how to get to that place. They will take their investments, as we see right now, to the United States, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other countries where they will have a much better ability to get a return on their investment or at least see their project be approved. However, by eliminating those timelines, we will not be making our territory or jurisdiction attractive to capital investment, especially when it comes to the natural resource sector.

When we were in government, looking at Bill S-6 and making these changes to YESSA, we wanted to empower Yukon, the territories and the communities in these jurisdictions to make these decisions for themselves. That was a key element to this. We wanted to ensure Yukon and the communities in Yukon had a level playing field that was comparable to the rest of Canada. We wanted to ensure the regulatory process and the review timelines were the same for Yukon as they were in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. We wanted to ensure there were no obstacles or detriments to attracting new capital investment to Yukon.

That is one of the reasons why Bill S-6 was so important. It was intended to make the northern regulatory regimes more consistent with other provinces. The key to that was to ensure Yukon would not be at a competitive disadvantage compared to other jurisdictions. We wanted to ensure these reforms also gave northern communities greater control over their future. They would have more impact and more say on what resource development would happen and what economic growth opportunities would be available.

We wanted to ensure there was predictability with these projects. We wanted to ensure there was certainty for proponents, regulators and governments, as well as aboriginal and indigenous communities. When they are making these decisions, we want to ensure they have all the information available to them, including timelines, and predictability. The process of getting those to conclusion is also very important.

The removal of these timelines as part of the review process shows we were introducing unnecessary delays in the approval process. We see the impact that has with other infrastructure projects across Canada when it comes to our energy sector. We want to ensure Yukon has an opportunity for economic development.

A good example of that is when I was at the PDAC conference in Toronto earlier this year. I had an opportunity to meet with stakeholders from the mining industry in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut. They talked about the importance of the mining industry in those remote northern communities. We also did a mining study at the natural resources committee. Certainly, a very high priority was not only their ability to do business and work with their indigenous communities, but also the importance of having that strict timeline as part of the regulatory review process.

The stakeholders at the PDAC meeting told me that the carbon tax on its own would cost their two companies combined about $25 million. These projects may not even go ahead because of that tax. How can we have new economic opportunities in these northern and remote communities that need it if private-sector companies do not see a friendly government at the federal level, which wants to embrace these opportunities for the northern communities?

When stakeholders of two major projects in the tens of millions of dollars are now questioning their future, their ability to be successful, and may move out, other companies will follow. When we add the ban on Arctic drilling, the moratorium on tanker traffic off the coast of northern B.C., a carbon tax, and now red tape and bureaucracy to the regulatory regime and review process, they simply will not go ahead. Rather, they will look for other areas that they feel are more business-friendly and more friendly to economic and resource development.

The key there is that Yukon was one of the most attractive territories and jurisdictions in Canada for mining companies and for mining projects and to invest in new opportunities. Yukon very quickly fell down that chart not only in Canada, but around the world because of the regulatory regime in place. Bill S-6 was an attempt to clean that up to ensure Yukon would not be at a competitive disadvantage. We wanted to ensure Yukon remained in that top five as not only a jurisdiction that was welcoming, had willing partners, and offered great opportunities, but also had a regulatory regime in place that allowed these things to happen.

Therefore, Bill C-17 is a step backward with respect to resource development and economic opportunity in Yukon. We have to be extremely concerned about that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about supporting development in Yukon, and that is exactly what the bill would do.

I want to make a small technical correction for the record to make sure people understand something I did not say very well before. More than 76 items were discussed. Let us put them into part 1 and part 2. In part 2, there were 72 agreed to and implemented, but there were a few more the parties could not agree to, so they were left off the table. Over and above those, four serious things were put in at the last moment, without negotiation, and that was the problem.

I will go back to time limits, and I hope I do not have to say this again. The member spoke very well about wanting to put power in the hands of Yukon. The system has now been set up that way. Very competitive timelines are there, but they are determined locally by the board by what makes sense. They are gazetted. They are in place. I hope if any more Conservative members plan to speak to this, they will correct their speaking notes so I do not have to say it another time.

The member mentioned mining. Let me quote:

The Government of Yukon, self-governing Yukon First Nations, Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon Chamber of Mines look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible. Your support for the passage of Bill C-17 assures us that the Government of Canada is genuinely committed to reset the relationship between Canada, Yukon and Yukon First Nations.

The member talked about local support and about mining. There is local mining support. A unanimous decision was reached in the Yukon legislature by all parties, including the conservative members.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was actually a question there, but the member made some good comments. I appreciate my hon. colleague's work on the same question he asks over and over again.

The key is that there was consultation. Our committee went to Yukon. We met with industry, stakeholders, and indigenous communities, not only when it came to the initial 76 elements but also to the four the member referred to. I keep hearing that there was no consultation, that these things were just added and were magically there. That is simply not the case. There was consultation. We had the support of industry.

We are looking at the policies the Liberals are putting in place. It is about adding red tape and adding bureaucracy. I see them going down a road that will ensure that there is no more resource development in Canada, especially in northern and remote communities. We are seeing it in Alberta and the impact it has.

A report came out today that indicated that downtown Calgary now has a vacancy rate of 40%. That would not happen if the federal government was a partner when it came to supporting economic development, and that includes natural resources.

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

Madam Speaker, I parenthetically note the economic literature about the situation in Alberta, which is very much a concern to everyone in this place. We want people working. We want all parts of Canada engaged in a healthy economy. The current price of WTI crude oil is 44.74¢. That is not due to government regulations but rather is due to a global oil supply glut. It has nothing to do with climate policies.

I want to direct my colleague to something the member for Yukon just mentioned. I will quote specifically from the letter sent to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and signed by the Premier of the Government of Yukon, Grand Chief Peter Johnston of the Council of Yukon First Nations, and Mike Burke, president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, in which they urge the House to pass the bill. I will read what they say.

“Our governments and organizations confirm our support for the repeal of these amendments. It is our understanding that Bill C-17 will be brought forward in the House for second reading on March 22, 2017.” Here we are, still debating second reading now. They “look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible.”

These are the people who are doing industrial resource development in the Yukon Chamber of Mines.

My colleague's concerns about this legislation and resource development are ill-founded.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot let it go by when the member says that what is going on in Alberta has to do with low oil prices. That is certainly part of it, but to say that it is all of it is simply not the case.

Alberta is my home. I have lived there for most of my life. My friends and neighbours have been impacted by what is going on. Fifty billion dollars in capital does not leave a province because of oil priced at $45 a barrel. We went through oil at $20 a barrel and were able to pay off a deficit and the debt.

They are leaving Alberta right now because of federal and provincial government regulations that have made it simply unfriendly and impossible to do business in Alberta. That is what is happening in Alberta.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate tonight on this piece of legislation. We are discussing Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. It raises a variety of questions more broadly in our discussion of natural resource development. I will speak about the bill and the different provisions in it as well as about some of the underlying questions and the relationship between those questions and broader issues of resource development.

We have already had some discussion tonight about my province, Alberta, and some of the resource development questions there. A lot of the questions are the same in terms of how we view the kinds of processes that need to be in place when it comes to economic development, where we think the decision-making power should be situated, and how we think these things should unfold.

To start with, in terms of the particulars of the legislation, the bill seeks to repeal a number of sections of the act that deal with time limits for project assessment, the ability of the federal minister to delegate certain powers to the territorial minister, the ability of the federal minister to set binding policy regulations, and an exemption to allow for project renewal if there is clearly no significant change to the project. These provisions of YESAA help to facilitate orderly, relatively efficient discussions, evaluations, and conclusions in terms of the assessment of projects. They reflect the belief of the previous government that we should trust local governments, provincial governments, and territorial governments as much as possible to make decisions that fall within, generally speaking, their own competencies and areas of authority.

These are some of the existing provisions of the legislation the government is seeking to repeal. We oppose this legislation. We think the provisions the government is seeking to repeal actually make good logical sense, and I want to go a little bit into the reasons why.

I will start with the issue of time limits. The bill would repeal sections that provide for legislated time limits for project assessment. There are a range of perspectives in this House on this question. We had a member of the NDP wonder why we would have time limits for project assessment. How does it even, from his perspective, make sense to have those time limits. That is one perspective in the House. We then had a member of the government say that maybe there should be some degree of time limitation, but it should not be defined from the outset. It should be something that can be determined or shifted on a case-by-case basis.

Our view, in this party, is that constructive deliberation requires there to be clear opportunities for the evidence to be presented, then coming out of that process, an opportunity for a determination to be made that reflects that evidence. I think that is intuitively reasonable. Thinking through and coming to a conclusion requires some degree of certainty that at some point, that decision-making process will end and there will be a conclusion, either yes or no. It is not about saying that every project should go ahead. It is about saying that there should be a process by which that decision is made.

For members who maybe are not convinced of this idea that we should have some degree of time limits for energy projects in terms of the adjudication of them, I can maybe make an analogy to our use of House time. This is something we have debated quite a bit in terms of the Standing Orders. We provide for the fact that there are a large number of bills we want to have discussed in this place, and we cannot spend the entire life of a Parliament debating the same bill, because it will make it harder to pass other bills. We have to make difficult decisions about how we use the time in this House. Hopefully, most of the time that happens through agreement among House leaders. If we think about it, we debate substantial, very difficult issues, and we allocate, either by agreement or by the government imposing the allocation. It is quite short compared to the time windows that exist for many of these energy projects.

We spent two or three days discussing the government's euthanasia legislation at second reading. Recently we had the imposition of time allocation on the government's marijuana legislation to send it through to committee. After very little debate, we had the imposition of time allocation on a very expansive transportation regulation bill. These are cases where we had debate in the House of Commons limited to a number of days, even a number of hours.

Conservatives used time allocation occasionally when we were in government. The Liberals use time allocation. The NDP has voted on a number of occasions for time allocation. If members think energy projects should have no time limits, I would ask them to reconcile that contention with what seems to be the accepted view of all major parties in this House that there needs to be some limitation on debate that happens in this place. If members cannot go on to debate questions, broader legislative questions, infinitely, then how does it make sense that we can have an infinite assessment process for energy projects?

Let us be clear, there are individuals, interests, and groups, some of whom may not have a direct connection with the specific projects in place, that have a desire to filibuster energy projects. Any time there is a proposed project, they want to be able to insert themselves in the process and drag that process out as long as possible to prevent that project from moving forward.

In the House of Commons, there are only 338 of us, and in this chamber, we are subject to, generally speaking, certain time limits. There are other mechanisms of limiting debate. However, when we look at project assessments that happen outside this place, there are many different groups or individuals who could come forward and make presentations. There is always the worry that for these projects the assessment could be dragged out so long that effectively it would be a filibuster. Effectively, there would be no opportunity to make an adjudication on the basis of the information and the evidence, because the discussion would just keep going on and on.

I am of the view that there are some projects that should go ahead. If people think that there are projects that should go ahead, then we have to accept that there has to be some mechanism for setting time limits, for having an identification of a process in advance that allows that determination to be made.

I would take the view that the existing provisions of this legislation prescribe time limits, legislated time limits, clear time limits, so that everyone knows what the process is and everyone can have confidence and certainty in that process. There is predictability from the outset, and people can submit the opinions they want to submit. We make sure through that process that everyone has an opportunity to get their opinions on the record but also that a decision will be made at the end of that process. I think having that clarity, that certainty, from the outset is a reasonable way to proceed and to ensure that ultimately, the best decision is made.

I am going to switch to discussing some of the other provisions of this legislation. The existing act talks about the fact that there should not be a repetition of the assessment process if an evaluation has already taken place and the project has not substantially changed. Along a similar line, this is about saying that there should be an assessment. There should be a process by which a decision is made, but a decision should then be made. It does not make a lot of sense to say that we have to repeat the whole assessment process if what we are actually looking at is a project renewal and there is no significant change to the project. If there is not a substantial change to the project, then why would there be a need to evaluate it again? That is fairly obvious.

From the perspective of fairness in decision-making, a decision is made, and then we proceed with it once all the evidence is gathered and put together.

It is interesting, listening to the other debate in this House, that there are very few politicians who are prepared to say, “We are just against all energy projects”. However, we start to wonder, when we look at the accumulation of objections and excuses, if there is actually something else going on. What we hear more and more from those in certain quarters politically is an unwillingness to admit to being, generally speaking, anti-development, but they object to pipelines and to the transportation of energy resources. They want to impose new taxes and tighter regulations on it. They want to avoid having fixed benchmarks in place. They are concerned about defined time limits. They want these assessment processes to be able to go on forever.

As much as those who raise all of these objections may say they are pro-development, when we actually add up the pieces we can identify so many different ways in which these advocacy groups or these political interests are effectively putting up barriers to development without admitting that all they are trying to do is put up barriers to development. However, when they are consistently opposing new requirements that do not really make sense outside of an anti-development framework, then we start to wonder why we cannot just have an honest conversation about whether economic and resource development is going to be beneficial for the regions that we are talking about.

It is clear to me that there should not be repetition of assessment when it is not needed, that project assessment should have a reasonable and clearly defined timeline. For those who say that should not be the case, we have to ask the question, what really is the motivation for that argument? Not, perhaps, for everyone, but if they are opposed to pipelines, they want new taxes for energy resources and they want to make the process more complicated, less predictable, and longer, then they cannot really say at the end of it that they are pro-development because it becomes clear that they are not.

Economic development is so important for job creation in the north and in western Canada, but all across the country we should recognize that there are spinoff economic benefits associated with economic development that benefit the entire country. There are jobs in every province and every region that relate directly or indirectly to energy development. Therefore, all members, regardless of what region of the country they come from, should understand that they have a direct stake as part of one whole Canadian family, but also, given the direct tie-in to every region, they have a stake in supporting policies that are responsive to economic development.

One of the other provisions in this legislation that is repealed is powers around delegating authority. I am very proud of the fact that under the previous Conservative government, we took the position that territories deserved to be able to increase their power and control over their own territory, that territorial governments elected by their people, as the level of government that is closest to the people who are electing it, should be able to make more decisions over the direction and future of what happens in those areas.

Just as we have a federation that is well served by strong provincial governments that can be more responsive in many cases to what is happening in terms of local circumstances than the federal government, we have strong municipalities that can, in many cases, be closer and more responsive to the immediate needs of their communities than other orders of government. We recognize that principle in southern Canada and we should apply it in the same sense in the north.

That was our approach, and it was coming out of a broader philosophical commitment to the principle of subsidiarity. The emphasis on subsidiarity has been a part of the Conservative tradition for as long as I can remember. Decisions that can be made closer to the local level can likely harness the creativity and the connectedness to those issues of more people than if decisions are made far away, where they have people who are not actually directly involved in the circumstances on the ground. When they have decisions that are made by a smaller number of people that are applied across the board, even in cases where they may not apply, they are less likely to have positive outcomes.

If we delegate that authority, if we have as much of that authority expressed at the local level, and responsibility as well, and the power to make decisions and to see the consequences of those decisions, and then have local people respond in local or provincial or territorial elections, we get a more responsive decision-making process, we get more responsive outcomes as that process unfolds.

That is the emphasis on subsidiarity, that kind of philosophical framework that we brought to the discussion of this, and it is one that I think the Liberal government is less interested in. It is trying to impose specific policy direction on provinces, even outside of what is supposed to be federal jurisdiction. I think it is very relevant to our discussion that here we see the government proceeding in that way, with respect to the carbon tax. I think this is the first time we have ever seen a federal government say to the provinces, “You must impose a tax in an area of your jurisdiction and if you don't, we will impose a province-specific tax on you and then basically the voters in your province will be completely without recourse if they perhaps want to go in a different direction than the rest of the country is going.”

It is unheard that we have a federal government say, “We're going to have a special tax for Saskatchewan that we're going to collect in Saskatchewan and not elsewhere.” This has very concerning implications from a federalism perspective. I am sure it would be challenged legally. However, underlying all this is a lack of respect for the particular competencies of provincial governments—provincial governments that may have different priorities, which reflect the different priorities expressed by the voters in their areas, provincial governments which may have different visions of how to realize the broader policy direction that may be set out.

It is, of course, important that provinces work together, that they have discussions on how to do things that are in our collective interest. I think that voters in every province and every territory are going to push for those kinds of outcomes, those kinds of approaches. However, when the federal government comes in and tries to dictate to provinces, that is where we get into problems.

Again, we took the position, with respect to the approach that the previous Conservative government took to the territories, in general, that strengthening the powers the territories had to make decisions that reflected what the electorate in those territories were looking for, was a better way of proceeding, rather than having the power in the hands of the federal government.

The provisions that we had in place in YESAA gave the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs the ability to delegate certain powers that were provided to them under the act to the territorial minister. This legislation completely takes that power away, and that, of course, raises some questions.

I will now proceed to my next point, which is the changes that the legislation makes with respect to the ability to issue binding policy direction.

YESAA currently provides the ability for them to set policy direction to the board.

Again, I think the board has the responsibility of making determinations based on the immediate evidence but it makes sense that the broad policy would be set at the ministerial level. There is a distinction between assessment and policy. That, I think, respects the proper democratic function of ministers, which is to exercise authority on behalf of the people, and of the board to make independent evidence-based decisions as well. We think that properly reflects the balance that should exist in that case.

Overall, it is evident, if we look at this legislation, there is a broader objection in many quarters of this House to development projects. That is something that we are very concerned about and one of the reasons, among others, why we oppose this legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan being coherent today, especially after we both flew all night to get here today. However, this time I do not agree with his speech.

One of the first Conservative speakers made a very good point. She said there were some process problems. That is the whole issue, from my perspective. If there was a law passed illegally, not in the spirit of the treaties, or against the treaties, it does not matter how good the various things are. There is no use even debating them. Some members are debating the points. If the process was not right the member would be the first to know that, after filibustering on a process point for 16 hours. I am sure if he was a Yukon chief he would be filibustering this for the same reason, the process.

The member has made some great points in favour of the bill. He said territorial governments closest to the people should be able to make more decisions. Not only the territorial government, all the opposition parties just unanimously passed a motion to support this bill. Therefore, if we want them to be closer to the people, live up to what the member said.

That falls in with the philosophy of subsidiarity, to make the decision from the lowest down. The territorial legislature, all the chiefs and their governments have said to pass this as is. We should follow the member's dictates.

Finally, we should not dictate to the provinces and territories. That is what we are taking away, that dictation that happened in these elements with a lack of respect, as he talked about, for competition for the provinces and territories.

That will be enough, because he has made such an eloquent, good reason as to why the Conservatives should support the bill. I will leave it at that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his intervention. I wish I had as much time today as I do when I am at PROC to fully develop these points. Maybe there would be less confusion if I did, because the principle of subsidiarity is not that the federal government should pass legislation just because another level of government asks them to. The principle of subsidiarity is delegating practical authority, and therefore the ensuing responsibility for that decision, to orders of government that are closer to the people.

Therefore, it would be a misunderstanding of subsidiarity to say we should pass this legislation because it happens to be the opinion of the Yukon legislature. Subsidiarity is about something much deeper than that. It is about creating mechanisms to give fulsome responsibility for decision making and for managing the consequences to orders of government that are closest to those directly involved. That might, in certain instances, even be a process that is resisted by those orders of government. However, the principle says better decision making outcomes are likely to result through that type of process.

Beyond that, if I understood him right, the member said he was less interested in engaging with the specific arguments about the points because he objected to the process by which previous changes were brought into YESAA. There is always discussion about mechanisms for doing better consultation for legislation. I know there were many people critical of the government's own approach when it came to consultation around, I think it was Bill S-3, where in fact there was a poor decision and the consultation did not even include the litigants in the initial phase of that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I do have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I come from a region where the environmental assessment and review procedures are pretty clear for everybody. Not only that, but the environmental assessment and review procedures that exist in northern Quebec were agreed to by the provincial and federal governments and indigenous peoples. Therefore, they provide clarity for that region. For any type of development in that region, everybody knows what the rules are and what to abide by. I think the legislation before us tends to go in that direction, unlike the previous legislation that the previous government tried to impose on indigenous peoples, which dictated and was contrary to what was in the agreements and treaties in the Yukon.

The member talked about the jurisdictions we have in this country, federal and provincial in particular, and I think they need to be addressed when we talk about environmental assessment review in any part of this country. One of the things that the Supreme Court has mentioned over and over in many decisions over the years was that, in spite of the fact that there are reserved jurisdictions for the federal government, and on the other hand the provincial governments, those jurisdictions are not absolute, and one of the reasons is that there are aboriginal rights in this country that we need to respect when exercising those jurisdictions.

I would like the member's comments on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment about the importance of indigenous jurisdiction, that it is not just about federal and provincial, that there is indigenous authority and other orders of governments. I do not disagree with that at all.

To come back to the points I made with respect to the legislation, there needs to be a decision-making process that is fair, has clear timelines established, is predictable from the outset, allows all of those who are affected by the process and the project to have input, ultimately allows a decision that reflects the evidence to be made in the best interests of the communities, and makes the decision in a timely manner. Obviously, that decision has to include a multiplicity of different perspectives.

Of course, the member will know that there are a range of different indigenous communities with different kinds of perspectives on development projects. I can say, speaking from the perspective of my province, that there are many indigenous people and communities who are very much in favour of energy development. They believe in it and also benefit directly from it. Of course, there are others that take a different perspective, both in Alberta and elsewhere. However, on balance, I think that the framework established by the previous legislation was better in terms of setting out clear, predictable guidelines and processes.

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

Mr. Speaker, while we are debating Bill C-17, which is entirely about rights of people in the Yukon and maintaining a system of environmental reviews that had been negotiated with first nations, we want to put right something that was done wrong in the previous House.

However, I do want to take the member up on a number of the comments he made in relation to pipelines and the people who oppose them. I would like my friend to contemplate the position I take, which is that the problem is not the pipelines but rather what is in them, as long as we are determined to see bitumen mixed with diluent. Based on the best science we have in this country and in the U.S., the senior scientific academy, this is a substance that no one knows how to clean up. Bitumen is only mixed with diluent for the purpose of making it flow through pipelines, because it is a solid. It gets a very low price internationally, because it is a solid.

Certainly, I support upgraders and even support getting upgraders and refineries being built to create jobs in Alberta and pipelines to take a product that Canadians can use so that we can shut down the import of foreign oil to the east coast of Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is more direct and in many ways more honest about putting her perspective on the table than some who want to kind of dance around these questions.

Here is the thing about bitumen and energy resources in general. We all use these products. Whether we like it or not, these are all unavoidable parts of our lives. For those who are concerned about the potential risks of moving them and these sorts of things, then the resulting policy conclusion should be trying to reduce the use of these products. However, while we are still using them, while we still use everything from plastics, to jet fuel, to all kinds of different products that come from the energy sector, then we have to extract them and we have to move them. It is not realistic that we can do all of the downstream processing and product development at the very place where they are developed. It would not be practical to have all that labour right beside where these projects are developed. The alternative, then, is to not develop, to get resources from other countries, or to look for reasonable solutions to transportation.

I think all the evidence suggests that pipelines are better than rail from a safety perspective and from an environmental impact perspective, so it behooves us to be realistic and to look at what the resources are that we use and therefore the necessary mechanisms of transportation and development that are associated with them. If we do not look at that, then the alternative is simply that we put ourselves at a massive economic disadvantage compared to other countries that will do this development. Often they will do it in a less environmentally friendly and less human rights friendly way compared to what we are doing here in Canada, and we will find ourselves at a disadvantage for no particular benefit.

That is why I am in favour of development. I am particularly in favour of Canadian development because it is—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I believe there is a message from the Senate.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that, when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures—Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act—Chapter No. 10.

Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements)—Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code—Chapter No. 13.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act—Chapter No. 14.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.