Debates of April 9th, 2019

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the references were to how the government had continuously shut down any resource or oil and gas development. The Prime Minister basically shut down any oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea and very much angered the premier of the north for not even consulting with northern premiers on that shutdown. We have seen it time and time again.

I did not get to it in my speech about how the Liberals basically shut down the Trans Mountain pipeline. Earlier in this parliamentary session, the Prime Minister stood in the House day after day and said “the pipeline will be built”. We are almost through this session and the pipeline has not even been started, let alone built. I really doubt whether it will ever be built under the Liberal government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we do know one thing. Stephen Harper failed at building any pipelines and 99% of the oil went through to the U.S. when Stephen Harper was prime minister. When he left office, still 99% went through to the U.S.

Could my colleague across the way explain to us why the Harper government was such a dismal failure at getting our oil to markets outside of the U.S.?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap is able to respond to this very well.

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Harper government completed four pipelines. When there was a change in government, there were three major pipelines in the works. Right now, we stand at the big zero.

I thank the parliamentary secretary very much for giving me the opportunity to correct the record.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

The bill before us today would not only resolve the litigation resulting from the attempt to amalgamate land and water boards in 2014, but also improve the regulatory regime. The Northwest Territories Devolution Act made a number of changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act, which provides the legislative framework for the regulatory regime.

One of the changes was to amalgamate the Northwest Territories' four land and water boards into a single entity. Two indigenous governments challenged the amalgamation in court, and the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granted an injunction that halted amalgamation and other changes designed to make the regulatory regime more effective.

As my hon. colleagues know, in order to work effectively, a regulatory regime must continually earn the trust of project proponents and the general public. It does that by working in a steady, fair, reliable and predictable manner.

This description applies to the resource development regime in the Northwest Territories. The current four-board structure works wonderfully. However, there is always room for improvement. This bill ensures that the current structure will be maintained and adds improvements that were proposed over four years ago.

In reality, the changes proposed in Bill C-88 seek to make the regime more fair, reliable, predictable and efficient. It clearly serves the interests of northerners and all Canadians.

One example of how the changes will improve the regime relates to the members of the boards responsible for reviewing proposed projects.

There are five boards in all: the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board, the Gwich’in Land and Water Board, the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. One or more of these boards can be authorized to conduct a regulatory review, depending on the nature and location of the proposed project.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act sets out the quorum required for some of the boards' activities. For example, a board cannot issue a permit unless it has the minimum number of members. That is completely appropriate because the boards' decisions often have significant consequences. To ensure that the five boards always make sound decisions, each one is made up of members from various backgrounds with different perspectives. This diversity is one of the boards' greatest assets. It helps them consider every nuance from different angles.

The members' diversity also fosters strong public trust in the boards' decisions. Naturally, in some cases, a member may not be able to participate in certain board activities because of illness or some other legitimate reason, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

The Government of Canada realizes it can be difficult for northern boards to maintain a quorum, partly because of how hard it is to recruit and retain members with the necessary experience and expertise.

To help the boards overcome this challenge, Bill C-88 would authorize them to extend the terms of individual members if the term expires during a review. That would help guarantee that the boards maintain a quorum throughout the reviews.

The bill states that the board must request the extension at least two months before the day on which the member's term expires. The request must be submitted to the minister. The temporary extension of the board member's term will end when the review that is in progress at the time of the request is concluded.

The Northwest Territories' five regulatory boards are responsible for conducting complex reviews that often include hearings, scientific reports and economic forecasts. The reviews can take months to complete. It is common for new information and perspectives to emerge during a review. Board members who have been continuously involved in a review are better equipped to understand and contextualize new information and perspectives.

The five boards make decisions that can have a profound impact not only on ecosystems, but also on local and national communities. Given the magnitude of these decisions, the boards need to be part of a modern, functional regulatory regime.

Not only does Bill C-88 propose a mechanism to support continuity, but it also makes a number of other improvements to the regulatory regime. The bill currently before the House establishes an efficient inspection and enforcement system. Under that system, proponents would be required to abide by the conditions imposed by a board when it approves a project following an environmental assessment. These conditions would be clearly set out in a document called a development certificate.

To ensure that proponents are fulfilling their obligations, inspectors would be authorized to carry out activities like site visits. Proponents who do not use valid development certificates, who fail to comply with the conditions set out in the certificate or who interfere with the work of inspectors could face stiff penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

As my hon. colleagues must understand by now, Bill C-88 proposes a long list of measures that will considerably improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories. The bill currently before the House makes improvements to a regime that is already functional and efficient. Such a regime will help maintain the respect and trust of Canadians, proponents and investors. It will help ensure that resource development projects strike an appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental goals. For all these reasons, Bill C-88 deserves the support of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if anyone else in the House finds it a bit ironic that the Liberals are voting wholeheartedly for both parts 1 and 2. They criticize the former Conservative government, saying that we did not do the proper consultation process, even though it was supposably part of the treaties that were going to be available. It was part of the McCrank report, but there was some concern.

They criticize us for what we did in part 1 in the past, yet what they are doing in part 2 is equally as bad or worse. What they are doing is giving the federal government powers it has never had before to completely deny a project on the basis of national interest. This is without consultation. It is consistent with what the Liberals did regarding Beaufort. It is consistent with what they did regarding the moratorium for tankers. It is consistent with them and northern gateway.

I would like to ask my colleague this. Where is his consistency? How can he criticize a former government regarding its consultation with indigenous peoples and its resolution of the process, yet in part 2 have something that, in my opinion, is far worse with respect to trodding on rights?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we have any lessons to learn from the former Conservative government; that is for sure.

When it comes to consultation, Conservatives did not even know what the word “consultation” meant for 10 years. When the Prime Minister of the country is going to various provinces to speak to people without letting the premiers of the provinces know that he is going to be in town, that is just disrespectful. It was definitely not consultation.

Again, the injunction was in place because of the lack of consultation. The Conservatives tried to eliminate, so to speak, the responsibilities of indigenous peoples in the north without consulting with them. Conservatives tried to control regional representation so that indigenous peoples would not have a voice.

On this side of the House, we believe indigenous peoples are Canadians. We are very proud of all Canadians and we will move forward with this very important legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that she had an opportunity to ask her question. If she has anything further to add, she should wait until I ask for questions and comments and attempt to be recognized.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will support this bill. I thank my colleague for his clear, detailed description of the bill.

Since we passed my colleague's bill to recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is important that all bills affecting indigenous communities mention compliance with this declaration.

Does my colleague not think that the bill should be improved by including a reference to compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is clearly very important that we support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill certainly emphasizes the principle of consultation and close collaboration with indigenous peoples and northerners. We want to ensure that these consultations bring out their knowledge, advice and wisdom. We believe that this bill complies with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Status of Women; the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Transportation.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this traditional Algonquin territory to explain my support for Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The legislation before us proposes to strike a more appropriate balance between economic development and environmental protection in Canada's north.

As my hon. colleagues recognize, Canada is blessed with an abundance of valuable natural resources, vast forests as well as deposits of minerals, oil and gas. Throughout our history, these resources have been the cornerstones of the economy and while the national economy grows ever more diverse thanks to the rise of other sectors, resource development remains crucial to national prosperity.

Resource development projects create jobs, generate export sales and stimulate technological innovation. Tempering these benefits, however, are the environmental and the social impacts of resource extraction and development. These include pollution, destruction of ecosystems and changes in the fabric of communities and traditional indigenous ways. Throughout much of our nation's history, while we relied on resource development for our prosperity and growth, we often failed to appreciate and to take into account its long-term environmental and social consequences. Thankfully, this view is no longer prevalent.

To strike a better balance between economic and environmental concerns, Canada has developed a unique regulatory regime that governs resource development projects in the north, a regime that is co-managed with indigenous partners. The regime requires that proposed projects undergo stringent reviews of anticipated impacts. Review processes are structured for fairness, transparency, effectiveness and to consider traditional knowledge. Members of the public, along with stakeholder groups, are encouraged to participate in project reviews and the decisions of review boards are published for everyone to see.

The regulatory regime helps to ensure that resource projects maximize potential economic benefits and minimize potential environmental impacts. In this way, it restores public confidence, creates certainty and predictability, which are so important to industry, and sets the foundation for a sustainable and long-term natural resource industry in the north.

To maintain an appropriate balance between these concerns, the regulatory regime evolves continually as our country evolves and as our understanding of the environment and of resource development deepens. In the north in particular, the settlement of modern land claims has enabled the creation of unique systems of governance in co-operation with indigenous partners.

The proposed legislation now before us lays out a series of amendments to the regulatory regime that governs resource development in the Northwest Territories. The roots of Bill C-88 stretch back to a series of amendments made to the regulatory regime in 2014. Some of the amendments provoked indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories to initiate court actions against the Government of Canada. The Tlicho Government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated filed similar court challenges that effectively put a halt to some of the 2014 amendments.

Since 2015, the Government of Canada has launched a concerted effort to address the concerns that had provoked indigenous communities to initiate court actions. The primary issue is the amalgamation of four regional land and water boards into a single entity: the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. To resolve this issue, representatives of the Government of Canada consulted with indigenous groups, the Government of the Northwest Territories and industry. The Government of Canada then drafted a legislative proposal, shared it with all interested partners and made changes to it in response to the feedback we received. The proposed legislation now before us is the product of this co-operative conciliatory process.

Among other changes, Bill C-88 would end amalgamation, reinstate the regional land and water boards and effectively end the court challenges.

The proposed legislation would promote reconciliation with indigenous peoples, a key priority for this country.

The proposed legislation now before us would also resolve a different problem created by the court challenges related to board amalgamation. To simplify a complex story, the court challenges effectively put a halt not only to amalgamation but to several policy measures that were central to the regulatory regime. These included the use of development certificates and the necessary enforcement scheme, inspector notice requirements on Gwich'in and Sahtu lands and other measures. Bill C-88 would reinstate these measures through specific amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Another effect of Bill C-88 would be to further strengthen environmental protections in the Arctic, home to some of the world's most fragile ecosystems. The effects of climate change are more evident in the Arctic and appear to be progressing more quickly than anywhere else.

In 2016, Canada agreed to take a series of actions to better protect the Arctic. Chief among these was a moratorium on the issuance of new oil and gas rights in Canada's Arctic offshore region, subject to a five-year, science-based review. To ensure the appropriateness of these actions, the Government of Canada initiated year-long consultations with territorial and northern indigenous governments and with existing Arctic offshore oil and gas rights holders to discuss their interests. These consultations highlighted the importance of protecting the Arctic's unique offshore environment while pursuing safe, responsible activities that create jobs and economic opportunities in northern indigenous economies.

The consultations featured many discussions about how best to balance environmental and economic concerns. The result of the consultations was the series of amendments before us in Bill C-88 concerning the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

First, to complement the moratorium on the issuance of new licences, which our Prime Minister announced in 2018, the amendments would allow us to prohibit any oil and gas exploration or development activities under existing exploration and significant discovery licences in the Arctic offshore.

Furthermore, the proposed amendments would fix a gap in the current legislative regime regarding existing licences and the five-year, science-based review. The legislation as it now stands does not allow licences to be suspended to allow for the review to unfold as required. In fact, some existing Arctic offshore oil and gas rights will begin to expire before the next review period is over. Bill C-88 proposes to resolve this issue by allowing the government to preserve existing rights until the review is completed. At that point, we would have a better understanding of the next steps for Arctic offshore oil and gas.

These amendments would be fair to the existing rights holders and would produce an effective compromise. The scientific research could be completed without any pressure associated with existing oil and gas activity in the region, while existing oil and gas rights could not expire in the meantime.

Bill C-88 proposes to improve the regulatory regime in the north through a series of amendments informed by several important developments, including court challenges, the accelerated impact of climate change in the Arctic and the opportunity to foster reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada. The amendments proposed in Bill C-88 would increase the predictability, consistency and timeliness of regulatory reviews in the north while strengthening environmental protections.

Northerners deserve a fully functional modernized regulatory regime that meets their particular needs, the kind of regime that promotes growth and prosperity while safeguarding fragile ecosystems, the kind of regime that strikes an appropriate balance between economic and environmental concerns.

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

Madam Speaker, I am hoping that one of my Liberal colleagues can actually answer the question, which I have asked a number of times. What they have done in part 1 is say that the former Conservative government did not respect rights, although certainly, there were a lot of conversations. What we were trying to do was not to diminish the ability of the communities to have influence. We were actually trying to remove red tape and complications from the process. That is part 1. If the Liberals want to criticize what we did in part 1, it is their right to do so.

What the Liberals have done in part 2 is a direct contradiction of what was done in part 1. They have given the federal government, without consultation with first nations, enormous power, not seen in any other legislation, to end development. If it something to facilitate projects moving forward, the government is against it. However, if it is something that gives the federal government power to stop projects, it does not seem to have any issue with it.

I would like the member to tell me how he can align the extraordinary power the federal government is taking in part 2, something that has never been done before, without consultation with indigenous communities and territorial governments, and justify it to the people, in light of what he said about part 1.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, this bill is intended to fix a problem created by the previous Conservative government, move us ahead on a process that promotes reconciliation, and at the same time, create certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

It is clear to me that what is important is achieving a balance between the environment and the economy. The former government, not only on this file but on many other files, did not do the proper consultation necessary. In what little consultation it did, it paid no heed to the advice it was getting.

What we are doing is correcting a wrong that was mandated by the previous government, and we are achieving the right balance between the economy and the environment.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague and I would both agree that the people of the Northwest Territories know best how their resources should be used and managed. I agree with his assessment of what happened with the previous Conservative government. It ignored the spirit, intent and the word of constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements. It failed to listen, and it has led to lengthy legal battles.

Generally we support Bill C-88. At the same time, there is an important opportunity here for the government to put into action the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although it is not included in the bill, I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments about his support for including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this bill.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was very proud to stand in this chamber, as I believe all members on this side of the House were, to support UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We studied it at committee. I was proud to support it there, as well as on the floor of this chamber, and we now await ratification in the Senate.

What this would do is wholly supportive of UNDRIP. What is most important to this government is reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We have had to clean up after the previous government. This bill strikes the right balance between the economy, the environment and respecting the rights of the indigenous peoples of that territory.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, at second reading. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade on November 8, 2018.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I have never had the opportunity to visit these northern territories, but I have made two trips to Nunavik, in Quebec's far north. Once someone goes to these areas and speaks with the people who live in Canada's far north, they gain a completely different view, a different perspective, of northerners' potential and desire for self-determination, their desire to take charge of their land. During my two visits, I felt that the people in this area truly wanted to look after their own affairs and contribute to Canada's social and economic development in their own way. They want to be a part of this great big country that we share.

The bill consists of two parts. Part 1 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It repeals the provisions that would consolidate the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into a single board. Those provisions were introduced by the previous Conservative government in Bill C-15. Part 2 amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders to prohibit oil and gas activities, freeze the terms of existing licences and prevent them from expiring during a moratorium, if it is in the national interest to do so.

Part 1 undoes what the Conservatives did, and part 2 announces that the Liberal government is going to make things worse. That is what I get from Bill C-88. Overall, what I get from Bill C-88 is that it is a Liberal anti-energy policy that will drive even more energy investments out of Canada. It will cost Canadian workers their jobs, and that certainly will not help improve the quality of life of residents of northern Canada. Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources.

The previous government believed the north would be a key economic driver for decades to come. Other Arctic nations, such as China and Russia, are exploring similar opportunities. Unfortunately, the Liberal government decided to take a different tack.

I was mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years. My community has grappled with major problems. It was an asbestos mining community where companies dug up white gold, as it was known then, for years. We see asbestos in an entirely different light now. For years, we were exploited by outsiders who came into our community and left nothing but deep scars, from mountains of tailings to infrastructure that still mars the landscape. We wish we had had a say in all of those projects. We wish we could have played a role and worked with the people who operated the mines. We could have influenced how it was done, and we definitely could have told them where to put the massive piles of tailings, how to dispose of it all, and how to improve our people's quality of life.

In some territories, when one is elected to represent a community, the more control that territory has over its own affairs, the more one can contribute, the more decisions are made at the local level, and the more one understands the impact of decisions. Unfortunately, in this case, just before Christmas 2016, the Liberal government cavalierly decided to force the territories to do things its way.

During a trip to Washington, the Prime Minister took the opportunity to announce a moratorium. There was no consultation with people in the north, despite the same old tune from the Liberals that consultation is important. Despite the countless consultations that were held in this case, the Liberal government did not feel obliged to consult the people of the north. The decision was made unilaterally by the Prime Minister's Office. Then we learn that the leaders of these territories were informed just one hour before the government announced important changes that would affect them.

I will quote the leaders of the affected communities. The Premier of the Northwest Territories published a red alert for a national emergency debate on the future of the Northwest Territories. He said that the promises of the north are fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we watch a resurgence of colonialism. Whether we are talking about ill-conceived ways to fund social programs or new, disconcerting restrictions on their economic development, he says, their spirit and energy are being eroded.

Then, he said that staying in the middle class or trying to join it is becoming a distant dream for many. He says that means that northerners, through their democratically elected government, have to have the power to determine their own destiny and that we can no longer allow the bureaucrats and governments in Ottawa to make the decisions. He says that decisions concerning the north have to be made in the north. He says that unilateral decisions made by the federal government without consultation to impose a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic is just an example of how their economic self-determination is thwarted in Ottawa.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories was rather quick to respond.

In an interview on national television on December 22, 2016, another premier, the Premier of Nunavut, said that they want to get to a point where they can make their own determination of their priorities, and the way to do that, he said, is by gaining meaningful revenue from resource development. Meanwhile, when one potential revenue source is taken off the table, it puts them back at practically square one, where Ottawa will make the decisions for them.

Those statements are rather clear. These are not extremists who wanted to attack the government. They just wanted to be consulted on important decisions related to natural resource development on their lands. It is important to hear those messages and act accordingly. When the government is making these kinds of decisions, it is even more important to avoid concentrating too much power within one office, in other words, the Prime Minister's Office. This helps ensure that decisions are not made for purely political reasons. That is unfortunately what happens when the PMO is given so much decision-making power that a moratorium can be imposed without having to consult.

On October 22, 2018, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk said the following to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

I was talking to [the Liberal member for the Northwest Territories], and he said, “Yes, Merven, we should be doing something. We should be helping you guys.”

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change...[We don't just want to sell] trinkets and T-shirts and that kind of stuff.

Those messages are clear. I hope that the government will listen to elected officials from these territories and reconsider Bill C-88.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, while I can appreciate that the member has never been in the north, he seems to say quite a bit about this legislation, which has been worked on for many years. Some of the work started during the days when the Conservative government was in power. Therefore, a lot of the pieces in the bill were started many years ago.

I have been hearing quite a bit from the indigenous governments in my riding. They want the bill to move forward. I have also been contacted, probably on a monthly basis, by the Government of the Northwest Territories. The premier's office is saying that it wants it to move forward. We need the bill to move forward so we can get on with dealing with the issues challenging us in the Northwest Territories, especially in the area of devolution.

The indigenous governments and the Northwest Territories are in a position to negotiate land claims and issues of compensation. It is also moving forward on discussions of self-government. It is able to share in resource royalties. It holds 50% of the seats in the regulatory process. That will also help it move forward on many of the areas that were left hanging from the time the last government was in place.

I want to ask the member this. Could he tell me why he will not support the bill? It supports decision-making being done in the north and he has raised that as an issue. Will he support the bill since it would help the people in the north and the indigenous governments make the decisions that impact them in the Northwest Territories?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I think that everyone involved should have a say on the future of their territory and on natural resource development. Bill C-88 calls for exactly that; it would let those involved decide.

However, in Bill C-88, some decisions are already made without consultation with these same governments and are inconsistent with what they want. This is what we want to avoid.

The government cannot do things and then say it will consult these governments for everything else. Unfortunately this is what happened with Bill C-88. This is unfortunate and is why we cannot agree with or adopt a bill like this. In retrospect, it is easy to support something when you have not been consulted and then pick up the pieces afterwards.

This is quite unfortunate for elected officials in these territories, which is why we will stand with them on this matter.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Northwest Territories. He has worked so hard to get the bill forward for his people, or as the Conservatives say, “the local people”, who really want the bill.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. He is the second Conservative member who I heard say that he wants the decisions to be made by the local people. The vote on this bill is a decision that the local people want. The governments that it would affect are the Tlicho government, the Sahtu government, the Vuntut Gwitchin government and the GNWT. As the previous Liberal colleague from NWT mentioned, those governments were consulted extensively on the bill while it was being created. The member wanted the decision to be made by local people. The bill is totally about that. All of the local governments want the bill. Therefore, I assume the member would support it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable for a short answer.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to give short answers because this is an extremely important issue that concerns the elected officials of the area.

When a bill seeks “to allow the Governor in Council” to issue orders, if in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas operations, I find that this diminishes the legitimacy of local elected officials. We are fighting against the spirit of the bill that strips local officials of the ability to make decisions regarding their own lands.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of a bill that would make a positive difference in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown. In starting my speech, I acknowledge that I stand here on traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

Today we are holding a second reading debate on Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. I will use the time allotted to me to speak about the amendments to both of these and to speak a bit about the issue of Arctic offshore oil exploration.

First, I want to start with some context around the Mackenzie Valley. To understand the mess that we are fixing right now, one has to rewind the clock, back to the 1970s.

In 1974, the federal government, under the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed Justice Thomas Berger of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to hold hearings into a proposed natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley.

At that time, the Dene and the Inuvialuit were asserting their claims to these traditional lands. The Berger Inquiry broke with tradition by hearing evidence, offered not merely by the pipeline companies but also by residents in more than 30 small communities in the Northwest Territories.

The Berger Inquiry heard from over 1,000 indigenous people in seven languages and over 500 southern voices were there as well to give their opinions. The process was groundbreaking. The federal government funded research by indigenous, environmental and community groups. Justice Berger enabled media participation that brought Canadians from far and wide, from coast to coast to coast, into the proceeding.

In May 1977, Berger recommended that, for environmental reasons, no pipeline should ever be built along the northern coastal plains. Although Berger concluded that an environmentally sound pipeline could be built through the Mackenzie Valley, he urged a 10-year moratorium on pipeline construction in the region to allow time to settle indigenous land claims. Ottawa, the federal government, endorsed his recommendations.

This concluded in the delaying of any construction on the pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley and was seen as a turning point in indigenous Canadian relations. In amassing over 40,000 pages of documentation, it also provided a unique and comprehensive window into the Dene and Inuvialuit political resurgence of the 1970s. There would be no turning back on consultations with indigenous people after this inquiry; the precedent was set.

Public sympathy and interest in both indigenous and environmental concerns were heightened as a result of the Berger Inquiry. It was a watershed event for reconciliation. It allowed first nations to speak about their history, their issues related to the land, their culture and the impacts that the southern man's projects would have on their communities.

What we have learned from the Berger Inquiry of the 1970s is that when we consult with indigenous people, we take a first step toward our commitment to reconciliation. We learned lessons that ultimately led to regional land claims agreements and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998.

The 1998 Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act put in place an integrated system for the co-management of the land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories. This act established two boards with jurisdiction over the entire valley, namely the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

Three regional land and water boards were created for the Gwich'in settlement area, the Sahtu settlement area and the Tlicho settlement area, pursuant to the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis and the Tlicho land claim agreements, which conferred on these boards the responsibility for issuing land use permits and water licensing.

Fast forward to 2014, when the Harper administration passed the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, it consolidated four indigenous regulatory boards into one, without their agreement, and in so doing, stifled the voices of indigenous people. It flew in the face of lessons learned through the Berger Inquiry, where we learned of the importance of indigenous people's voices, of incorporating indigenous communities in governance processes.

That is why our government's Bill C-88 is so important. We are fixing the mess of the previous Harper administration.

That is why our government's bill, Bill C-88, is so important. We are fixing the mess of the Harper administration.

The Northwest Territories Devolution Act, the infamous Bill C-15 introduced by the Harper government, transferred land and water management to the Government of the Northwest Territories and amended three existing acts, including the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It included the restructuring of the land and water boards and the elimination of regional boards.

The Tlicho government was totally against those changes and filed a statement of claim before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, stating that the Harper government had no right to unilaterally abolish the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board because such action would go against its land claims agreement and right to self-government. It added that consultation had been inadequate and that the act violated constitutional promises made to that first nation.

The Tlicho government and Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated sought injunctions in July 2014 and February 2015 respectively in order to maintain their respective water boards until the major issues in their statements could be resolved.

I will cite the court decision on the injunction, because it is just so damning and clearly indicates why we had to come and clean up the mess. It says:

The Tlicho government has raised a reasonable possibility that Canada has overstepped the bounds of what it is permitted to do under the Tlicho Agreement. ...there is a reasonable likelihood the Tlicho Government will suffer...irreparable losses...as a result of a breach of a constitutionally protected right. ...irreparable harm could result from the breach of a constitutionally protected right. This is particularly so where the legislation...will have the effect of dismantling and disrupting existing infrastructure which will then have to be rebuilt.

The court granted an injunction suspending the application of subsection 253(2) of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which would have brought into effect the provisions related to the restructuring and other regulatory amendments.

In November 2015, the newly appointed Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, began discussions with indigenous organizations and governments in the Northwest Territories in order to make the legislative changes needed to resolve this issue. The amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are the result of those discussions and discussions with other regional stakeholders.

We have learned from the past that an effective regulatory body and thorough consultation processes are necessary to consider the needs of those directly impacted by these projects. Transparent and thorough consultation also promotes sound decision-making, and it ultimately will help create better projects that will deliver more benefits to regional communities and to the workers.

This is why Bill C-88 seeks to consult with rights holders and northern indigenous governments when it comes to oil and gas projects in the northern offshore, by making consequential amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, or CPRA.

I will provide some context on the history of Canada's Arctic offshore oil and gas issue. Oil spills in offshore regions across the world have underlined the importance of a precautionary approach when operating in fragile marine ecological environments. The BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico put Canada on alert, and Arctic offshore as a possibility was, and still is, seen in that light. We are aware of the vulnerabilities of any marine ecosystem to a potential blowout, and this is especially true for the unique and fragile marine ecology of the Beaufort Sea.

Canadians can be proud that our Liberal government collaborated with the Obama administration to establish a moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling and the issuance of more licences on the basis of the precautionary principle and of science and traditional knowledge.

We know that oil and gas exploration has been part of the northwest economy for many years, so much so that it is part of the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. However, at the same time, we know that northerners and southerners, indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and all Canadians can agree that a catastrophic blowout in the deep water of the Beaufort Sea could cripple the Inuvialuit way of living and their future prospects. This is another reason this bill is important.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, the member provided lot of information. The indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories have all done a lot of work in moving toward land claims and self-governance. Many have signed agreements, expecting the Government of Canada to honour its portion of the agreements. Throughout the Conservative government, that did not happen. We even had the Auditor General's report, which said the government was not meeting its obligations.

On the section that governed the creation of land and water boards in each region, we saw the previous government step in and create one board that would be a superboard to cover all aspects of what we were doing, even though that breached the agreement.

We also saw the fiscal portion of the land claim agreements breached by a new policy that came in. The Harper government said that was what we were going to follow, regardless of what was in the land claim agreement.

I find it ironic that the Conservatives are saying this is not in the best interests of the people in the Northwest Territories, when they were the ones who refused to include the Beaufort Sea in the negotiations. That was hands-off. We could not even talk about it. I know, because I sat in the seat for the Northwest Territories in that government. We also could not include the royalties coming out of Norman Wells. Those things were left off the table. Now we are hearing that we are doing something wrong by letting the people of the Northwest Territories make decisions.

I want to ask the member whether he feel it is fair. The previous government created this really large confusion over this, to the point where it came to a standstill. Now that we have the indigenous governments of the Northwest Territories telling us they want to move forward, is it fair for the Conservatives to say we are doing something wrong?