Jack Harris

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, of course we agree with having a proper process, but one that allows for development and proper assessment. The problem we have here is that the Government of Canada is taking an approach that overrides the participation of the aboriginal people in this process over their objections, creating uncertainty. It does not solve the problem because it creates further uncertainty. We have representatives of the Yukon industry and communities in general saying that this would create more uncertainty and in fact would hurt what is happening.

The proper solution here is to have adequate consultation to ensure that the process is fixed. If the Conservatives are not willing to do that, then they should not be imposing this against the rights of the aboriginal people who participated in the process to create this board in the first place.

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, May 25th, 2015]

Who elected them, Mr. Speaker? That is a very good question. I think one person elected all of them, or 59 of them anyway. There were various other people who elected the others.

I will not dwell on that, but I just wanted to point out that what we are dealing with here is Senate legislation.

We have heard objections. We had this from Chief Angela Demit, chief of the White River First Nation, who said:

We participated in meetings with Canada about the changes to YESAA. Through that experience we have understood that the changes being proposed by Canada have much more to do with an agenda made in Ottawa than with the recommendations that came out of the YESAA five-year review process.

These are the kinds of comments we are getting.

Chief Doris Bill, chief of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation said:

Providing a single party with authority to direct the board is fundamentally inconsistent with any legislation that stems from our tripartite treaties. While the treaties obligate Canada to enact YESAA, it does not own YESAA and cannot choose to dictate its own policies on the independent assessment body.

Why is this being done? It is obviously being done to control the board and the process, not to ensure that the agreement has been fulfilled. It would create broad exemptions from YESAA for renewals and amendments of permits of authorizations. Once a permit exemption is granted it cannot be amended, fixed or changed. That is tying people's hands and not giving them the authority they have.

I note that my time is quickly up, but I am prepared to entertain any questions.

If those four provisions were removed from the bill I am told by the critic responsible we would pass the bill. Therefore, it can be fixed. Why do we not just fix it here and pass the bill with the amendments?

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, which is before this House at report stage.

It is a bill that arises out of fulfilment of the obligation of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement on the one hand and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement on the other hand, because two acts are amended in this legislation. The Nunavut one is less controversial. In fact, there is no serious objection to it, but the Yukon one is quite different.

Let me say first, there is a bad history of the Government of Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, in dealing with agreements that had been signed with aboriginal peoples in the Northwest Territories, in the north in general. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was signed in 1993 by the Liberal government. In very short order, a failure to actually carry out the terms of the agreement ultimately led to a court case that went on for years and years and was only settled in the last month or two by the present government, which had resisted settling that since it has been around in 2006.

We have a history of not honouring the agreements that have been signed. In this case, the Yukon umbrella agreement was signed and part of it was put into place under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The five-year review was scheduled to be held, initiated in 2007 and completed in 2012. The agreement was never made public because of a disagreement. The final consultations took place on this, but the amendments that are put forth to establish an assessment process were never discussed with the people of the Yukon.

We now have what is being called by Yukoners an imposed agreement dismantling the environment and socio-economic assessment process, which was developed in the Yukon by Yukoners for the Yukon. The message we are getting from the people of the Yukon is that the Conservative government, with the full assistance of the Yukon MP and the senator for Yukon, is forcing a pro-southern resource company agenda unilaterally down the throats of Yukoners.

That is the assessment that we have, based on what we are hearing from the people of the Yukon in terms of the level of consultation, the failure to listen to what they were told, the failure to actually consult them and actually running roughshod over the arrangements that had been made between the aboriginal peoples of the Yukon and the Government of Canada in the establishment of this process.

There are significant concerns about the following amendments that are being imposed here, one which would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This is a supposedly independent board that came about as a result of discussions and negotiations out of the land claims agreement and the Final Umbrella Agreement, and now we would have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development make binding policy directives.

How does that maintain the relationship between the aboriginal people, the Yukon government and the Government of Canada in this particular process?

It has been said here that it is only to ensure that the aboriginal rights are being protected, but that is not what the legislation says. It says that the minister is given this unilateral power to make this decision.

There is also a provision to introduce legislative time limits for assessments. There is no real necessity for that. In fact, as has been expressed by people who are very familiar with the process, that kind of approach of applying a beginning-to-end timeline was objected to, which is interesting, because we would think that a timeline would actually speed up the consultation and assessment process.

For example, Millie Olsen, Deputy Chief of First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, said:

YESAA currently has timelines for assessors to review each iteration. This approach encourages proponents to prepare comprehensive applications that minimize iterations. Proponents who prepare adequate applications quickly are rewarded under the current process because they can proceed quickly.

On the other hand, the Bill S-6 approach of applying a beginning-to-end timeline will reward proponents who prolong the adequacy review phase by using up time with multiple iterations. The approach will penalize assessors and reviewers like first nations because it will shorten the most important public review phase, infringing on our right for comprehensive reviews of projects.

That is how the distortion and arguments occur, where the proponents of Bill S-6 say there will be timelines for certainty but the timelines actually serve to choke off public consultation and prevent the actual meat of the review process, which is consultation with the aboriginal people. That is obviously nefarious. In fact, Mr. Felix Geithner, Director of the Tourism Industry Association of Yukon, called Bill S-6 “a shoddy piece of legislation”. He said it:

...sows discord rather than the certainty it sets out to create. More than this, the proponents of this bill have set an adversarial tone in Yukon with Yukon first nations and a number of key organizations and businesses....

Therefore, when we are talking about legislation that is supposed to be designed to improve things, actually going the other way, which comes from Ottawa, not from Yukoners themselves, then we know there is a problem with Bill S-6.

Why is it called Bill S-6? It is because it originated in the other place. I do not know why the legislation is coming here from the Senate. Why is it not coming from the House of Commons? It is appalling that we have a system where the Senate of Canada is initiating legislation and we get it afterward. It has done the sober second thought first. I am not sure how that works. What are we doing? We are doing the sober second thought on the Senate.

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about support from the people of Yukon, but the director of the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon is on record objecting to this legislation, saying that the existing rules have been a model for the country and now we have something going on, which would change the arrangements that have existed for some time. He says:

From TIA Yukon's perspective, Bill S-6 is a shoddy piece of legislation that sows discord rather than the certainty it sets out to create. More than this, the proponents of this bill have set an adversarial tone in Yukon with Yukon first nations and a number of key organizations and businesses through their attempt to ram it through without adequate consultation. Consultation requires twoway communication. If one party doesn't believe that there was adequate consultation, then there was not adequate consultation.

I could read other quotes from industry players from mining operations, people who are quite dissatisfied with this process, that the certainty the bill claims will not arrive and will, in fact, make things worse and not better. What does the member have to say to that?

[National Defence, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the minister refuses to recognize the clear evidence of a need for fundamental change in how the military justice system deals with sexual assault. He has also refused to provide a clear legal framework for our troops in Iraq, despite our having been there for nine months. The minister has failed to secure a status of forces agreement. The United States has one. In fact, they would not stay in Afghanistan without one. Such an agreement could have been an important matter in the wake of Sergeant Doiron's tragic death.

Why does Canada not have this basic and vital agreement in place now?

[National Defence, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans have one, but we do not. The women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve better.

Canadians were shocked today to find out that the Chief of the Defence Staff issued orders precluding the adoption of key recommendations of the Deschamps report. This would be a betrayal of the victims of sexual assault and harassment who came forward, shared their experiences, and called for change.

The minister needs to exercise his authority and take responsibility. Will he guarantee that the Canadian Armed Forces will establish an independent body to handle sexual misconduct, yes or no?

[Foreign Affairs, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, a status of forces agreement is critical to ensure that there are clear rules that protect our soldiers and surround our military involvement in a foreign country. We have asked repeatedly when this agreement would be concluded with Iraq, as far back as September. Now it turns out that there is no agreement at all, and a meeting last week just does not cut it.

We are not talking about a one-month training mission. We have already been there eight months, and Canada is going to be in Iraq, including on the front lines, for at least another year.

Why has the minister failed to secure such a vital and basic agreement?

[Privilege, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, clearly that is what New Democrats want the committee to look at. What are the first principles on access to the precinct, whether it be to the House for a vote, as was pointed out, or to one's office, whether it be in the Confederation Building or here? These are fundamental to the operation of our legislative system.

There is even the question of buses. If we cut down the number of buses, it is hard to get from one place to another in the middle of winter, because sleet, a storm, or whatever is going on. That impedes access too. Maybe the rules need to be adjusted to ensure that members are able to come for a vote.

Yes, the fundamental question has to be there. This is an extremely important question of privilege and is a real opportunity and a timely opportunity for Parliament to engage with this question. New Democrats look to the committee to provide some leadership and hear from anyone in Parliament who wants to make representations as well as experts and those who know the traditions of Parliament.

[Privilege, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hit on an essential point. The separation of powers is extremely important in our Constitution, and frankly, to our freedom. Our freedom as a nation depends on the separation of powers between the executive branch and the parliamentary branch.

We do not have that as stringently as they do, for example, in a republican system like in United States, where they have the executive in the White House, with the cabinet chosen by him and ratified by parliament, and then they have Congress and the Supreme Court. There is a structural separation of powers. We have a different system, in some ways better, because members of the executive sit over here in the front row or second row, or wherever, on the other side, and they are responsible and accountable to Parliament directly.

We have a different system, but because there is this intimacy, so to speak, between the executive and the legislative branch, it is all the more important to make sure that there are bright black lines between the executive authority and the House of Commons, or the legislative branch. We should, in this case, examine that to see where those bright black lines need to be.

[Privilege, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, first I would say to the hon. member that when this incident I referred to took place in 1987, there were 295 members of Parliament. There will be 338 members come the fall. I do not know if the member speaks to the pages, but they seem to know everyone by name. That is part of their job. They learn that in the orientation session one or two weeks before they start. The constables representing the House know who everyone is. The question is whether it is necessary for security. I do not know.

The pins are security pins. They have numbers on the back. I have only once had someone say, when I showed my pin, that he needed to see my ID, even though that person should have had access to a book with all the names in it. The person apologized and said he was new here and had come just the previous week.

That is one of the issues we have with the rotation in and out for a one-week period or a two-week period of various security officials on the Hill. That is a problem. If they are only here for one or two weeks, it is a problem. They need to know this place and who they are here to secure.

That is a security question. However, the answer is that the more they know, the better job they can do and the more secure the place they are guarding is, particularly if they are trying to balance access to the House and access by the public as well.