OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 046 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, February 11, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 11, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 046 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 046 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 046 (Version officielle) 147 046 11 02 2014 2014/02/11 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) Bill S-3. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions The Environment Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on climate change, our most pressing environmental issue and perhaps the defining issue of our generation. It will profoundly affect our economy, health, lifestyle, and social well-being. How we respond will define the world that our children and their descendants grow up in.

The petitioners call upon the government to table a comprehensive climate change plan; commit to attaining the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are supported internationally; and contribute its fair share to fill the megatonne gap, the shortfall between existing mitigation commitments and the emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change. Anaphylaxis Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from constituents in the province of Saskatchewan in regard to reducing the risk for anaphylactic passengers.

They draw attention to the House that on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, members of Parliament voted unanimously in support of the anaphylaxis motion, Motion No. 230, which states: That, in the opinion of the House, anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians and the government should take the appropriate measures necessary to ensure these Canadians are able to maintain a high quality of life.

Therefore, the Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative and the petitioners request that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risk for anaphylactic passengers that is applicable to all forms of passenger transportation within its jurisdiction.

Gatineau Park Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to table two petitions. The first petition is with respect to quite a few people who have signed petitions with respect to Gatineau Park. They are asking the government to adopt legislation giving Gatineau Park the necessary legal protection to ensure its preservation for future generations. Given that there are so many endangered species and animals in this park that need to be protected, the petitioners are asking the government to do that.

Public Transit Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one that my colleague from Trinity—Spadina has put a lot of energy into. It is with respect to a national public strategy. We are the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18-billion gap in that area. The petitioners know what public transit means to communities.

They are asking the government to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit; to establish a funding mechanism; to work together with all levels of government for sustainable, predictable, and adequate funding; and to establish accountability measures.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by many constituents from my riding of Hull—Aylmer in relation to protecting Gatineau Park. The park currently has no legal protection. It is important that Parliament pass a law to protect our park, which is a gem, not only for the municipality, but also for the nation's capital and Canada as a whole.

[ English ] Prairie Shelterbelt Program Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to present a number of petitions on behalf of people across the Prairies in support of maintaining the shelterbelt. The petitioners are calling upon the Prime Minister to reverse the defunding decision for the shelterbelt program so that it continues. It is an essential program for farmers and westerners. They would like to see this continue until they can take it over. They request that funding be reintroduced.

[ Translation ] Mining Industry Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition today regarding the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. This ombudsman would have the capacity to investigate complaints; assess compliance with corporate accountability standards that are based on international labour, environmental and human rights norms; make public its findings; recommend remedial actions; and recommend sanctions by the Government of Canada, such as withholding financial and political support to any company that does not comply with standards.

(1010) Public Transit Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to present a petition today that calls on the federal government to adopt a national public transit strategy. As everyone knows, Canada is the only G8 country without such a strategy. It is extremely important for the people of Alfred-Pellan, the eastern part of Laval. There are many issues with public transit in that area, especially with buses. As well, the Train de l'Est commuter train was supposed to run through the riding.

I know that many people in the eastern part of Laval would be pleased to see a national public transit strategy put in place to facilitate transit, be it for suburban areas or for more urban or rural areas. This is something that is very important to us.

[ English ] Fisheries Act Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today. The first petition is from citizens across Canada who say that

whereas habitat refers to the water or land necessary for the survival of all species, including fish, and that habitat destruction is the most common reason for species decline and extinction, and weakening of habitat protections in

section 35 of the Fisheries Act will negatively impact Canada's waters, and quality of fisheries, and the changing of the wording of the Fisheries Act or laws affecting the health of Canada's ecosystems must be based on the best science available.

Whereas it is critical that any changes to the Fisheries Act not jeopardize the ecosystems in which we, and future generations, depend, simply to provide short-term profit for a few, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to keep

section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act as it is currently written with its emphasis on— The Speaker : I would remind the hon. member that it is not the practice of the House to read the petitions, but to provide a

summary. I see he has one or two more, so I would urge him to provide a very brief

summary to the House.

Public Transit Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from thousands of Canadians. The petitioners say that 92¢ per dollar paid in taxes goes to the federal and provincial governments, not to municipalities that operate most transit services. They call on the government to provide long-term funding to provide access to public transit across Canada and a substantial down payment in the upcoming budget.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from thousands of Canadians across the country calling on a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present two petitions. The first relates to the ongoing investigation of the calls that were made, generally referred to as robocalls, in 2011. It is a timely petition because, as we know, Bill C-23 actually has a good regime. One part of Bill C-23 that I like is the part that deals with regulating robocalls. The petitioners in this case are from the Ottawa area and some from British Columbia. They are calling for a full inquiry to get to the bottom of what occurred in 2011.

Justice Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition also comes from constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands calling for this House to reject any bill that involves mandatory minimum sentences. The petitioners cite numerous studies from around the world that mandatory minimum sentences are not effective as a deterrent but actually drive up the cost of the criminal justice system and are unfair to our youth.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders Northwest Territories Devolution Act Bill C-15. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15,

An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations , as reported (with amendment) from the committee. [ English ] Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : There are five motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-15 .

The chair has received word from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that she does not wish to proceed with Motions Nos. 2 and 3. Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to the House. (1015) [ English ] Motions in Amendment Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : moved: Motions Nos. 4 and 5 Motion No. 4 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 136. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 137. He said: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to begin my comments on the proposed amendments by congratulating my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic . I would like to start by congratulating my friend and colleague the member for Western Arctic for the extraordinary work he has done and the leadership he has shown in this file. The amendments proposed would delete clauses 136 and 137 of Bill C-15 , and it is important to get on the record to explain why. This is quasi-constitutional work that we are doing here today.

As the House knows, the travaux préparatoires and the debates follow this type of amendment if it ever has to interpreted by the courts in the future. The people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like powers for decades. The NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the NWT in taking over federal responsibilities in the north. At the same time, Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod and his team of negotiators should be congratulated for achieving this significant evolution in the governance of the Northwest Territories.

Bill C-15 would provide the people of the NWT with something that we who live in the provinces take for granted: control over what happens on our land and the ability to profit from the development of our natural resources. In less than 50 years, governance in the Northwest Territories has evolved from a colonial administration run by a committee of bureaucrats here in Ottawa to a fully elected and accountable government. I have had a chance to meet the members and the premier, to visit them in their House. The evolution they have gone through is quite extraordinary.

Therefore, Bill C-15 is a major step in that evolution, which the NDP fully supports. [ Translation ] For those of us who live in the provinces, it is only natural that we control our own resources. However, that was not the case for the Northwest Territories.

The preparatory work is often consulted by the courts when there is a constitutional matter at issue, or in this case quasi-constitutional, since this will affect the very foundation of how a territorial government is organized. [ English ] Unfortunately, the Conservative insistence that changes to the regulatory process be included in Bill C-15 is contrary to a respectful nation to nation process when dealing with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada. This, for the NDP, is crucial.

An NDP government would make sure that no decision taken at our cabinet table would fail to respect first nations treaty rights, inherent rights, and Canada's international obligations. The changes to the system of land and water boards, created through first nation land claim agreements, are disrespectful to the Dene and Métis of the Northwest Territories. The Conservatives heard over and over from the NWT's aboriginal governments and many concerned residents that they did not support these changes, but the Conservatives, unfortunately, were deaf to these concerns.

However, as a number of first nations have raised concerns about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we proposed amendments based on these concerns during the committee review, to make sure that Bill C-15 meets northerners' expectations. Our member for Western Arctic tried splitting the bill at committee so that we would not impede devolution but allow for a full debate on the more controversial changes to the MVRMA. Once again, we are trying to find workable solutions, but the Conservatives are up to their old tricks.

At report stage, we are moving that clauses 136 and 137, creating a single regulatory board for lands and waters and eliminating the regional land and water boards, be deleted. These sections would eliminate the current system of regional land and water regulatory boards and change the structure of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to an 11 member board with a chair appointed by the federal minister. This system was created as part of the implementation for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu land claim agreements, and the Tlicho lands, resources, and self-government agreement.

However, by unilaterally changing this system, the Conservatives are ignoring the spirit and intent of these modern day treaties. The original system consisted of three regional land and water boards corresponding to the three settled land claim areas, and the Mackenzie Valley board for projects that span more than one region or are located in areas where there is no settled land claim. This system gives the people, particularly aboriginal people, of the Northwest Territories a voice in how their land and waters are developed.

It is for that reason that the official opposition, the New Democrats, believes that these sections should be deleted. Let the good parts go through. Have the proper debate. Develop a respectful nation to nation approach. That is the way for the future.

(1020) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has continued to spread misinformation about the bill. If he had read the sections of the land claims agreements he spoke of, particularly sections 25.4.6 of the Sahtu agreement, 24.4.6 of the Gwich'in agreement, and 22.4.1 of the Tlicho land claim agreement, he would have seen that they all clearly and specifically contemplate a larger board, which is what the bill would implement.

He also mentioned that he spoke with Premier Bob McLeod. The premier is in full agreement that the bill proceed as it is currently structured. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition why he will not take the word of Bob McLeod. Why will he not let this bill go ahead? It is clearly in order. It is clearly what the people of the NWT are looking for, so why do we not just get on with the job? Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, here is what is no longer in order in Canada: failure to fully respect, recognize, and work with first nations. That is part of our colonial past.

As I said during my remarks, we will be backing those parts of the bill that would provide for devolution. That is a step in the right direction. What is a step backward is imposing this type of regulatory model on people who had agreements. It is not because the premier or anyone else says it can go through in that form that we are allowed to simply ride roughshod over the concerns of first nations, and the Supreme Court has told us this time and again. The problem with the Conservative approach, of course, is their bundling, as they like to do in their budgets and budget implementation acts.

They will put some things in that people agree with, like the devolution aspect, and then they will put some things in that they know are controversial and divisive. That is the approach the Conservatives take. We will take the following approach. Every decision an NDP government will take on first nations issues will be respectful of treaty rights, inherent rights, and Canada's international obligations. This bill does not. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would comment on what Premier McLeod said in committee about the

section on the MVRMA. He said: This is federal legislation, so why would we have an open discussion in our territorial legislature? The federal institution is there for federal legislation. That's what the House of Commons is there for. That's what you are there for. We're not here to debate federal legislation. We debate our own territorial legislation. To me, this does not sound like a premier who has agreed to and has the support of his legislative assembly for the changes contemplated for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

In fact, what he has said repeatedly is that we will have a commitment that will be reviewed after five years. What he says, and what has happened here, is that the territorial government has been put in a place where, if they want devolution, they will have to accept those changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In this type of negotiation between the federal and territorial government, how does it make anyone feel when we have this kind of heavy-handed action taking place?

(1025) Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, again, I congratulate my friend and colleague, the member of Parliament for Western Arctic , for his extraordinary work and the respect he has on all sides in this discussion. Of course, Premier McLeod made that statement. It is a reflection of exactly what the NDP is saying here today. The Conservatives, by bundling these changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, are in fact holding devolution hostage to the acceptance of those changes. We are asking them to play this frankly and openly. Remove those parts and deal with them separately.

Indeed, if they have a guarantee for review in five years, let us start looking at what is necessary now. Every Canadian is concerned about how we are doing resource extraction and water management in this country. The federal government has an obligation. It is not an option. It has an obligation to watch out for the water resources in this country. The Conservatives have not been following that obligation. They have not been respecting it. We are concerned that this is an attempt to force the Northwest Territories to agree to this.

That is exactly what Premier McLeod was saying in his statements in committee, which is that they are about devolution. That is what he and his government are trying to get, and by the way, the sections we are discussing here today are our problem. That is why we are talking about it. I do not agree when the Conservatives try to impugn the motives of the opposition when they say that we should be listening to Premier McLeod. I return the invitation to listen to Premier McLeod. He is saying that this is a matter for the federal Parliament. This is our job. Let us remove this

section that has nothing to do with devolution and deal with it separately. That is what the people of the Northwest Territories want, and that is what the official opposition wants. Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously we will be rejecting the amendments that have been put forward, because they would undermine the entire purpose of the bill, which is to devolve a regulatory system that is modern, efficient, and effective for the Northwest Territories.

This government's long-standing priority has been creating jobs and increasing economic growth. Later today, the House will hear our Minister of Finance deliver economic action plan 2014. Before that happens, the House will consider a game-changing and historic bill that would serve to do just that. Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, would create jobs and economic growth for northerners and all Canadians.

Nearly seven years ago, under Canada's northern strategy, our government, under the impressive leadership of our Prime Minister , committed to securing our northern sovereignty, promoting prosperity for northerners, protecting our Arctic environmental heritage, and giving the people of the north a greater say in their own affairs. We have come a long way since then in implementing this northern strategy. Bill C-15 would help us further realize these goals by ensuring that the people of the Northwest Territories have greater control over their resources and decision-making.

On June 25, 2013, this government made an historic promise to the people of the Northwest Territories and to all Canadians. We signed the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories and five aboriginal partners: the Innuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territories Métis Nation, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, and the Tlicho Government.

Bill C-15 would bring this agreement into effect and would ensure that the people of the Northwest Territories have the tools they need to manage their own lands and resources and to ensure the long-term prosperity of their territory in a way that only they know best. As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development stated in the House this past December: This is a critical juncture not only in the political and economic evolution of the Northwest Territories, but also in the constitutional development of our great country.

Our government wants to help the people of the Northwest Territories achieve their rightful place in Canada's future and become full political and economic players in our great country. In order to do that, we must first improve the current regulatory framework. Second, we must put management of the NWT's land and resources under local control and modernize the Northwest Territories Act. Bill C-15 would enable us to accomplish both.

That is why Bill C-15 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to, among other things, establish beginning-to-end time limits for environmental assessments and to introduce life-of-project licensing and regulation-making authority for cost recovery. Second, Bill C-15 would amend the Territorial Lands Act to improve environmental protection by increasing fines and by introducing administrative monetary penalties for violations under the act.

Third, Bill C-15 would modernize the Northwest Territories Waters Act by introducing life-of-projects licences, increased fines, and time limits for the water licence approval process. In making these changes, Bill C-15 would enshrine in law not only an effective regulatory system but one that is also modern, competitive, and consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada and the world.

More specifically, Bill C-15 would align the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and Northwest Territories Waters Act with other federal environmental assessment legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, and would give authority to the Government of Canada to make regulations to recover costs the boards incur while undertaking assessments and licensing reviews.

Finally, reducing the number of boards from four to one would ensure the consistent application of the regulatory framework in the Mackenzie Valley while maintaining a regional presence through proportionate aboriginal representation on the board and through the work of regional panels. I am convinced that all members of the House appreciate that to promote jobs and economic growth, the regulatory climate in the north must be sound and robust. We must ensure that we protect the Arctic's environmental heritage while giving northerners a greater say in their own affairs.

This is a goal we share with Premier Bob McLeod, who explained during his testimony before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development hearings in Yellowknife: We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interest, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development.

(1030) I would also like to highlight the observation I heard in Yellowknife from Chief Harry Deneron, of the Acho Dene Koe, who contrasted the development-rich environment in my province of British Columbia with the dearth of projects due to the regulatory quagmire in his community in the Northwest Territories. He noted: If it's not a safe place to invest for those developers, they're not going to come here. I think that's more the reason we're here today. This is why we are here today, and this is why our government is acting.

These amendments will ensure that the regulatory process in the NWT is strong, effective, and predictable and will attract future investment. At committee two weeks ago, we heard from Rick Meyers, of the Mining Association of Canada, who reiterated the impetus for reducing regulatory red tape by noting: Future development in the Northwest Territories will be dependent on its ability to attract investment. Therefore, the Northwest Territories investment climate will be a highly motivating factor.

Unfortunately, there have been various misunderstandings spread about the legislation, in particular with respect to the improved Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. It has been implied, in particular by my friend across the way, the member for Western Arctic , that the improvements violate the spirit and intent of the settlement agreements signed by Canada and its aboriginal partners. I would reiterate that in

section 25.4.6 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement,

section 24.4.6 of the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, and

section 22.4.1 of the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, they clearly and specifically contemplate one larger board for the Mackenzie Valley. Our government has been proactively consulting with aboriginal groups on these changes for a number of years now. The minister specifically empowered John Pollard, a northerner, to undertake the consultation process. Mr. Pollard held over 50 meetings with aboriginal groups, industry, and other stakeholders over the course of his mandate.

A number of concerns raised by aboriginal groups, such as representation by regional nominees on committees considering projects taking place in a specific region, were included in the legislation as a direct result of these consultations. Quite simply, the Northwest Territories devolution act would ensure that the regulatory regime the people of the Northwest Territories would work with would be efficient and effective for generations to come. In addition, Bill C-15 would also make important changes to the Northwest Territories Act.

The act guides the very governance of the territory and acts as a cornerstone of the territory's legal framework, a framework of which the new land and resource management will soon be a part. It would update the authorities of the territory's legislature and would remove the paternalistic role played thus far by the federal government. In addition, it would give the legislature of the Northwest Territories authority to govern for itself its size, oaths, and rules of procedure.

It would also give the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories the authority to manage immigration and to enter into agreements with the territorial, provincial, or federal government. It would also remove archaic provisions, provisions that are no longer relevant to the modern Northwest Territories. Ultimately, with this bill, the people most affected by decisions would now be the ones to make them.

People with intimate knowledge of local priorities, local opportunities, and local challenges would be the ones to have the final word on how public land is utilized, how water resources are managed, how mineral resources are developed and conserved, and how the environment is protected. I cannot overstate the significance of this change for the ability of the Northwest Territories to determine its own political and economic future.

By passing the bill, we can make the people of NWT true partners in Canada's current and future prosperity, partners who are fully invested in the responsible use of their territory's resources, fully engaged in the policy decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods, and fully equipped to determine their own destinies. I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-15 and its swift passage. Together let us help northerners continue to build our great nation.

(1035) Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across, who had the opportunity to hear testimony in Yellowknife in front of the standing committee. It was overwhelming testimony about the desire to not get rid of the regional boards. He mentioned Chief Harry Deneron. Chief Deneron actually lives in a region where there is no settled land claim. Any regulatory work done in that region is done under the larger board, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, not under a regional board.

In fact, it was quite clearly identified by almost everyone who dealt with the regulatory system that they wanted to settle the land claims first. They said that it was one of the major components of why they do not have success in the Dehcho region, where Chief Harry Deneron resides. I would ask my colleague if he would explain why he is using this example of a chief who is in region that does not have a regional board, that serves under a central board, as the example of why he should get rid of the regional boards. Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, the testimony of Chief Deneron was very compelling.

He spoke about how he currently flies into Fort St. John to conduct his business, and he said that one can see the lights of the development stop at the artificial Northwest Territories border, because the developers simply do not have confidence in the current regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories. We heard time and again that the investment climate, the regulatory process in the Northwest Territories, prevents investor confidence.

That is why we want to continue down the road of regulatory improvement, because we know that an efficient, effective, predictable regime for regulation will encourage development and will encourage the economy of the Northwest Territories. That is what we on this side of the House will continue to pursue. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that good-quality regulation in terms of dealing with the issues of land and water management is absolutely critical for the development of our north, as has been demonstrated even in our 10 different provinces from coast to coast.

The issue in

part is that there needs to be the sense that the government has done its job in terms of the consultations with the different stakeholders. We have had presentations from different stakeholders, in particular Premier McLeod in regard to some of the concerns he has. There is no doubt that the economic future relies very heavily on the degree to which we are able to see that development of land and natural resources that might be there; for instance, water management controls, in which regulations play a critical role.

To what degree is the government satisfied that it has met the consultation needs to the degree in which there is an overall consensus, something that should have been striven for as a goal? It would seem, from the outside looking in, that the government has not done its job in terms of adequate consultation, and that is the reason we are seeing some resistance in regard to some of the water management issues.

(1040) Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, certainly consultation was a key part of this bill. For over 60 years, there has been a desire for devolution in the territory, and when we talked about the regulatory changes, we also consulted on that. I mentioned the chief negotiator, John Pollard, who held more than 50 meetings in the territory with aboriginal groups, stakeholder groups, and others to get their input. As the result of that input, we actually made changes from the original agreement, which are reflected in Bill C-15 , where we had regional representation when the board travels.

We ensured, based on aboriginal feedback, that there would be local aboriginal representatives on that regional board, so the local knowledge and local input would be received. We continue to consult on all of these files. Certainly on this bill, on the regulatory improvement and on devolution, we consulted widely. We heard from northerners. They want this bill, and it is time to move forward. Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15 . This particular bill is of significant importance to the people of the Northwest Territories, but also to the people of Canada.

The final agreement, as we see it today, would transfer the decision making and administrative control over lands and resources from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories. This agreement has been a long time coming. As we know, it was under the Paul Martin government that the first agreements were signed with the people of the Northwest Territories. Therefore, land devolution has taken quite some time to get to where we are today.

Over the last number of weeks and months, the committee of the House of Commons had the opportunity to read through this legislation and study it more closely, but most importantly, had the opportunity to hear from people across the Northwest Territories, from aboriginal governments, to business organizations, to labour organizations, to mining groups, along with the territorial government itself. In all of the presentations, what we were able to see very clearly was that people have tremendous pride in where they come from. They have a lot of pride as people and residents of the Northwest Territories.

They have a tremendous amount of respect for the land, culture, and each other. That was very evident in the presentations that were made. It was also very evident that these are people who have worked for a very long time to get to a place where they would have more authority over governing themselves, and the right to make decisions in their own territory and lands.

It was an opportunity, probably for the first time in their history, in which they were able to bring the territorial government and all the aboriginal governments of the Northwest Territories together to support what was to be one of the greatest strides they would make for the future of their territory.

I also heard a lot of concern expressed by these individuals over the fact that government was not just introducing a bill of devolution to give back some power and control to the people of the Northwest Territories, but it was introducing amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, amendments they felt were going to weaken the amount of power they had in decision making, amendments that would see a number of their boards amalgamated, allowing fewer people on the boards and, therefore, less input.

There was a lot of concern raised around that particular aspect of the bill, and many questions were directed at the government as to why it would want to amalgamate amendments to both pieces of legislation under Bill C-15 . They never got a clear answer as to why that was happening. Nevertheless, a lot of efforts were made to change it.

I want to acknowledge the work that was done by all of the committee members but certainly by the member for Western Arctic , who proposed a number of amendments in committee to try to change this part of the bill that would meet the expectations and satisfy the concerns that existed among many of the people he represents. Unfortunately, these amendments were not accepted in committee. In addition, I proposed four amendments that were brought forward as a result of the consultations with and presentations from people who live in the Northwest Territories. Those amendments, unfortunately, were not accepted either.

As a result, we are here today dealing with what is, relatively, a very good piece of legislation that was a long time in coming, but it has flaws that could have been fixed and avoided, and yet the government is choosing not to do that. It puts everyone in the chamber in a very difficult position, as it does a lot of people in the Northwest Territories.

(1045) During those committee hearings, I listened to people talk about their concerns about losing control to the federal government through water and land management, and having to give up seats on the board. I also asked them questions about how they would feel if this bill were to come to the House of Commons, and whether they would support it as it is or reject it because these things were not going to be changed.

Almost all the people I put that question to in committee did say they would support the overall devolution and that they realized the importance of that particular piece of the bill to the future of the people of the Northwest Territories and for them to move forward as a region. What is very disheartening is that they feel this is being rammed down their throats. They feel their concerns are not being listened to, and while they want to see devolution and are prepared to accept what is there, as a last resort, they would certainly prefer to see changes.

They are only asking for the opportunity to have fair representation, an equal voice, and more say, to not be controlled by this particular House or by the government in Ottawa but by the Government of the Northwest Territories. It is a very fair request, and it is a request that could have been accommodated by the government opposite. However, it decided not to do that, and that was unfair.

I want to say that, even after all the attempts that were made by me, the member from the Northwest Territories, and others to make amendments to this bill, to try to accommodate the people and the aboriginal governments of the Northwest Territories, they have been to no avail, and that is unfortunate. We cannot ignore the fact that this agreement is necessary and important for the Northwest Territories to move forward. We also heard from the Premier of the Northwest Territories and his government.

When they talked about devolution and the need to have this bill passed, they talked about the fact that delays in passing the bill would have tremendous implications for them as a territory when it came to resource development. We know that we do not want that to happen. As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

We want the Northwest Territories to have the kind of control and decision-making power of which they have long dreamed. We only hope that through the passing of this bill—however flawed it is, as indicated and pointed out—that over time, through co-operation with the Government of Canada, that the territory itself will come to that place where it can have the kind of stability, in terms of decision making, that it seeks right now, and also have a greater control than is currently being offered.

We also know, from our past experience as a Liberal government in negotiating previous deals with Yukon and Nunavut, that it takes time to work through a lot of things that often arise as a result of these agreements. We certainly wish the people of the Northwest Territories the greatest success in achieving the goals they are setting out to achieve, and we want to let them know we are here to support them and help them build the path forward.

(1050) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I hope the member would want to correct the record in her answer. Indeed, the government did accept two NDP amendments at committee. Her amendments, which she claimed were not accepted, were out of order. She failed to bring them forward at this stage, where they would have been in order. We have made changes as we have gone through this bill. We have accepted some of the amendments from the member for Western Arctic . Perhaps the member will clarify that.

The record will clearly show that she did not in fact represent what happened at committee. The member talked about an equal voice, and I want to give her an opportunity to talk about how the Gwich'in, Sahtu, and Tlicho would all have representation on the new board, how the territorial government would make recommendations on additional seats, and how when the board comes together, it would be acting in the whole interest of the Mackenzie Valley, not just the individual settled regions. Perhaps the member would talk about how the new board structure would indeed give voice to those settled land claim areas. Ms.

Yvonne Jones : Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to those questions. First, out of the four amendments that I proposed, only one of them was out of order; the other three were clearly rejected by the government members on the committee. However, they were supported by the members of the NDP, and I certainly would thank them for their support in that regard.

The amendments that were proposed and accepted by the committee members talk about the importance of getting information out to elected officials and stakeholders and as well as meeting the need to have as much information as possible from the commissioner, and so on. We support those particular amendments. Nothing in that really speaks to what a lot of the people have been asking for in many of their presentations, which is for more representation on the Mackenzie Valley water resource and management board.

I want to remind the member opposite that I put forward the amendments to ensure that there was more representation from the Tlicho, the Sahtu, and the other governments when it came to this particular board. We asked not that the size of the board be increased, but that the other three positions be afforded to the aboriginal governments that currently had representation. The government rejected that. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Labrador for her discourse this morning.

It was demonstrated at the hearings in Yellowknife that she actually listens to people and hears what they are saying. An important part of the work that we do in Parliament is to actually hear what the citizens of this country say. Quite clearly, in those hearings in Yellowknife, there was an overwhelming desire for people to leave the regional boards alone. We have not put forward an amendment to delete all the sections within the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

I think we all recognize that the federal government, in giving more powers to the territories, has a responsibility to hold on to some, and it has increased, in many ways, its powers within the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Does my colleague think that the people, the citizens of the north, the first nations, would be satisfied with these amendments? Would they be completely satisfied if the regional boards were put forward as the way to go in the future?

(1055) Ms. Yvonne Jones : Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to me that the aboriginal governments are not satisfied with the composition that is being proposed. They felt that under the current structure, as aboriginal governments, they have more say and more control over the lands upon which they live. What they were asking and pleading for the government to do in that forum in the Northwest Territories was to listen to what they had to say and make the proper changes to the board composition to allow them to have what it was that they desired.

In fact, they would have preferred if the board had been left as it is. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill, a bill that affects my life, the life of my children, the life of my grandchildren, and the lives of all my friends and relatives who live in the Northwest Territories. The bill is part of our life, and we are the only ones who really are affected by the bill. The bill is for us. Our point of view is very important.

I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for standing and speaking to the bill at what all have said in the House is a critical moment in the constitutional development of Canada. I am very pleased that he has taken the time to do that. Devolution is well supported in the Northwest Territories. We do not have to argue about that. We do not have to work very hard on that

section of the bill. We did get one or two amendments that help a little bit and make this bill more equitable throughout the three territories. The contentious

part is the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There is a clear consensus that the one thing that is not appropriate is the change from the regional boards to a superboard. It is inappropriate, counterproductive, divisive, and destabilizing, all the things that we do not want to have happen in the Northwest Territories. These are things that go much beyond the addition of a few extra people sitting on boards that decide the future of the Northwest Territories. This has massive consequences to all. Our amendment today to restore regional boards is a matter that will strengthen Bill C-15 .

It will strengthen devolution. It will ensure stability. It truly is representative of the wishes of the people in the Northwest Territories. I urge the government to support this amendment. This amendment can only help to create a bill that will heap praise on the government's shoulders. By supporting the amendment, the government will show its humanity and its desire to do the right thing. I want to review how we got here, as presented in testimony. The first step in that was with the McCrank report. When Mr. McCrank stood in front of the committee, he admitted that the idea of a superboard was his idea.

There was no one in the Northwest Territories who had suggested that to him. That idea came from him, from an Alberta person who ran the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Of course he thought that the structure should be similar to the one in Alberta, but that is not what we have set out to do in the Northwest Territories. We have set out to have regional governments and aboriginal governments, whether they are Inuvialuit—who are keeping their regional boards, by the way—or the Sahtu, the Tlicho, and the Gwich'in, who have made agreements.

My colleague across talked about contemplation of a single board within the land claims. Contemplation does not mean agreement. Contemplation does not mean that the government can go ahead without full negotiation to change a land claim just because something is contemplated within an agreement. After the McCrank, report the government hired Mr. John Pollard to be its chief federal negotiator. It is interesting that the testimony from the Tlicho indicated that in 2011 they gave the government a protocol framework for negotiating changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

They were willing to work with the government to do the right thing, to make changes, to make the system more efficient. They set out a protocol. That protocol was shelved. In testimony, Mr. Pollard admitted that it was just taken as information. Nothing was done with it. As a result, governments and Mr. Pollard held many meetings, but they were not in any framework that had been agreed upon by the two elements of the land claims, the first nations who have treaty rights and treaty responsibilities to their citizens and the Government of Canada representing the crown.

There was no agreement on how to negotiate changes to these land claims.

(1100) That is where the government falls flat on its face. In the fall of this year, departmental officials then presented bills to the first nations. They presented a separate bill for devolution and a separate bill for the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. They were never taken together. Bertha Rabesca Zoe, legal counsel for the Tlicho government, stated: In that October session I asked the federal officials who were there doing the presentation whether those bills would be bundled as an omnibus bill, and we were never given a response.... Mr.

Daryn Leas, legal counsel for the Sahtu, stated: Never once were the federal devolution negotiators able to provide any substance or details about the Mackenzie Valley legislation in the proposed amendments. That is the state of the consultation that was taking place on this act, Bill C-15 . The process on devolution has been going on for 20 years. The problem we had with devolution was getting first nations governments on side. Premier McLeod accomplished that for devolution. We have heard the testimony of Premier McLeod.

He did not involve the first nations in discussions about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. He said that was not their business. Once again those regulation issues were designed to be kept separate. Today, we have put forward an amendment to bring peace to this issue. Regional boards are working fine today. I quote Mr. Tom Hoefer, executive director of the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, who stated: We recognize that the aboriginal community is validly concerned by the loss of the existing regional panels.

You should know that a number of industry members, especially those who have developed close working relationships with the regional boards, have likewise expressed reservations. Does that sound like industry is offside on the regional boards? It does not. How does this uncertainty serve anyone's purpose? We are likely to be caught up in litigation. We are likely to have a new government in a year and a half. Would members not agree?

We will have to fix these mistakes that have been made here, because the Conservatives' attitude of ignoring the wishes of the people will eventually catch up to them, and they will be thrown out of office. I would say to the Conservatives that they should do their job, listen to people, hear what they have to say, and hear what the people in the Northwest Territories have to say about the laws that affect only us, the laws with respect to how we want to develop. We are asking the Conservatives to listen to us and hear us.

Then, perhaps, if they follow that lesson with us, they may follow it with others and they may find that their political careers can be extended. The north is a great adventure. I have been part of it my whole life. In the end, we will do the right thing. In the end, we will create a territory with a unique and powerful system of government. The Conservatives should join us in doing that. This is a simple amendment that does not change much at all but represents so much to us.

(1105) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with much of what the member for Western Arctic said, I appreciate his passion. He mentioned that there will be a change in government. I think there may be a change in the member for Western Arctic in a year and a half, but we will get on to the question that he talked about. I know the NDP does not support responsible resource development. The member has made numerous comments in that regard.

When we were in Yellowknife, we saw the chart of the exploration funding plummetting off the end of the table because of the uncertainty in the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories. I know that resource development does not concern the NDP. However, he talked as well about the north and this being a decision for northerners. The Government of the Northwest Territories, a consensus government, voted 17 to 1 in favour of devolution.

The premier has said We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interest, allows us to manage our land and environment and promotes responsible development. Can the member explain why his leader said that regulatory improvement is “holding devolution hostage”? Why does the NDP not stop holding this bill hostage and let us deliver to the people of the Northwest Territories what they are looking for? Mr. Dennis Bevington : Mr.

Speaker, those comments are not really worthy of my colleague across the way, who has shown himself to be quite a reasonable fellow most of the time. My colleague knows that is the only thing we are standing up on today. We are saying that if this amendment goes through, we would be very willing and happy to give the Conservative government accolades for what it is doing with this. This is the area of dispute. When the territorial premier spoke about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, he said it was not his responsibility to inform anyone about the federal legislation.

The federal legislation, being the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, was never discussed at the territorial legislative assembly. It was never given air. Therefore, when my colleague suggests that the territorial premier has any mandate to speak about that legislation, quite clearly he said he does not have a mandate to speak about it. The expression of this affair was what happened in Yellowknife in front of the standing committee, and the member knows very well that the people interested in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act spoke up very strongly and said their piece.

I hope he will continue to listen to them. Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his speech today on this particular bill. I know it is very important to him and his constituents. He talked about what we heard in all of the presentations in the Northwest Territories, that being the concern over the regional boards and doing away with the process for the superboard, which would allow less representation for the aboriginal governments, especially for the Gwich’in, the Sahtu, and the Tlicho.

With the passage of this bill without any amendments to the water management board itself, what would be the impact on those three particular aboriginal governments in going forward with the work they have to do for the people in their particular areas?

(1110) Mr. Dennis Bevington : Mr. Speaker, the testimony in front of the committee was that through the regional boards, those three organizations were well represented and those regional boards had delivered environmental regulations in a very effective fashion. That was backed up by the 2010 NWT environmental audit. Those boards were working, and the people had capacity within their own regions to understand the issues surrounding development. That is absolutely the most important thing that can happen for people in a region: to understand what is going on with the development.

When it is clearly expressed and understood by people they trust, that will lead to the efficient development of resources, and that is the case. It is not going to happen if they do not have that trust. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15 ,

an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act. I want members of the House and people who are watching today, especially those in the Northwest Territories, to know that the member for Western Arctic has been a vocal advocate for the Northwest Territories. He is a native, and that shows in his commitment to the people of the Northwest Territories. He has been vocal in bringing their views into the House and addressing some of their concerns, unlike the Conservatives, who have failed to listen to all of the stakeholders that have voiced their concerns in regard to this legislation.

Bill C-15 would transfer more powers to the Northwest Territories. The provinces already look after their resources and their waters. This legislation would amend the Northwest Territories constitution to allow it to make decisions on local interests. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said that the bill is holding hostage the development of resources in the Northwest Territories. My question for him is: What has taken the government so long? The Conservatives have been in government for eight years. They are the ones who are creating this uncertainty.

They could have brought in this devolution legislation a while ago, but they chose not to do that. We on this side of the House totally agree with the Northwest Territories on transferring power in regard to managing its own resources. There is usually a little caveat in each bill that the Conservative government brings in. There is also a caveat in this legislation. This movie has been played over and over again. The government brings in a bill containing a few good things, but there are also a few poison pills in it. This legislation is similar. People in the Northwest Territories want proper devolution.

A lot of people in the Northwest Territories are not too pleased about the proposed changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Of course they want devolution transfer of powers to make local decisions, and that makes sense. We agree with that. We agree with people in the Northwest Territories. We have been advocating for the transfer of more powers to the territories so it can make decisions with local input in its development. Making one trip a year to the Northwest Territories does not mean the Northwest Territories are being looked after.

The Conservatives have had the last eight years to bring this legislation forward, but they did not do that. We are glad that they have finally got it together. This particular bill would basically transfer administrative powers to control of public lands, resources, and rights in respect of waters in the Northwest Territories. There is huge support among the government of the Northwest Territories, first nations, and Métis groups. They wanted this transfer of powers many years ago, and we are glad the government is going to do that.

People in the Northwest Territories are concerned about the proposed changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Their regional boards work very well and make local decisions. This bill would dissolve those local boards and put in a superboard that would look after the Northwest Territories. I would like to quote from a number of people who have expressed concern about the proposed changes to the MVRMA.

Bob Bromley, MLA, in February 2012 pointed out, “The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional”. He went on to say that “a single board does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation”.

(1115) Again, we have seen over and over that when this House makes changes to laws, makes laws, or has legislation in front of it, our responsibility is to consult the stakeholders, to bring in experts and people who are going to be affected. We listen to them, and we make proper legislation that would have maximum benefit for Canadians.

We have seen over and over again where Conservatives fail to consult their stakeholders, people who are going to be affected by particular legislation, and that is the case with this legislation, especially in regard to the changes that would be made to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Over and over we have heard from the hon. member for Western Arctic who has spoken up for the people of Northwest Territories, that the people on the ground were not sure whether the changes to this act were going to be made by two bills: to have the devolution bill, transfer of powers in regard to resources and management control over administration in one bill; and then look at changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act separately. Yet, the Conservatives chose not to do that. I have to hand it to the Conservatives here because they usually do not like amendments.

I have seen thousands of amendments from the opposition parties being defeated in various different bills. With this particular bill, the Conservatives accepted two NDP amendments and that is because of the hard work of the hon. member for Western Arctic . As I have said, he speaks up for people from the Northwest Territories. We have seen the Conservatives not wanting to make changes that people on the ground want.

We have introduced a couple of amendments at the report stage that we would like to see Conservatives support, so they can listen to the very people on the ground who are demanding these changes be made. I am hoping my Conservative colleagues will look at those changes. There are others who have validated in support of devolution, and which we support and have encouraged the government to transfer these powers.

Again, it has taken the Conservatives eight years to get to this point, to make these changes, and we support those because those changes would allow for decisions to be made at a local level, that will have local input, that will provide stability. Of course, it would provide stability for resource development in the Northwest Territories. Here is a quote from Robert McLeod, the Premier of the Northwest Territories. He is supportive of devolution. He said: This Assembly has a vision of a strong, prosperous and sustainable territory. Devolution is the path to that future.

Responsibility for our lands and resources is the key to unlocking the economic potential that will provide opportunities to all our residents. He said this in June 2013 in the legislative assembly. Of course this will provide for prosperity for the Northwest Territories, and the NDP has been advocating for the people of the Northwest Territories. I encourage my hon. colleagues across the aisle to support the amendments that we are proposing so that the people of the Northwest Territories can see a change, can see sustainability, can see resource development, and can have their voices heard in this House.

(1120) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate that northerner from Surrey North for his comments. However, there seemed to be a stunning lack of knowledge on the file, with his speech. The member for Western Arctic has told us to slow down, the Leader of the Opposition said to take it easy, and this member asked why we did not do it the first day we took office, that we should have just rammed it through.

In fact, just the act of moving this implementation one year forward was a herculean task that the department and the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development should be congratulated for. To say we should have done it eight years earlier is just bizarre. The member talked about how well the regulatory system is working in the Northwest Territories. Yes, there are some mines in operation, but the exploration dollars are falling off the end of the table.

The investment dollars are drying up in that area, and we want to devolve a regulatory system that is efficient and effective. Is the hon. member's opposition to responsible resource development so strong that he wants to keep in place a regulatory regime that actually discourages investment? Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr. Speaker, there we go again. The Conservatives are making up more of their own facts and figures as to whether we are for or against development. I can assure the member that we are for responsible, sustainable development in the Northwest Territories.

Regarding his question on speeding up or slowing down the process, New Democrats have always supported more resource management at the local level in the Northwest Territories. We have encouraged the government to do that. What we are not comfortable with right now, because of the voices raised at the local level, are the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

It is very clear that these two different policy changes should have been debated separately so that the stakeholders and the people affected could have had their voices heard and their say regarding the changes they would prefer to the two pieces of legislation. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, as it is the first time I have taken the floor this morning, I would particularly like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Western Arctic for his leadership on this file. The Green Party was able to put forward a number of amendments in committee. They were also defeated.

I would also thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North , who took the fight there. I am very disappointed by this bill, as I know all members on the opposition benches are. We want to see devolution for the Northwest Territories and the rights and the process that have gone on for some years. In response to the question asked of my colleague from Surrey North by the parliamentary secretary, of course they had eight years to bring forth the part that we all agree on.

What we do not understand is why it is being shoved down the throats of first nations in the Northwest Territories: the Tlicho, the Sahtu, and the Gwich'in. Why on earth would the government take apart these regional boards? They have worked well. My question for my hon. colleague is what is it that the Conservatives cannot understand about the numerous Supreme Court decisions that explain clearly that first nations have constitutionally enshrined rights that require the federal government not only to touch base, but also to engage in specific detailed constitutional consultations?

What about the Supreme Court decisions in Delgamuukw, and Haida? What is it about them that the Conservative Party cannot understand?

(1125) Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks why the Conservatives do not respect the decisions made by the Supreme Court. It is not only that they do not respect these decisions, which we saw in the House during the last Parliament where they were making laws that constitutional experts said were unconstitutional, but also the very stakeholders the legislation would affect. I agree with the member on the changes we do agree with.

We agree with the devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories, but the Conservatives bring a poison pill in the changes to the boards under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act without any consultation, or at least without hearing from the people on the ground in the Northwest Territories whether they want these changes or not. The Conservatives fail to see the very changes they are proposing and how these are going to affect the ability of the local people to make their own decisions. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very honoured to speak to the bill, an important bill for our team. I also want to acknowledge the very hard work of my colleague and friend, the member for Western Arctic . I have had the opportunity to work with him for a number of years, in fact since I was first elected to this House just over five years ago. As a northerner myself, I have always admired his commitment to the people of his territory and, more broadly, to the people of the north.

He and I have found common ground on many issues, or perhaps it is that the bond tying all of us from the north together is the recognition that northern people must have control over what is theirs, over their territories, over decisions that matter to them, over their government. I know very well that this same notion has guided the work of the member for Western Arctic , day in and day out in the House, and also on this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-15 .

As a northerner and a northern member of Parliament, I know the importance of working with first nations, not just working with them in a symbolic way but respecting their rights, their treaty rights and inherent rights as aboriginal peoples, and that their rights, including their right to self-government, are instrumental in guiding the work of the federal government. This is not simply something that we recognize on paper. This is someone we enact in our work, certainly in our party, and which guides us in our work on the ground. I know that to be the case in my province of Manitoba.

What it also means is speaking truth when legislation comes to the House that disrespects those very rights. I wish I could say that Bill C-15 was the first example of the federal government turning a blind eye to treaty and inherent rights, but it is not. We have seen piece after piece of legislation going after those rights, disrespecting them and the absolute centrality of consultation with first nations. Once again, unfortunately, we are seeing this unfold with Bill C-15 . The member for Western Arctic , our leader, and NDP members of Parliament have said that devolution is absolutely necessary.

For years the Northwest Territories has worked for this goal. People have worked hard and the people of the Northwest Territories deserve what so many other Canadians and northern Canadians have, which is a say in their destiny, in their future. However, Bill C-15 , as it stands, also neglects a very important relationship between the crown and first nations directly. Unfortunately, if Bill C-15 passes, the treaty rights of first nations in the NWT, the aboriginal rights of aboriginal people in the NWT, would not have the same kinds of protection and recognition as others, and certainly as they ought to have.

It is not our saying this. The member for Western Arctic is representing people in his constituency, people like Jake Heron from the Métis nation, who, speaking on the consultation process, said: It’s very frustrating when you are at the table and you think you’re involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously. Gabrielle Mackenzie Scott from the Tlicho government said: Our key message to AANDC is that there is nothing wrong with the system, and it needs time to grow and improve.

Bob Bromley, an MLA, said: The federal government's proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. ...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation. Mr. Speaker, we have heard people from the Gwich'in Tribal Council commenting on their opposition to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act. They said: We have a land-use plan. We have a land and water board. We have a claim. People know the process, and it works very well up here.

It's only in the unsettled claim areas that there seems to be concern with the regulatory regimes and the speed with which they process applications, or lack of speed.

(1130) John B. Zoe, the senior advisor to the Tlicho government, also commented on the lack of consultation: We’re saying we should have a deeper involvement and have a say and have our voices heard on what those changes are, because that’s a three-party agreement that was made in 2005. It is clear that accepting the linkage of the two distinctly different legislative bills affecting the Northwest Territories betrays important first nations. I want to relate a news story from the Northwest Territories yesterday.

It notes that the agreement in this form betrays the Sahtu, Tlicho, and Gwich'in governments, who all worked with the government of the Northwest Territories until they had built the trust to sign onto devolution. We have the power to stop that betrayal.

We have the power and the federal government have the power to deviate from this pattern that the Conservative government has undertaken, that governments before it have undertaken, frankly, since colonization: that the federal government knows best and that the rights of first nations and aboriginal people are secondary, and that if they are disrespected, it is okay. I am proud to be part of the NDP, which represents many northern people across our country. Our party believes that treaty rights and inherent aboriginal rights not only must be respected but also must guide our work every step of the way.

Full consultation is key to coming up with any legislation that would affect indigenous people's futures. We do not tolerate the paternalistic approach of the Conservative government. While we recognize that everyone in the House agrees that devolution must happen, and in a timely way given the tremendous amount of work that the leaders and people of the Northwest Territories have done, this cannot preclude the work we must do in respecting first nations and their inherent rights.

We are asking that devolution go forward with the exception of the parts of the bill that directly impose on first nations and their inherent rights. We should do better, help create a system of devolution, and support the kind of devolution that everyone in the Northwest Territories wants, and not just some people but everyone, including having first nations at the centre of this system. I am very honoured to have been able to speak to the bill.

I am very honoured to stand in this House and represent northern people who deserve nothing more than to be heard, to have their rights respected, and to have control over their destiny in our country.

(1135) Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill claimed that the NDP is in favour of devolution and pointed out that the people of western Arctic have worked for years on this goal. Yet in the next breath the NDP would use the premise of there not being enough consultation to try to derail and stall this very important piece of legislation. I want to point out that the amount of consultation undertaken is never enough for the NDP.

I wonder if the member is aware that the existing land claim agreements allow for a single board to serve the entire Mackenzie Valley and that the board restructuring was first recommended in 2008. Since 2010, this approach has been extensively discussed during negotiations with aboriginal groups and the chief federal negotiator, John Pollard. The restructured board would consist of 11 members appointed from candidates nominated by aboriginal groups from the settled and unsettled areas, the government of the Northwest Territories, as well as by Canada.

This bill has seen extensive negotiations with aboriginals and I would like the member opposite to comment please. Ms. Niki Ashton : Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again that the government does not actually know what consultation with indigenous peoples means, whether it is on Bill C-15 or other pieces of legislation that affect indigenous people directly. What we are talking about here is preventing parts of a piece of legislation that directly disrespect first nations and inherent rights. This is not an issue that is secondary.

If we are going to support a proper avenue to devolution, it must include respect for treaty and inherent rights, with respect to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and with respect to the position of first nations in the NWT vis-à-vis the federal government. We in the NDP believe this is a critical point. It is a non-negotiable point. It connects to our principle, the principle that is very clearly not held by the Conservative government, which is that first nations and aboriginal rights must be respected. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague hit the nail right on the head, in response to the Conservative member's question. Here is a letter from the Tlicho government. It says: Canada has failed to recognize the unique constitutional reality in the NWT created by land claims agreements. It cannot be legislated in a manner that is inconsistent with these modern treaties. This is not just about “consultation”. It is about ensuring that legislative choices are constitutionally sound and do not breach constitutionally protected treaty rights or undermine the purpose and intent of our Agreement.

We have heard this on a number of occasions during the testimony on the study. I happen to sit on the aboriginal affairs committee. We have seen people come and testify before the committee, and their comments are basically dismissed by the government even though these are the people who are living it on the ground. Maybe my colleague could expand on the need to listen to the people of the Northwest Territories and whether or not we are going to be seeing more and more Canadian dollars wasted on legislation that is not constitutional. Ms. Niki Ashton : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague, also a fellow northerner, for raising this important concern that was raised by the Gwich'in. Not only are we very concerned that the government is about to spend significant money on a devolution process that has some real faults, faults that we could separate from the bill and prevent, but there is also the possibility of litigation. The government has a dark history of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigating first nations, some of the peoples in this country who have the least money.

Somehow the government chooses to fight them in court, and instead of sitting at the table and finding a solution when the time is right, like now, it will do it in the courts. That is unacceptable. We in the NDP believe that first nations and inherent rights are integral to the work we do, integral to the work of the Northwest Territories devolution system, and we will not waiver from that position. (1140) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15 .

Before I begin, I would like to thank two people who worked extremely hard on this bill. First of all, I wish to thank our leader, the hon. member for Outremont , for his support and for listening to the Government of the Northwest Territories, the groups affected by these changes and first nations groups. The hon. member for Outremont moved an extremely important motion today concerning clauses 136 and 137 of the bill. I will come back to this point. I would also like to extend sincere thanks to my hon. colleague from Western Arctic for the incredible job he has done.

He has done an enormous amount of work, both in committee and during consultations with the affected groups. This issue is very important to the member; it affects him personally, since he represents the Northwest Territories. He was born there and knows this file very well. My colleague from Western Arctic is truly committed to representing his constituents, which he does admirably, and I thank him for his work. The NDP believes in a fairer, greener and more prosperous world. We believe in the fair, sustainable and responsible use of our natural resources.

The NDP believes that we can create better bills by consulting and listening to the public and to interest groups. We also believe that the best way to work with the first nations is to adopt a nation to nation attitude and approach—not a paternalistic approach. When the NDP forms the government in 2015, we will honour the existing international treaties. That is why we take Bill C-15 very seriously. Today, the leader of the NDP moved motions to delete clauses 136 and 137 of Bill C-15 so that they can be examined separately from the bill.

No one here is against virtue, and almost everyone agrees that Bill C-15 generally makes sense. That is why we would like to separate clauses 136 and 137. We have some concerns with these clauses, as do the people who will be affected by Bill C-15 . We want to ensure that Bill C-15 meets the expectations of northerners, among others, and we will address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the Conservatives' plan to include changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Indeed, the problem with Bill C-15 is precisely the part regarding the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

What are clauses 136 and 137? I want to talk about them for the benefit of the Canadians who are watching today's debate in the House. These clauses would create a single land and water regulatory board and would eliminate the regional land and water boards. All of the land and water boards would be merged to create a single board. The Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories is very concerned about this, since the existing boards work very well.

I want to share something that Bob Bromley, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, said in February 2012: The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation. Existing land and water boards in the Northwest Territories are working well. He is not the only person to have expressed concerns.

(1145) Later, I would like to quote others who are concerned about these provisions in Bill C-15 . Today in the House, we are wondering why we cannot debate these provisions separately. That is why our leader, the member for Outremont , moved a motion to delete them from Bill C-15, to study them thoroughly, to undertake appropriate consultations with the people who will be affected in the Northwest Territories and with first nations communities, and to adopt a nation to nation approach to these changes. We must listen to northerners' concerns about clauses 136 and 137.

The New Democrats want to delete these provisions from the bill, vote unanimously for Bill C-15 , and pass the rest of the measures in Bill C-15 separately. I also want to say that we, the NDP, strongly support devolution of other powers to the territorial governments. That is extremely important. I am from a province, not a territory, so I live in a place that has more powers than the territories. Honestly, when I found out that the Northwest Territories did not manage its own natural resources, I was a little surprised. I would like to go into more detail about how it works with the provinces.

For decades, people in the Northwest Territories have been trying to get more province-like powers. The NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the Northwest Territories in taking over some federal responsibilities in the north. The Northwest Territories knows best how its resources ought to be used, and ultimate authority should rest with it. This is so important. It makes complete sense for the NWT to control its own natural resources. I am pretty young, and not long ago, I completed an undergraduate degree in political science and environmental geography.

During my early university years, I did an internship with Quebec's department of natural resources and wildlife in Mont-Laurier. I would like to say hi to the folks in Mont-Laurier. That experience changed my life. I had the chance to work on different projects for an entire summer. Among other things, I worked on natural resource management, chiefly with regard to land, forests, lakes and the fishery. It was a wonderful experience and I learned a great deal. The thing that struck me the most during that experience is how respectful the people who work in natural resources are.

The people I worked with had the onerous task of implementing new legislation. This meant taking a completely different management approach to forests, with regard to logging. They took this extremely seriously. I witnessed the implementation of this legislation, and I saw how the workers and the scientists worked together to fully respect the natural resources. The fact that it was the province that managed this directly changed many things in the overall approach to managing the land.

I completely understand the concerns that the people of the Northwest Territories have when it comes to how their natural resources are managed, and I support them. In closing, I would like to say that all the NDP members deeply respect the first nations' desire to manage their natural resources responsibly. It is also important to take a nation to nation approach when dealing with the first nations that will be affected by the various clauses of this bill. This is important to building a world that is more just, more green and more prosperous.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives missed something in the consultation on clauses 136 and 137.

(1150) I must say that I am against an approach as paternalistic as the one used in these sections. At the same time, I fully agree with the provisions on access to natural resources and their management. [ English ] Mr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic. I come from a first nations background and heritage, and I am very proud of it. I am also very interested in economic development and growth in Canada. Canada was basically refounded on resources and development.

Instead of first nations and aboriginals being held down, the government is trying to give them a hand up, trying to work in partnership with first nations and aboriginals in the Northwest Territories. What I find very ironic is the NDP believing it is a paternalistic approach of not allowing aboriginals to be partners in economic development. Here is what I mean. I will quote the member for Western Arctic : We know that resource development hasn't reduced the poverty, and we can't simply rely on resource development to redistribute income in a fashion that's going to work. My question to the member is this.

Does she believe that no resource development will help Canada and aboriginals, especially those in the northern territories, on job creation, and helping Canada prove that jobs can work for everybody? [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague opposite does not quite understand the NDP's position on this issue. We are only troubled by clauses 136 and 137, which we do not really agree with, and they have nothing to do with my colleague's question.

The rest of the bill is extremely worthwhile, and it will be good for first nations and the people of the Northwest Territories. Clauses 136 and 137 concern the merger of several boards into a single land and water board. First nations are worried about having a single board. We agree with the responsible and sustainable management of our natural resources. We also agree that the powers it does not currently enjoy must be transferred to the Northwest Territories. That is a logical step. However, the experts, the Northwest Territories' MLAs and first nations peoples do not agree with the merger of regional boards.

That is a problem for us. Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. She touched on one point, and our colleague from the Northwest Territories also made a good point earlier. Why did the government not take into account the demands of the Northwest Territories that came from groups opposed to some aspects of this bill? Just like the NDP, those groups agreed with most of the bill.

It is unbelievable that, even today, a bill could be enacted that will affect the lives of the people living in the Northwest Territories and the government does not consider their views when the time comes to make improvements and updates and create a bill that is acceptable to everyone. It is vital that we consider the people living there when we talk about economic development and responsible development of natural resources. The Conservatives do exactly the same thing every time: they ignore the demands of the people living in the areas concerned. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his question. In fact, his question deals with an extremely important point. It has to do with the way the Conservatives draft their bills. The vast majority of members, if not all the members of the House, probably agree that Bill C-15 is a good bill overall. However, the Conservatives have added sections to this bill that do not have unanimous support and that raise deep concerns in our society, particularly among the people who will be directly affected by Bill C-15 .

The bill addresses major issues, such as the development of our natural resources in the north and the transfer of powers. Nonetheless, the failure to understand the regional reality and the merging of the regional boards that manage natural resources in the Northwest Territories pose a serious problem. We need to recognize our mistakes because that is how we make good laws. That is why we are asking that those two parts be dealt with separately.

For once, let us create a piece of legislation on which everyone agrees and let us act in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. (1155) [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on Bill C-15 , a very important piece of Canadian constitutional legislation. The bill would amend the Northwest Territories Act. We sometimes forget the importance of some of these foundational statutes. The NWT Act is essentially part of the Constitution of Canada, and we are amending it through this legislation.

Not long ago, in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation had a change made by a statute in England called the British North America Act. That is just another statute. This is just another statute. However, it has incredibly important ramifications for the people of the Northwest Territories, and therefore for all of Canada. I want to start by saluting the work of the premier of the NWT, Mr. McLeod, for his negotiations and his patience in negotiating an arrangement with the Government of Canada.

While I am at it, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Western Arctic , who has shown remarkable leadership in this entire process in educating some of us southerners about what this means to people who live and work in the NWT. I want to start with those words of congratulations. I also want to echo something my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands said. She used an adjective to characterize her reaction to this important initiative, and that was the word “disappointed”.

We must be disappointed at a bill that had such promise, which could have brought us all together in support of this remarkable enterprise of devolution. I agree with much of what the Conservatives have said, including the parliamentary secretary, who talked about the remarkable impact of a bill like this on economic development, jobs, and the future of the NWT. Therefore, why would I be disappointed?

I am disappointed that the government has seen fit to essentially ignore the wishes of aboriginal partners in the NWT, the Tlicho, the Sahtu, the Gwich'in peoples, who all want the regional boards that exist there and appear to function well. They were created as part of co-management, as part of a land claims agreement. They are part of a constitutional fabric that has been negotiated in modern times. They are disappointed that they are being replaced by a superboard.

Therefore, instead of being here and joyously celebrating an event that is important in our constitutional history, what we are doing today, as my friend said, is expressing disappointment in the government for once again doing what our leader, the hon. member for Outremont , characterized as “bundling”. I did not say “bungling”; I said “bundling”. It bundled things that we would traditionally all want to support, to stand and salute, with measures that are poison pills, to use a word that my colleague from Surrey North used earlier in this debate. That is why I am disappointed.

This could have been a joyous event, but in fact it is a disappointing one. I have seen those examples in recent weeks in this Parliament. I have seen how, in the safe injection bill, the government managed to find a way to oppose that, and, of course, in the unfair elections bill that was debated yesterday where closure was invoked. That is another example where Conservatives have put some nice measures in that we would love to support, but then they spoil it with things that no sensible parliamentarian could support if they believe in fair elections.

Therefore, I am anxious to see why the government feels it can disrespect aboriginal leaders in this way and expect us to support such an initiative. Do not take my word for it; I am not making this up for rhetorical purposes.

On November 18, 2013, Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, of the Tlicho First Nation in the NWT, said this in a letter written to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development : As your treaty partner, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the path Canada is currently on in relation to the MVRMA [Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act] amendments. ...Canada is proceeding with an approach that is inconsistent with a proper

interpretation of provisions in our Agreement and will constitute a breach of our Agreement and the honour of the Crown. This would result in the MVRMA being constitutionally unsound and of no force and effect to the extent that it breaches our Agreement. Canada's current approach will also damage our relationship and create regulatory uncertainty.... We hope this does not come to pass. There is a better way to move forward.

(1200) That is exactly so. There is a better way to move forward than to bundle such unpopular and unnecessary legislation into a bill that deals with something so fundamental: namely, devolution. What is devolution? What would be the impact of this? Essentially, the NWT would keep half of its resource royalties, without losing federal transfers, up to a total of 5% of its budget expenditures. It would get some of the powers that provinces have. It would become a more representative government, a more democratic government, with the resources to do what is needed to meet its demands in the NWT.

Those royalties are just part of what would go on in this kind of initiative. Of the three northern territories, only the Yukon controls its own resources; Nunavut negotiations are still ongoing. This kind of initiative, as I am told, would allow the territory to reap about $65 million a year from resource royalties. There is about 18% of that which would be transferred to the five aboriginal governments that signed on. Ottawa would send another $65 million to the NWT to compensate for the cost of those responsibilities, including the salaries of federal bureaucrats who would go to the NWT payroll.

The concept of devolution was originally agreed to in October 2010. Here we are, in 2014, about to pass, perhaps, an initiative that is long overdue. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development , who said earlier in this debate that we need a robust resource regulatory system and better land management regimes or the developers would not be coming to create jobs and economic opportunity in that territory.

However, I am told by my colleague from Western Arctic that when we had committee hearings recently in Yukon, the overwhelming desire was to leave the resource regulatory boards in place. That is something that needs to be emphasized. In emphasizing that, I want to read from an editorial in the NWT News , which was apparently written yesterday, about this very arrangement that we are talking about. It says a number of things, but let us talk about the superboard that the current government insists on making part of this initiative, the poisoned pill that I mentioned earlier.

The editorial in yesterday's NWT News states: Whether Ottawa has the right to create a super board in the NWT is Irrelevant. What matters is three groups of people fought hard for the right to self-government and negotiated in good faith for the right to help shape decisions at the regional level. They have been abandoned by their government. Accepting the linkage[s] of the two distinctly different legislative bills affecting the NWT betrays the Sahtu, [the] Tlicho and [the] Gwich'in governments who all worked with the [Government of the NWT] until they had built the trust to sign onto the devolution.

The Gwich'in went so far as to drop a lawsuit that might have held up the deal. It goes on to say: While devolution is undeniably good for the NWT, what the [Government of the NWT] is losing [in return]--regional input, trust and co-operation...--tarnishes the accomplishment. Worse, this so-called super board is nothing more than a public relations move to placate the global, cash-starved mining industry at the expense of Northerners. I want to salute the government for finally negotiating a devolution agreement, which is so critical to our country, for the constitutional change it would make to our country.

However, I wish it would reconsider what the northerners want them to reconsider, which is the creation of an unnecessary superboard.

(1205) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to return the favour and thank my hon. colleague from Victoria for his excellent address. For those who have a legal background, as my hon. friend does and as I have, it is astonishing to me, as I made this point earlier today, that the Conservative administration refuses to take seriously numerous Supreme Court decisions.

With regard to the elimination of four regional boards that have been the result of negotiation and treaty, that are part of a government-to-government relationship, it is not really a matter of “We've told them about it for years, so they should be ready for it by now”. That is not consultation. I wonder if my hon. colleague would like to reflect upon, based on his own extensive experience in this area, what proper consultation, nation to nation, between the federal crown and first nations, would look like if the current government got it. Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the following.

Consultation is not a “would be nice to have” thing, but it a “must-have” thing. The Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear. In many cases involving the north, and recently involving the Yukon self-government and the constitutional protections there, it has reinforced what it had said so frequently in southern cases, if I can call the Delgamuukw and the Haida cases southern. In the north as well, the honour of the crown is relevant.

We enter into these regional agreements with first nations, we make them part of a land claims agreement that is working well, and then the government comes along and wants to blow it up. That is not respectful, and it is probably not constitutional either. The Government of Canada has been held to account more than once on the need to observe the honour of the crown. That is a living, breathing requirement of consultation and accommodation. Many experts have said that this simply will not stand up. Again, I ask why.

Why are we here, on what could be the happiest day for the north, talking about something that is so unnecessary? Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have here today is really one that would empower the Government of the Northwest Territories. It would empower them to collect all royalties and fees from resources in their territory. That is a huge step forward, and one that they have been waiting for for years.

The Government of the Northwest Territories would retain 50% of the resource revenues, and up to 25% of this 50% would go to the first nations who have signed on to devolution. This is very good news. I cannot understand why the NDP keeps complaining about it. The bill is about jobs and growth. Resource revenue sharing is a vital part of developing and harnessing this growth for the benefit of all northerners. I would like to hear from the hon. member for Victoria a comment on the NDP's opposition to this very important step toward developing self-governing and sustainable communities in our north. Mr.

Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I hope I was clear in my introductory remarks when I congratulated the parliamentary secretary for that initiative. I thought I was being clear when I agreed with him that economic development was crucial for the north and that the devolution part of the bill would go a long way in that direction. I thought the member for Western Arctic was also clear in his support for that fundamental proposition. If I am not clear, let me say it again that that part of the bill is long overdue. Indeed, the Liberals had, I think, 13 years to do something and did not.

The Conservative government did, and I am glad that it finally did, but let me say that to add a poison pill that has been so rejected by first nations and that is likely to be unconstitutional strikes me as absurd.

(1210) Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003 there were larger numbers on the table from the federal government at the time. Devolution was proceeding at that time with a lot more authority and control. There were larger sums of money being offered for the A-base funding. This whole thing fell apart because the first nations were not on board with the territorial government at the time for devolution. What we have now is a situation where first nations are on board, and we are taking away one of the essential elements they have within their regional claims.

Does that make sense you? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : It does not make sense to me. I presume that the member was asking me the question, but we would rather hear from the member for Victoria . Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, one of the first nations, the Gwich'in, went so far as to drop a lawsuit that might have held up the deal, showing that it wanted to get on with this but that nothing was happening.

Therefore, why we would have a bill that would create a board that the first nations want to reject and are therefore likely to want to litigate against becomes even more inscrutable, and for what? We should be celebrating devolution, not having to debate such an issue at all. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-15 . I will not give the bill's full title because I only have 10 minutes, but essentially we are talking about Northwest Territories devolution and changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

I want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Western Arctic . He has clearly outlined the NDP position on this and has indicated that the NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the Northwest Territories' taking over federal responsibilities in the north. As well, the NDP and the member for Western Arctic have acknowledged that the NWT knows best how its resources ought to be used, and that ultimate authority should rest with the Northwest Territories.

However, as we have heard, in typical Conservative fashion, instead having a straightforward, clean bill, we have one where they have inserted changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That is where the most opposition in the NWT has come from. I am going to spend my brief time talking about the opposition to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and am going to refer to it as the MVRMA. My colleague from Victoria has quoted from the

article “Devolution dishonoured” from Monday, February 10's NWT News/North , so I am not going to quote from it extensively. However, I want to start my remarks with this. The

article said: While devolution is undeniably good for the NWT, what the GNWT is losing in return—regional input, trust and co-operation, not to mention political integrity—tarnishes the accomplishment. It goes on to say: The regional boards, by all accounts, worked with industry and bolstered public confidence that development was being done to the benefit of the people affected.

Those are critical comments because much has been made about the need to improve regulatory management, yet in the testimony before committee and in other comments submitted in written briefs, it appears that the regulatory management under these regional boards was working. I want to refer to a letter of January 20 to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs from the Tlicho. In their conclusion they say: C-15 will unravel the advances in reconciliation that have been made between Canada and the Tlicho people over the past two decades.

Canada has failed to recognize the unique constitutional reality in the NWT created by land claims agreements. It cannot legislate in a manner that is inconsistent with these modern treaties. This is not just about “consultation”. It is about ensuring that legislative choices are constitutionally sound and do not breach constitutionally protected treaty rights or undermine the purpose and intent of our Agreement. When we see comments like this, we wonder about the

section 35 analysis that may or may not have been conducted by the government and what that analysis might have indicated about potential breaches of agreements that have been signed. I was one of the fortunate people who was in the House when the Tlicho agreement was passed. It was a great day for Canadians. However, when we continue to see the spirit and intent of these agreements undermined by future legislation, it does raise some concerns about the government's attention to the spirit and intent of these agreements.

I want to read from the brief that was provided by Alternatives North and Ecology North on January 17. I want to read from it because it outlines very clearly the concerns about the proposed changes to the MVRMA. It talks about the legislative foundation and states: The political and legislative base for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is co-management of the NWT's lands and waters, through an integrated regional- and territorial-level system of environmental planning and assessment and regulatory review....

This integrated co-management model arises from federal commitments made in the Sahtu and Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements in the early 1990s. The current version of the MVRMA (1998/2005) states in its

preamble that “the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement require the establishment of land use planning boards and land and water boards for the settlement areas [i.e. regional boards] referred to in those Agreements and the establishment of an environmental impact review board for the Mackenzie Valley, and provide as well for the establishment of a land and water board for an area extending beyond those settlement areas....

It goes on to say that the following: The relationship between the regional land and water boards and the territorial land and water board is clearly articulated in the land claims agreements and in the MVRMA .

Section 24.4.6(

b) of the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992),

section 25.4.6(

b) of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993), and, subsequent to the enactment of the MVRMA

section 22.4.3 of the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement (2003) all state that where a territorial board is established that also has jurisdiction within the respective settlement areas, the regional boards become 'panels' of the territorial land and water board, which is how the system currently operates.

(1215) The brief continues: In essence, this integrated co-management model, since Its legislative inception, has embraced regional planning boards, regional land and water boards/panels, an environment impact review board, and a territorial land and water board through which the regional boards/panels operated. The model also includes an adaptive management component through

section 148 of the MVRMA, which calls for an independent environmental audit every five years to assess environmental trends and the integrity of the environmental management system. The integrated co-management system, founded in land claims agreement legislation in the MVRMA and actualized through public government institutions, has operated successfully for over a decade in the Mackenzie Valley, to the benefit of all NWT residents. It goes on to outline a number of other issues. However, I know that my time is short so I want to touch on a couple of problems that were highlighted in this document. They are under the

section entitled “Problematic Amendments to the MVRMA”. The first issue it touches on is the board/panel restructuring. It states: First, the proposed amendments to the

Preamble of the MVRMA is a significant reinterpretation of the Gwich'in and Sahtu Land Claim Agreements, and therefore the Tlicho agreement, in that it drops a key phrase. Instead of stating that “[these Agreements] require the establishment of land use planning boards and land and water boards for the settlement areas...”...the amended

Preamble states that the Agreements “require the establishment of land use planning boards for the settlement areas”. Canada has essentially unilaterally reinterpreted the intent and scope of these agreements by reneging on its commitment to regional boards. This is an important point because it is where people are suggesting that there could be court challenges because of that unilateral attempt to reinterpret these agreements signed in good faith by all parties. Second, the definition management area in

section 51 of the current act where it refers to the respective land claim settlement area is being repealed on page 100. This amendment means that Canada and the MVRMA no longer recognize the distinct nature of settlement areas within the NWT. We often talk about how important local and regional control is, and this repeals that provision.

Third, sections 54 through 57(2) and 58 through 68 of the current act, which establish and define the role of the Gwich'in, Sahtu, and Wek'eezhii land and water boards, are replaced by sections that consolidate land and water management roles and authorities in a centralized Mackenzie Valley land and water board. These amendments dislocate land and water management authorities from their respective land claims regions and diminish the sense of ownership and engagement that aboriginal regions currently have in land and water use decisions. Fourth,

section 54(2) of the amended act establishes an 11 member central board, with one member each nominated by the concluded land claims regions, two members nominated by the unsettled land claims region, two members nominated by the territorial government, and three members, excluding the chairperson, appointed by the federal minister. It goes on to say that this grants the federal minister the right to unilaterally appoint the chairperson, which is not currently the case, where the board member is nominated chairperson for appointment.

Section 56 of the amended act calls for the project panels of three members to be determined by the federally appointed chair, which may or may not include a member from the region in which a project is to occur. In that very piece itself we could have decisions being made for a region without any representation from that region. That just does not seem a logical way to proceed, particularly when this act is being sold as involving more northern control. Finally, one of the concerns raise is increased ministerial authority.

It states: Given that the MVRMA amendments are contained in Bill C-15 , which has been put forward as a bill to implement the devolution of land and water management authorities to the [GNWT], it is baffling how certain sections of

Part 4 of Bill C-15 result in increased authority for the federal government at the cost of territorial and Aboriginal government authority and/or the authority of northern boards! This appears to be devolution in name only, but not in practice. That is a good place to conclude. Although, as the member for Western Arctic has rightly pointed out, New Democrats support devolution, the MVRMA undermines that process by taking away the regional responsibilities that have been working well over the last decade.

(1220) Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of State (Science and Technology, and Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member brings to the aboriginal affairs standing committee. I have had the opportunity over the last couple of years to be a part of that committee, and I appreciate the important work my colleague has done. My comments apply as well to the member for Western Arctic despite some rather profound disagreements. The Leader of the Opposition suggested earlier that regulatory improvement is holding devolution hostage.

I find that difficult to believe. I am sure that the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was present during the hearings in Yellowknife, where she would have heard the premier say: We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interest, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development. My money is on the premier's words. I am wondering if the member could reconcile those comments or clarify what on earth her leader is saying when he says that regulatory improvement is holding devolution hostage. Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his kind remarks with regard to our working relationship. Sadly, I was not in Yellowknife because I was fogged in on Vancouver Island. However, I have reviewed the testimony and the briefing notes from those days. The problem with this piece of legislation is that two pieces of legislation have been combined into one. They should never have been brought together. Some minor changes may be required to the Northwest Territories devolution, but it is broadly supported.

Then we have a wholesale change being proposed to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is not broadly supported. This change has not had the kind of consultative process that should have been put in place for a process that would impact self-government and land claims agreements. If regulatory changes are required, they should have been done through a broad consultative process. Our leader is absolutely correct when he talked about the fact that Northwest Territories devolution is being held hostage to regulatory management.

Our understanding is that people were told that if they wanted devolution to happen now, they would have to accept these regulatory changes. That does not seem like a fair and honourable way to bring forward significant changes to the territory. Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act was put in place to set a mandate for existing land claims in the Northwest Territories. This was outlined time and time again in many of the presentations we have heard.

It was supposed to be a true co-management regime in the Northwest Territories, negotiated between aboriginal governments and non-aboriginal governments. These aboriginal governments today feel that the federal system is imposing this agreement on them. Could my colleague tell me what the impact would be of governments' ignorance to their claims and to what they are saying today, if this is not amended?

(1225) Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I talked in my speech about the spirit and intent of land claims agreements, self-government agreements, and treaties. This proposal to move forward without appropriate consultation undermines the spirit and intent of treaties. I want to turn for a minute to the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, which made a general statement outing two concerns with respect to changes to the MVRMA that I want to touch on. One of those concerns is about the dismantling of the regional land and water boards and the other is about increased ministerial authority.

The spirit and intent of comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements rests the authority for decision making with the nation with whom that land claim or comprehensive self-government agreement was negotiated. This legislation proposes increased ministerial authority, which would seem to undermine the whole process of devolving authority to the rightly appointed people. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the NDP amendments to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I want to start on a personal note, my own observations of the glacial progress toward devolution and self-government in the Northwest Territories. My first job out of university was with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and this was some 40 years ago when the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was appointed by the Prime Minister and acted as a colonial governor of the north. I lived there for two years, working as the deputy registrar of vital statistics and the sup