OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 031 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, December 5, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 5, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 031 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 031 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 031 (Version officielle) 147 031 05 12 2013 2013/12/05 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 12 petitions.

Committees of the House Industry, Science and Technology Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to Bill C-8,

an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back the House, with amendments. I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to the supplementary estimates (

B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

Ways and Means Motion No. 5 Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various parties, and I anticipate that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. Motion I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Ways and Means motion No. 5 to introduce

An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be deemed adopted; the bill on notice entitled “An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts” be deemed introduced and read a first time, deemed read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

The Speaker : Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to, Bill C-16 introduced and read the first time, read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

[ Translation ] Petitions Income Tax Deductions for Tradespersons Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. [ English ] My first petition comes from 170 people. It calls upon the Parliament of Canada to support Bill C-201 , which would allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so that they can secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres from their homes.

[ Translation ] Veterans Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by more than 1,000 people and concerns the Veterans Affairs Canada office in Campbellton. The office is of vital importance to veterans living in our region and their families. The petitioners urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government to keep open the Veterans Affairs Canada regional office located at 157 Water St. in Campbellton, New Brunswick.

[ English ] Concussions Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding concussions. The signatures were collected by two extraordinary young women in my riding, Sandhya and Swapna Mylabathula, who have spent almost three years working on a bill proposal for a pan-Canadian concussion strategy. Those living with concussions deserve comprehensive action and support. The petitioners call upon the government to enact a pan-Canadian concussion awareness week; a pan-Canadian strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management; and a centre of excellence for concussion research.

Sambro Island Lighthouse Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Nova Scotians and other Canadians who are calling on Parliament to create a strategy to preserve the Sambro Island lighthouse, an important symbol of our heritage. The Sambro Island lighthouse is the oldest lighthouse in operation in North America. I would like to congratulate the Sambro Island Lighthouse Heritage Society for its efforts to preserve and maintain this structure. The society has actually gathered over 5,000 signatures in support of its lighthouse. It is calling on the federal government to fund the Sambro Island lighthouse. I certainly support them.

[ Translation ] Local Foods Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first concerns Bill C-539,

An Act to promote local foods . More than 100 people in my riding signed this petition, which asks the government to establish a pan-Canadian strategy for the procurement of local foods. It also calls on the government to establish a policy for federal institutions in order to support our farmers, create jobs in the regions and, above all, make healthy and affordable food available to Canadians.

(1010) Consumer Protection Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the federal government to prohibit charges for invoices sent by mail. Many people live in rural areas. They do not have access to the Internet and want to receive paper invoices without paying additional fees to suppliers.

[ English ] Internships Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition signed by 200 constituents in Edmonton—St. Albert. The petitioners call upon the federal government to provide legislative protection for post-secondary students who work as interns, as part of their post-secondary education, in federally regulated industries and to provide specifications with respect to hours of work and other safety measures. This petition was precipitated by a tragic event, where an intern working in the radio industry was killed after working two all-night shifts. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to act.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table today a petition signed by a number of constituents in Winnipeg North dealing with the issue of Canada's pension programs. The petitioners are in opposition to the government's decision to increase the age from 65 to 67 in terms of retirement. They are asking the government to do what it can to protect and ensure that the OAS, GIS, and CPP are not diminished in any way.

Consumer Protection Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to present today. Many seniors in my riding who get their paper bills in the mail were very upset by the fact that companies are now charging extra money for that. They were happy to hear in the throne speech that the government has realized that his is a serious problem. These residents have signed a petition calling on the government to act. We look forward to the regulations that will see this take place.

Nuclear Fuel Processing Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on a nuclear fuel processing facility in my riding, which has been there for 50 years. In its operating licence, it was to have performed a very thorough public information program so that the residents would know that it was there. It has not really done that job, and consequently, most people never knew it was there. The signatories of this petition call on the government to ensure that the regulations and the licence are fully enforced. The Speaker : The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order. Hon.

John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, our job in this place is to present a petition, not to editorialize before each and every presentation of a petition, such as we just heard, and it is certainly not to endorse petitions. The Speaker : The member should keep in mind that members are not supposed to read petitions or go on at great length. The Chair usually tries to keep the chamber flowing when members are presenting petitions. The hon. member for Langley. Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition representing thousands of people from British Columbia.

The petition highlights 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius, who was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families For Justice, says that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. The petitioners are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 66 will be answered today. [ Text ]

Question No. 66--

Mr. Murray Rankin :

With regard to data, information or privacy breaches at Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for each year from 2002 to 2012: (

a) how many breaches have occurred in total and what is the number of individuals affected by each such breach; (

b) of those breaches identified in ( a ), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and what is the number of individuals affected by each such breach; (

c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft; and (

d) why was CRA unable to provide this information in response to written question Q-1217 submitted by Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins—James Bay, on March 7, 2013?

Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, put into place an updated information-sharing protocol between the CRA’s areas responsible for security and privacy to insure that information on privacy breaches was flagged to the CRA’s ATIP Directorate, which is responsible for liaising with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The 2012 protocol strengthened the procedures and protections included in the previous 2010 information-sharing protocol.

With regard to (a), (b), and (c), while the CRA captures the number of internal affairs investigations—that is, data, information, and privacy breaches--as well as the number of security incidents that are unrelated to employee misconduct and that involve the theft, loss, or compromise of information, as well as the number of misdirected mail incidents, it does not capture the information by breach in the manner and the time period requested. In order to produce the response for 2002-2012, a manual search of records would have to be undertaken to extract the data, which is not possible within the prescribed timeline.

With regard to (d), for the reasons noted above, the CRA was not able to provide this information in response to written question Q-1217.

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Northwest Territories Devolution Act The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion that 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 , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-15. Second reading Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support 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. Before I actually start on the content of the bill, I want to take a minute to say what a stellar representative the Western Arctic has in its member of Parliament. This member is also the critic for the western Arctic.

It is hard to imagine a person who devotes more time to representing a constituency. He exudes the love he has for the north. For many people in the House, he is a role model as a parliamentarian. We commend him for the amazing work he does. Yes, we come here to debate, but he realizes that one of the primary roles we have as parliamentarians is to bring our constituents' concerns and advocate for our ridings right here in the House. He is a stellar representative for the true north strong and free. I notice that this has made it into the news again, so I thought I would use it here.

I am speaking in support of second reading. I am very proud of the fact that both our critic and the leader of the official opposition, my leader, have committed to NDP support for the bill. We believe in devolution. I also want to commend the leadership in the Northwest Territories for the amazing work they have done, specifically the premier, but also those who have gone before him, to advocate for the north breaking away from colonial shackles, so to speak, and moving toward self-governance. The people of the Northwest Territories have worked hard for many years toward gaining more province-like powers.

We have 10 provinces and our territories. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Northwest Territories, but I have to say that it was in the summer. I can honestly say I had an amazing tour of the Northwest Territories. I met such amazing people. They were very friendly and outgoing. However, the people do not have the same kinds of rights as Canadians who live in the provinces. They wonder why it is that in 2000, 2012, 2011, or 2013 they do not have the right of self-governance, the way the provinces do. They are not asking for more than the provinces. Their presentations have been very reasonable.

Bill C-15 is a testimony to their hard work and advocacy. We are way beyond the days when we thought we always knew what was good for the other person. I certainly hope so. One of the things we have learned as we have moved through history is that involving the people being governed, the people who live in an area, in decision-making is absolutely critical.

(1015) This is a step. I am not saying it goes all the way. I would like to have seen it go even further. It does not go all the way, but is a step in the right direction. That is why we are supporting it. When it does get to committee stage, I know our critic is amazingly knowledgeable about this file. When I discussed this file with him yesterday, I found he already has ideas for amendments that would make this bill stronger and make it work for the Northwest Territories. What does the bill do?

There are a lot of people out there who would ask, “Did the Northwest Territories not already have the same rights as the provinces?” We in the House and in the north know they do not. The bill rewrites the constitution of the Northwest Territories. It is the bill in this House that rewrites that constitution. That tells us a lot as well. Unlike the provinces, the powers and authorities of the territories are set through federal legislation.

We need to stop there and think about that for a moment, because here we are in 2013 and we have territories that still have their powers and rights totally under the federal government. That gives us some pause for concern. However, there is always a silver lining in the clouds. Baby steps have been taken over the years, and some powers have already been devolved to the territories in such areas as education, health care, transport and renewable resources, specifically forestry and wildlife. These were all transferred in the 1980s.

When I look at the education system, at health care and transport in the Northwest Territories and at the limited resources that were allocated, I am truly impressed by the job it has done in this area. As of today, the Northwest Territories does not receive any revenues from resource development. As we all know, the Northwest Territories is a rich territory. There is untold wealth that lies therein. However, for that existence and operating cost, the Northwest Territories has to rely on federal transfer payments. That in itself is a cause for some concern.

There are some major issues with being totally dependent on another government to transfer money to run a state, province or territory. In 2013, the Northwest Territories and five of the seven northwest aboriginal governments signed an agreement on the transfer of power around the devolution process. In order to implement the agreement we are here today. However, there are some flaws with this bill. The government has a penchant for combining many things into one bill and then tries to push it through.

It also tries to corner the opposition by putting in some good things and some not so good, and then say, “Gotcha”. In this bill, we do have major concerns. Our critic has pushed, and will continue to push, for the bill to be separated into two parts.

(1020) The first part of the bill is fairly straightforward. It makes changes to the Northwest Territories Act,

an act that is virtually the constitution of the Northwest Territories, and all actions therefore under the Northwest Territories Act. However, we have major concerns around the second part. That is because the second part brings in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It does away with the regional land and water boards created through land claim agreements with the first nations. They would now be replaced with a single superboard. That does cause some concern, because I have learned through my life experience that “when something ain't broke, don't fix it”.

This is one agreement, the MVRMA, that has worked incredibly well, and has been touted as a success story. With the new bill, it is not exactly clear that these negotiations would still happen in a year's time when they were scheduled, or whether this agreement is now subsumed and will fall under the superboard that has been created. Members may not think that is really a big issue. It is there, and more power has been granted to the Northwest Territories, but I want them to know that the minister actually has the right to reject any member to the board, and that should give us cause for concern as well.

We are saying the Northwest Territories will now have this board, but there is no consultation, power of veto or anything given to the Northwest Territories. The minister vests into himself the power to veto any nominee for this board, and that is a major concern. I should not be surprised by this, because over and over again under the government we have seen more and more power being vested into the ministers' hands. We have seen it in environmental issues and in labour.

I am very knowledgeable about the immigration file, where we have seen more and more power vested into the minister, so many changes can be made in the future without ever coming through this House or going through any parliamentary oversight. In this case, a board that was functioning well basically under this agreement does not really have any rights. A superboard is to be appointed where the minister actually has the final power to veto. Not only that, but the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories also receives some pretty specific directions. This will really change things a little bit.

Whereas the commissioner was moving more and more toward being similar to a lieutenant, governor general or ceremonial position, this legislation actually draws the commissioner right back into the fold of the federal government. Bill C-15 , clause 4 states: The Commissioner must act in accordance with any written instructions given to him or her by the Governor in Council or the minister. A position that was moving toward a ceremonial position would now suddenly be there to dance to the tune of the Governor in Council or the minister, and once again, more and more power being put into the hands of the minister is causing us some major concerns.

(1025) None of these issues we are raising should be a surprise to the government, because it has heard some of these concerns before from different groups from the Northwest Territories. There were a number of other regional boards that existed. With this legislation, those other regional boards would also disappear. So there would be a number of regional boards that would now be replaced by a superboard of only 11 members. Those 11 members would be looking at the whole gamut of issues with the full spectrum.

Included under that would be the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which works, as I said, but when something works, the government does not really like it, so it tries to topple that as well. When it comes to appointments to the board, there is absolutely no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories built into the legislation. If that were built in—and I am sure our critic will try to correct that oversight—we could say that the territories had been heard and they would at least have a say.

What would be wrong with providing that consultation to the Government of the Northwest Territories? These are very simple amendments that could set things right. The Northwest Territories has had environmental audits done. We know that the government across the aisle does not really like audits that much, and I do not really blame it because audits often see it wanting. They do not validate the volume of words the Conservatives use in this House. Now we have a situation whereby all this falls under the umbrella of that superboard, and the ultimate controller of that superboard, of course, is Ottawa.

We need one government in charge of making decisions, and that should be the Government of the Northwest Territories in consultation with and working together with the first nations, who have a right to land and resources in the Northwest Territories and who we want to have as complete partners in the development of the Northwest Territories. That last sentence is a direct quote from my esteemed colleague from the Western Arctic . I could not think of saying it any better than he did. It is a very laudable goal and it should be achieved in this agreement, but as we know, it is not.

There have been letters—and I have a copy of one of them—that have been written by the first nations community, raising specific concerns around both the Mackenzie area and other parts of the bill. We have read these and are paying close attention to them because letter after letter points out to us that the first nations communities are seeing real problems. They are really worried that the authority of the minister and cabinet are being increased through the MVRMA amendments. We do have serious concerns about the power being held by ministers and the control of the appointment of the board not being there.

What is it we are looking for on this side of the House? We are strong supporters of the devolution of more powers and authorities to the territorial governments, and at the same time we see the bill as a step in the right direction, but it has some major flaws that we will try to address.

(1030) Under the agreement, the Northwest Territories will keep 50% of the revenues, which is a good thing, but it is still not the same as the provinces. As I said, it is a step in the right direction, a huge victory for the hard-working people and leaders in the Northwest Territories, and a great credit to my colleague from Western Arctic . New Democrats would say that this bill is definitely taking us in the right direction. Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member and I thank her for her intervention, but I have an important question.

What she said, surprisingly, is not accurate. It is actually quite the opposite. The facts are that through great consultation with first nations and the territories, power will be transferred from the federal minister to the territories. I thought I heard her say that the federal government and the minister will get more power, when in fact it is the exact opposite: the federal minister is giving those powers to the territories. After great consultation and with great support from first nations and the territories, why would the member misrepresent what this act would actually do?

(1035) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, we are supporting this bill and, as I have said, this is a step toward the kinds of powers that the provinces have, but it does not go all the way. As much as we like what the government has done so far, we are saying it needs to do a bit more in order to achieve what we believe would be good for the Northwest Territories, what the Northwest Territories want for themselves, and what my esteemed colleague, who knows that territory so well, tells us is so important to the people.

When I talk about investment of more power, through this legislation the commissioner is now basically being told that he is under the federal minister's control when it comes to signing off on issues or pieces of legislation. As well, this superboard, which from the way it is written I am assuming is now going to subsume the Mackenzie deal, means that instead of a number of governments getting together to negotiate, the power now rests with the minister, because he, after all, is the one who has the final say in the appointment of the board. Those are the points I wanted to clarify. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick on the point of “we”, “we” being the New Democratic Party. I understand and appreciate that the New Democrats will be supporting the bill. My question is with regard to the degree that the New Democratic Party believes that the Northwest Territories should be treated in the same fashion as a province and have the same authorities and powers that a province has. I would ask the member to comment on that aspect. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I am going to stand and speak for myself.

For me, it is incomprehensible that the Northwest Territories would not have the same powers as the provinces. I know there is a big history behind it from when the territories were created and all of that, and we are also dealing with multiple governments in the Northwest Territories, but I still think that the people who live in the Northwest Territories deserve the same kinds of rights, privileges, responsibilities, and accountabilities that our provinces have. Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about the board and the change to the superboard and all of that.

Is it not the trend of the Conservative government to say it wants to give control to people and then take it away through the back door? It did it with EI. The Conservatives got rid of the board that consisted of three people who dealt with those who did not receive their EI or did not qualify for it, or the Canada pension plan. There were 900 people, and it was cut down to 70-something, with only 38 people looking after EI. It was a mess across the country. This is the same thing.

It is to bring the power back to Ottawa so that decisions are made in Ottawa instead of on the ground by the people who live there, people who know what the problems are and who can make decisions on those things. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, another very hard-working parliamentarian who does an incredible job representing his constituents. On this issue of employment insurance, his advocacy and the research he has done on this file have been amazing. The member is absolutely correct. What we have is a government that says one thing and does another.

It believes in decentralization, deregulation, moving things away, and taking away the rules, but that only seems to apply to things that Canadians really care about, such as the environment. The government is taking away environmental protections and a lot of the blocks that could be in the way of the big resource extractors. However, when it comes to rights—and EI is a right that people have because they pay into it, and it is their insurance—the government has moved into centralizing more power in the hands of the ministers.

I watched it happening in the immigration file and I have seen it in this House over and over again. Often it is the way a certain ideology works. The government talks decentralization, but what it is really talking about is removing protections and then taking more control over things we care about, such as health care, education, employment insurance, and governance. (1040) [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech.

I would also like to remind members that the last devolution to the Northwest Territories took place in the late 1980s. Thus, it has taken the government more than 30 years to introduce Bill C-15. As my colleague mentioned, the NDP is obviously in favour of the transfer of powers and is working to put more power in the hands of the Northwest Territories. However, my colleague mentioned the Mackenzie Valley, which raises some concerns. Could she speak further about her concerns regarding the Mackenzie Valley? [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr.

Speaker, when I visited the hon. member's riding, I witnessed first-hand the incredible work she does with the very diverse community in her riding. I want to talk about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That agreement would not be carried forward in this legislation. It appears to be subsumed into it. Under this devolution bill—which we support, by the way—if an agreement over land, resource development, and water has been negotiated between different levels of government, its existence would be thrown into question. This is the bit that I was talking about earlier.

If something works, why try to fix it? If something is working and people try to fix it, they are just going to end up breaking it. They are not making it any better. What it would do is put all of this under the umbrella of the superboard of 11 members, and the minister has the final say as to who they are. Once again, it would throw into question the powers that the territories had prior to this bill. We are looking for more clarification on this aspect.

Maybe there are sections that the government is thinking it should bring forward in order to protect this agreement, leave it outside, and make sure the negotiations and the way it has operated are allowed to stand. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15 . I want to say at the outset that my voice is a bit rough today. The NDP had a great party last night, with live music and great sociability. It went into the wee hours.

I think everybody is feeling a bit rough this morning, but it was a good time to get together. Here we are back in the House this morning, ready to debate whatever is before us, so I am very pleased to speak to the bill. I want to commend my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta , who spoke just before me. She and I are both from metro Vancouver, so we represent ridings in Canada that are very urban. We face urban issues around affordability of housing, citizenship and immigration, poverty, transportation, infrastructure, and so on.

We have a lot in common in terms of our ridings and the fact that we are both part of the metro Vancouver region. However, I want to say that even though we are members of Parliament from the urban area, we have a sense of connection with our colleagues who represent ridings in the north, and certainly our colleague from the Western Arctic , who is the main critic on the bill we are debating today. When we visit other ridings and other communities with our colleagues, it is quite fascinating to learn about the experiences, the history, the culture, and the life conditions in those communities.

On the one hand, there are really vast differences, but on the other hand, there are incredible similarities. Every time I have visited the Northwest Territories, whether it has been Yellowknife or smaller communities, I have always been struck by how different the scene is from my community in Vancouver East , which is very densely populated. There there are 120,000 people living there. We have communities like the Downtown Eastside and historic neighbourhoods like Chinatown and Gastown.

In the Northwest Territories, we are looking at communities that are hundreds and thousands of miles apart, communities that are very self-sufficient because they have to be. They have to deal with the very harsh elements in the North, yet when I get to know people and talk with our member from Western Arctic , we find that we are dealing with similar issues. I know, for example, that one of the issues my colleague from Western Arctic has tackled in a very passionate way is the living costs in the Northwest Territories, an issue that I think is very relevant to the bill we are debating today.

In fact, he produced a 53-page report in November, just last month. In that report, he lays out, with great analysis and factual information, the concern of increasing income inequality in the Northwest Territories. That is an issue I face in my riding as well. Income inequality is growing between the haves and the have-nots. He identifies that one of the key factors in the high cost of living in the Northwest Territories is the high price of food, particularly in smaller communities.

When I visited Yellowknife, I was very curious about this issue, so I went to the supermarket in Yellowknife, checking out the prices for milk, eggs, cheese, and vegetables and trying to compare them with my own community in East Vancouver. I was really surprised that there really was not that much difference. I remember saying to my colleague, the member for Western Arctic , “The prices are not too bad. Everything is available”. Then he said to me, “Wait until you get to the smaller communities. You'll see an incredible difference”.

In fact, in his report, he documents that a family of four in Yellowknife would be paying about $11,000 for food, but the cost of the same basket of food in a smaller community further north could increase by 13% to 210%. That really gives us an idea of what people are facing in the north. For example, the member for Western Arctic points out in his report that the same basket of food that costs $11,000 in Yellowknife would cost a family in Colville Lake more than $21,000.

(1045) It gives us an appreciation of how difficult it is, particularly for people who live on a low income. There are some people making good money in the resource industry, but there are people who are struggling to make ends meet. I know the member has frequently, in the House on behalf of his constituents, raised issues of, for example, the nutrition north food program and his concern that it is actually making food prices higher not lower. He has raised these issues frequently in the House.

He has also raised issues around the cleanup of Giant Mine in Yellowknife, as recently as just a couple of weeks ago here in the House of Commons. I would echo the words of my colleague from Newton—North Delta who spoke about the member for Western Arctic and his passion for representing northern interests and the interests of his constituents. When he presented his comments about Bill C-15 , the bill that we are debating today, we were very interested to know what his thoughts were.

Therefore, my comments today are very much based on the expertise, experience and knowledge of the member for Western Arctic who was elected in 2006. He was the mayor in Fort Smith, a small community in the Northwest Territories, from 1988 to 1997, so this is an individual who is very grounded in the local community. I have seen the member in action and how people know him and interact with him. His take on the bill and the expression of how we feel about the bill come from a place of immense knowledge and experience, and that is something that we very much rely on and trust.

As my earlier colleagues have said, we do support the bill in principle. That's what we are here debating today, second reading, which is the bill in principle. We have to examine the bill and determine whether the principles of the bill are enough that we think it should go forward to committee. Certainly for us in the NDP, the official opposition, we believe that the bill has made progress in terms of devolution from the federal government to the Northwest Territories. Therefore, it should be supported in principle. However, when it gets to committee there are numerous issues that would need to be looked at.

To look at the bill historically, we know that over the decades there has been a transfer of powers from Ottawa to individual territories, and that is a good and very important thing. In fact, the last major devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories was in the late 1980s, so it is not that long ago when jurisdiction over education, health care, transport and renewable resources such as forestry and wildlife were transferred. The current process would transfer administration and control of public lands, resources and rights in respect to the waters of the Northwest Territories.

That is obviously a major advance because the Northwest Territories is a very special place in our country. It is a place that is fragile. It is a place that has a history of people being close to the land, of people respecting the land and the environment, and understanding that the extraction of natural resources must be done in a way that is sustainable and protects future generations.

Therefore, the bill before us, Bill C-15 , which would move into the area of the devolution process dealing with natural resources, is obviously a key milestone for the people of the Northwest Territories, and the Government of the Northwest Territories has been supportive of this. It is quite interesting to note that until this devolvement goes through, the Northwest Territories does not receive any revenues from resource development, and in fact it has to still rely on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. That is something that really is outdated.

We need to ensure that the Northwest Territories and its government, which is duly elected by the people of the Northwest Territories, has control over not only things such as health, education, transport and renewable resources, but also over natural resources.

(1050) Bill C-15 does address that. Under the bill the Government of the Northwest Territories would keep 50% of the revenues collected from resource development on public land up to a certain maximum, and then the Government of Canada would retain the remainder. This tells us that it really does not go far enough at this point. It is not a total devolution. Nevertheless, it is a milestone and based on the consultation that has been done, we think it is something that is worthy of support. It is a complex agreement. It will require the amendment of 42 different pieces of legislation. That is a lot to take on.

In fact, my colleague who spoke earlier pointed out that the member for Western Arctic has advocated and is suggesting that the bill should be split because there are concerns about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There are some major components in the bill that require very critical examination at committee. It would be a proper course of action to have the bill split. Having said that, we have a very familiar pattern with the Conservative government where it likes to load everything up into omnibus bills and come up with these huge reports that one has to wade through. That is done deliberately.

The Conservatives do not want transparency and proper scrutiny. How many times have we seen time allocation on bills? Here today, we are debating this bill, a very important bill to the people of the Northwest Territories, yet other parties are absent from the debate. I find that quite incredible. The NDP is carrying forward the debate because New Democrats think it is important. We think it needs to be debated and aired in public and some of the issues addressed in public, before it is sent to committee. That is what we are here for.

That is our primary job, to debate legislation in the House of Commons, to examine it and to hold the government to account. Bill C-15 would amend 42 other pieces of legislation. There may have been consultation and the government may feel there has been adequate scrutiny, but the House of Commons is elected to do due diligence. That is what we are doing here today. One of our key concerns is that as a result of the devolution agreement, the amendments would replace the current structure of the regional land and water boards that have been created through the land claim final agreements.

It was a very major process that was undertaken a number of years ago. This new devolution agreement would supercede that and replace the regional land and water boards with one single board. Immediately, that should raise some concerns because when there are regional land and water boards that means there is local representation on those boards. It means there are people who understand local issues in a vast territory. The idea that we could now rely on a single board that would be able to scrutinize what is going on is a tall order.

This is something the member for Western Arctic has expressed concern about and something we would like to see addressed in the committee. The amendments also reserve to the federal minister the approval of all land and water usage in the Northwest Territories, which would circumvent the powers transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories through the devolution process. There is a bit of a contradiction there. We have devolution, yet the federal minister is still maintaining approval of all land and water usage. There is obviously a lot more to be done.

We hope that when the bill is sent to committee and the NDP brings forward amendments that those amendments would actually be considered on their merit.

(1055) I would like to take a couple of minutes to speak about that. I am on the health committee and I know that when we have had bills come forward, even private members' bills that were fairly straightforward, every single time that we sought amendments to improve the bill, not for some political exercise but to simply improve the bill, they have been voted down. Again, in talking to my colleagues, I know that this is basically what happens at every single committee. The Conservative members can act in a very arrogant way. It does not matter what amendment is put forward; it is shut down.

A bill such as this has far-reaching powers for future generations in terms of the way the Northwest Territories government can operate on behalf of its people. With the bill, particularly because it amends 42 different pieces of legislation, the process at committee of hearing witnesses and considering amendments will be especially important. To my colleagues across the way, I really hope that when the bill gets to committee, they will actually consider amendments in the light that the bill could be improved. There are concerns that have been expressed, particularly from first nations.

Through the parliamentary process, the democratic process and the committee process, and through hearing witnesses and expert testimony, I hope that some of the concerns in the bill can be addressed. I hope that there is a commitment that the Conservatives will do this in good faith, and that we do not just see a repeat of what we have become so used to. It is really so disrespectful of the parliamentary process to dismiss whatever amendments are put forward. In terms of the support for the bill, because it has gone through a process in the Northwest Territories, there are people who certainly support devolution.

In fact, I would quote Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, who said: We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning.... I would also quote Robert McLeod, who is the Premier of the Northwest Territories. 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.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories made that statement in June of this year as the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories approved the agreement. We also have the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who pointed out that it is a very “historic agreement and one which will provide the Northwest Territories with the long-awaited and rightful ability to manage and control public lands”. However, there are still voices that need to be heard of the people who have concerns about the agreement.

For example, Jake Heron, from the Métis Nation, in speaking about 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. As this agreement was being negotiated, obviously there were concerns being expressed. We have the same from an MLA in the Northwest Territories, Mr.

Bromley, who 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. There are clearly concerns out there. In the time that I have remaining, I would like to underscore the NDP's support for the bill in principle at second reading. We are committed to working in good faith at the committee level to hear from people in the Northwest Territories and from experts who were part of this process.

We are committed to making sure that this agreement is what it should be, that it is something that the people of the Northwest Territories can live with into the future and will address their concerns and allow them the measure of self-determination that we in the NDP all believe in.

(1100) Whether it is Quebec, the Northwest Territories or the first nations, we believe that people have the right to their own determination. Fundamentally, that is what this bill is about. Therefore, we will support it. However, we will work hard to ensure the bill lives up to those expectations. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very persuasive speech. The people of the Northwest Territories have been trying for years to control and manage their land and their natural resources.

I also thank my colleague for pointing out that it seems that the party in power will not be giving any speeches today. That is unfortunate. My question for my colleague is the following: in her opinion, why is it so important for the people of the Northwest Territories to be able to manage their own assets? (1105) [ English ] Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Joliette is correct. The question we have is why government members are not debating the bill. This is very much a basic process in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask government members why the government reserved control over appointments to the environmental review board and maintained control over the approval of licences. That is in this agreement. We would like to get an answer to that. Maybe we will be able to address this at committee. To address my colleague's comments in debate at second reading, devolution is important for the people of the north. However, it cannot be a half-baked thing. Devolution means devolution. It means the right to exercise authority and power over decisions in that area.

Yet there are elements of the bill before us today that still maintain the control of the federal government, such appointments to the environmental review board. Why would that not be done locally? If there are reasons for that, we would like to hear them. However, we are not hearing anything. There is silence on the other side of the House. Therefore, I cannot answer the question, but it is a question we will keep asking, along with other questions, to ensure the agreement lives up to the expectations of the people in the north for devolution. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I apologize if I have been silent. However, members will hear from me now. I want to bring to the attention of members that we understand the development of the Northwest Territories, particularly with respect to Mackenzie Valley land and water. We also understand that if we are to develop that, we want to ensure the development of those areas are run effectively and efficiently. As future land claims come along, I would envision we would continue to build a bureaucracy of more boards. We now have four. The intent is to become more effective. We would put that into a single board.

Then as more land claims are developed around there, they would be able to use subcommittees of that board and the local people within that area would be the first on the ground part of it. Part of what we want to continue to do is to ensure that investment and development is done in an environmentally right way and that the regulatory process is in place to ensure that whatever is happening in terms of those land claims is done properly and most efficiently. If we are to attract the kind of investment and development we want, we also know we have to be the best at what we do.

Becoming more efficient, which is what we have done in just about all of our environmental processes, is about reducing a lot of the duplication. We want to ensure there is a continuity between boards and regulatory processes. Having the one board will help accomplish that. I know from the NDP component that this is likely about resource development and the growing of investors. I suspect from the comments of the NDP members that they still oppose that, but not as a government and not as Canada. We are enriched by it and we need to ensure we take the best advantage of it in the most effective and sensitive way.

Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague from the government side to the debate. I hope he will go one step further and participate in the debate. Certainly questions and comments is one way, but there are opportunities to speak in the debate today for 10 or 20 minutes, and I hope the member will do that. The member talked about efficiency and bureaucracy and said that the creation of this superboard was for efficiency and to eliminate bureaucracy. Efficiency does not necessarily mean that bigger is better.

The regional land and water boards were created by the Mulroney Conservative government to give aboriginal people a say over the development of lands and waters. There is a question about how eliminating these regional boards is going to serve their interests. This is something we will follow up on in committee. I do not necessarily buy the argument about having a structure of subcommittees that do not have the same authority as the previous boards. The subcommittees would have to report back to the superboard and so they might be very limited in the scope they have. That is not necessarily a better way to go.

This will be a point of discussion and debate, I hope in the House and also in the committee because we do want to delve into this question a little more closely.

(1110) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we look at the bill as a positive step forward, because it would provide the devolution of power in having more influence on natural resources and revenues coming in through those natural resources, which is a great thing. The member made reference to the cap. Once a certain amount of money was reached in revenue collected from natural resources, that is where it would end and the rest would flow through, from what I understand, to Ottawa. The member expressed disappointment in that.

I want to know to what degree the member thinks there should be a cap from her perspective. Does the NDP believe that a cap is not warranted and that whatever revenues are generated from the natural resources should remain in the Northwest Territories? Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct that under the agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories will keep 50% of revenues collected from resource development on public land, but there is a maximum. I do not know what that maximum is, but when that maximum is hit, the Government of Canada retains the remainder.

Presumably this was something that came out of the negotiation. I was not at the table, so I am not privy to what the various positions were and whether this was a compromise. When it gets to committee, this is one element of the bill that is very much worth examining to determine whether this maximum cut-off is something that should be reviewed and possibly changed in the future. I would be very interested to hear what the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories is in what its sees as the future in revenues from resource development.

It may have a longer range plan and it may be something we need to build into the bill to ensure its expectations for what devolution is are met. There is a lot to look at in the bill and we will do that in a very forthright way when it gets to committee so this question can be answered. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising today to speak to Bill C-15 .

I would like to first indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury . [ English ] I would like to begin my speech in the chamber today by first congratulating the member for Western Arctic , who has done an immense amount of work on this file and represents his constituents very well. I would like to mention, most notably, his private member's bill in the House that he presented to increase the borrowing power of the Northwest Territories.

He has worked tirelessly in the House to represent his constituents and ensure that the Northwest Territories develop in ways that are sustainable and to increase the ability of his constituents to participate in their own democracy. Bill C-15 is

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. The

short title of this bill is the “devolution implementation bill”. The length of the title of the bill is an indicator of the length of the bill itself, a 240 page omnibus bill. Preparing for this speech, I went through many cups of coffee. As I will mention later, it is customary for the government to present omnibus bills in the House. I would also like to congratulate Robert McLeod, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, for his work on this file as well. Before delving into the content of this bill, I would like to briefly talk about the process and the form of it.

As I mentioned, this is a 240 page omnibus bill. The Conservative government in this case has lumped issues that are less contentious in the bill, issues that the opposition parties could actually get on board with, such as devolution, with issues that are a bit more contentious, including the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects in

part 4 of the bill. Unfortunately, rather than separating these parts of the bill in order to get the support of opposition parties, the government put them into the same bill. This has occurred in other bills and it is the common practice of the Conservative government, which has not behaved in a very democratic way in Parliament. We saw this occur in the case of Bill C-13 , the cyberbullying bill protecting Canadians from the online crime act, which was introduced by the justice minister last week.

The bill would stipulate up to five years in prison for individuals who published intimate images of people without their express permission and would also give police greater ability to investigate cyberbullying. This is something the opposition parties could get on board with, especially as we have seen these tragic cases of teenagers being cyberbullied across the country, with tragic results. However, Bill C-13 includes measures that are completely unrelated to cyberbullying. It includes measures on terrorism, organized crime and hate propaganda.

It gives police greater leeway to access online communications and contains provisions for jail sentences of up to two years for poaching cable and satellite TV transmissions. It is hard to see how these measures directly relate to the issue of cyberbullying. It is another cynical move by the Conservatives to try to push through their agenda in these bills that the opposition, unfortunately, cannot agree with wholeheartedly. I will now discuss the content of Bill C-15 . As we know, this bill has four parts.

Part 1 would enact the Northwest Territories Act, implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resource Devolution Agreement and amend and repeal other acts and certain orders and regulations. Essentially, the Northwest Territories Act is the territories' foundational act.

Part 1 would transfer powers to regulate oil and gas pipelines from the federal government to the territorial government as long as these remained onshore.

(1115) Part 2 would amend the Territorial Lands Act,

part 3 would amend the Northwest Territories Waters Act and

part 4 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As we have heard from my colleagues on the NDP side, this is the part that is the most contentious, perhaps, and this is the

section that replaces regional management boards with a single 11-member board. Those listening at home and those in my home province of Quebec might be interested to know that the Northwest Territories actually has responsibilities similar to provinces. In the late 1980s, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The Northwest Territories government also has responsibility over education, social services, highways and airport administration, which are roles that would normally be considered to be under provincial jurisdiction. This process has been ongoing throughout the history of the Northwest Territories, beginning with the Carruthers Commission in 1966, which actually moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats to Yellowknife.

There is a history that leads up to the nineties, in which there were many constitutional development caucuses in the north, so this is a debate that has been going on for decades. The NDP is in favour of devolution. This is actually the part of the bill we would support. As I explained, the people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like power for decades. I would support the Northwest Territories in taking over federal responsibilities in the north.

This is because we believe that the Northwest Territories knows best how its resources ought to be used, and ultimate authority should rest with the Northwest Territories. I commend the Premier, Bob McLeod, for his work. However, there are many contentious issues with Bill C-15 , so we would expect the government side to listen to our suggestions in committee and to amend the bill in order to take into account the expectations of northerners and to address some of the concerns that were raised around the Conservatives' move to lump in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The role of committee is crucial to the bill, and the Conservatives should benefit from committee and bring in experts and stakeholders and actually amend the bill so that it has wide consensus from those whom it concerns. At this point we are concerned with the government's previous inability to make amendments to bills in committee. Notably there is the case of the Conservatives actually rejecting an amendment from the opposition side. That was an amendment concerning a grammatical mistake that was found in a bill, but they categorically objected to this amendment simply because it came from the opposition.

Following that, the Conservatives had to bring forward the amendment again to change the small grammatical error in the bill. We would actually expect the government members to listen to opposition members and to testimony, instead of governing with their ears and eyes closed to those who would propose constructive changes to the legislation.

Part 4 of the bill, the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects, we find contentious. On this point I would like to refer to the speech in this House of my colleague from the Western Arctic , in which he raised important concerns with this part of the bill: “There has been no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision”. We do see that the Conservative government is trying to ram through its agenda without actually giving an adequate say to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I will finish by citing the importance of taking into account the specific realities of the Northwest Territories in considering the bill, namely the presence of many aboriginal peoples in the north. Also, as my colleagues have raised, one of the main problems concerning land and water use certainty is the lack of progress in aboriginal land claim settlements.

(1120) We would raise that as a point, one which we could possibly discuss at committee. I would like to support the bill in principle. I would like to support the idea of devolution and giving the Northwest Territories more power, although I have serious concerns with the content of the bill and would suggest that the government accept our amendments during committee stage. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very good speech. I hope that the other parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, will speak to this matter later.

There is one thing that I find to be quite extraordinary: the amendments to replace the current structure of regional land and water boards. However, at the same time, these amendments also give the power to approve all land and water usage to the federal minister. Is this not at odds with the Northwest Territories' control over their natural resources?

(1125) Ms. Laurin Liu : Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is a crucial point to be considered when the bill is studied in committee. A number of people have raised this point. The member for Western Arctic spoke about this in his speech. My colleague has raised an important point that will have to be discussed because the members of this House, the people who worked on this bill and Canadians who will be affected by it do not all agree.

Nevertheless, I believe that some parts of the bill deserve our support. [ English ] Many people do not actually know that the Government of the Northwest Territories does not receive any revenues from research development and relies on federal transfer payments and taxes to deliver public programs and services. I did not have time to mention this in my speech, but under this agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories would keep 50% of the revenues collected from research development on public land up to a maximum and the Government of Canada would get the remainder.

There are very positive parts of the bill that we need to keep and to preserve, but as my colleague mentioned, there are also many parts of the bill that we need to study critically. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when one talks about devolution, which part of the bill does, it reminds me of the place where I grew up, which also has a devolved Parliament.

The problem with devolution is that if we do not do it right, if we do not actually ask folks what they want, what their needs are, what the requirements are for the people that they are about to represent as we devolve this Parliament, as we devolve certain powers to them, we end up in a place where we continue the mode of discussions about how to acquire the powers they think they deserve under the devolution. There are experiences around the world about devolving powers to certain places.

In the U.K., for instance, one could take the experience of the devolved Parliament in Scotland that came out of Westminster, which has been a Parliament of the United Kingdom for hundreds of years—a lot of longer than what we have seen here—we could take that experience and make sure we get it right. The reason to get it right, and one of the reasons that Scotland is now talking about more devolved powers, which it calls the question, is the fact that it did not get it right the first time.

Does it not make sense to take those experiences and talk to the folks we are going to give devolved powers to, to see if it is actually what they would like and need in the longer term to satisfy the needs of the people of the Northwest Territories? This is about them. It is not about us in the House. Should we not ask them to make sure we get this right? [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu : Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very eloquent.

We have to accept the fact that we live in a very diverse country and that the regions are all extremely different. [ English ] I think this is the way that an NDP government would function. An NDP government would consult and make sure devolution happens properly. As my colleague from Western Arctic stated, we have particular problems with

part 4 of the bill, as the structure would be changed to a single board managing research development. It would be possible to change it back later, but that is a question that is up in the air. However, as my colleague mentioned, an NDP government would go back and take a look at this and make sure it is done right. I think that our vision of how this country should operate is very much in concordance with the vision Canadians have in every region of this country. Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-15 , which is the Northwest Territories devolution implementation bill. I think the

short title does not reflect what the bill is really all about. The bill is really

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. The bill would do a lot, and I think it is important, in the debate we are having in this House today and then at committee, to truly look at all of the implications that Bill C-15 would bring forward.

As my colleague for Welland mentioned earlier, it is truly important that we get this bill right, especially for the people of the Northwest Territories who have been working toward gaining province-like powers for decades. That is why members have heard from many of my colleagues today that the NDP is in support of the bill and of the Northwest Territories taking over some federal responsibilities in the north. Truly, who knows best about the territory and area? The people of the Northwest Territories do.

They are the ones who should be deciding on how their resources ought to be used, and ultimately the authority should rest with them. This brings up a few questions that we, as New Democrats, would like to see answered today or in committee. First, considering that many first nations in the Northwest Territories are strongly objecting to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, why are the Conservatives ignoring these concerns and pressing ahead with the creation of a superboard? This is a type of question that we definitely need to have answered.

If we cannot get it answered today, it is something that will need to be asked in committee. As we heard earlier from our Conservative colleagues, the creation of a superboard is for efficiency. Well, a superboard may not always be efficient if we do not bring forward the will, needs, wants and requests of all of the citizens of the Northwest Territories. We already know that many of the first nation groups within the Northwest Territories have some concerns. I am hoping, through this debate and the opportunity in committee after second reading, that we can start getting some of these questions answered.

Another question: Considering the massive revamp the bill represents, why did the Conservatives reserve control over appointments to the environmental review board and main control over approval of licences? Right off the top, I was talking about the importance of devolution and of the citizens and Government of the Northwest Territories having the control and ultimate say over their resources, their land and their territories. However, with Bill C-15 , the government is saying, “We can give you some, but all of those requirements are now going to fall right back to the minister”.

I think this is a question we need to get an answer to so that we can ensure we are doing this right. For myself, coming from a resource-based community in northern Ontario, the great riding of Sudbury, that conversation comes up often. Why do we not have more say over the resources that are coming out of our ground in Sudbury? It is a conversation that many of my municipal councillors have with the province and that the province has with the feds. This is something we need to look at and ensure that conversation happens.

This begs the question then: Is it not premature to bring forward changes to the environmental review board creating a single superboard and eliminating the regional land and water boards before the completion of the land claims that are happening right now in the Northwest Territories? Again, these are questions that need to be answered and we are hoping that this debate will allow for more of that.

(1130) Let us look at a bit of the history. The negotiations concluded with the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada in March 2013, and the Legislative Assembly voted to approve the final agreement on June 5, 2013. There were several first nations, Métis, and Inuit organizations that all took

part in signing the devolution final agreement on June 25. The agreement gives the Northwest Territories residents a greater voice in decisions about how public land, water, and resources are managed, how the economy is developed, and how the environment is protected. If this is coming from the Government of Northwest Territories and the citizens of Northwest Territories, it is incumbent upon us, as federal parliamentarians, to work together to ensure that we have the debate to allow for them to have more of a say in lands, minerals, and development. That is why we have some concerns on this side of the House.

We have some concerns when superboards are the ones that will be making the decisions or when the minister has the final say in appointments to these superboards. We cannot put the power in one person when it is representing such a large area with so many people. Among other things that are important to mention is that the results of public engagement in the proposed Northwest Territories lands and resource devolution agreement were based on more than 40 public and stakeholder meetings in all regions of the Northwest Territories during April and May of this year.

Forty public and stakeholder meetings is fantastic when we think about the involvement, by the Northwest Territories government, of its citizens on this issue. Unfortunately, in this House, with the current government, too many times we have seen the elimination of public consultation and the reduction of stakeholder consultation. We bring certain issues to committee and listen to witnesses and testimony from stakeholders and citizens. They give testimony on how to make things work better and how to make a bill function within the laws of the land.

What ends up happening in committee is that those ideas that are brought forward are not heard by the government members. The government will bring forward amendments, and its amendments pass. When we bring forward amendments on this side of the House, after listening to the testimony of our witnesses and stakeholders and putting in hours of work and research, they are sloughed off to officials to slam down. The next thing we know, they are defeated.

(1135) It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that we create bills, legislation, and laws that do the right thing so that we only have to do it once. Creating amendments all the time should be the exception, not the norm. However, what we see right now is amendment after amendment having to be presented, because unfortunately, what we have seen is the current government not always putting forward the best legislation but putting forward legislation that is based on a lot of politics.

Right now we have the opportunity in this House, in this debate, and in committee to make sure that the people of the Northwest Territories have that say, that they have the opportunity to have those powers to make sure that they are looking after their communities, families, and citizens. It is a great land. The member for Western Arctic talks often about the great people in his riding and the work he does for them. I am very proud to be able to work with the MP for Western Arctic on several issues when it comes to small businesses, tourism, and consumer affairs.

With that, I look forward to continuing the conversation during the question and answer period about the importance of this bill and the importance of devolution to the Northwest Territories.

(1140) [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for his speech. The party in power does say that it consults people and conducts public consultations. However, in my experience, it would seem that there is a rather minimal amount of consultation. Furthermore, bills do not even reflect the views of the people consulted. When people are consulted, they can tell us what kind of life they want and how they want to structure their society and use their natural resources in order to have a better life.

According to the member for Sudbury , what is the role of public consultations in ensuring that people live well, are happy and achieve social peace? How does he see the consultations? Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. [ English ] The interesting thing about consultations is that we do not always get everything we want to hear in the sense that public consultations are just that. People come and give their two cents on the issue of the day.

Sometimes we may think that what we are proposing and what we are moving forward is right and just, but then we hear through the consultation process that we forgot about something. When we recognize that, we can make the fixes and bring them forward to make sure, through public consultations, that the legislation we are bringing forward is the best we can do. Right now, unfortunately, with so many questions left unanswered, I do not know if we are bringing forward the best we can do.

When we are creating superboards, when we are leaving the powers of so many jurisdictions in the Northwest Territories within the power of one federal minister, there is some concern. If the Northwest Territories could have 40 meetings with the public and with stakeholders, then we need to be able to do the same and listen at committee. If there are recommendations made at committee through the testimony of the witnesses and through the work done by the opposition parties, I think it is an opportunity for us to ensure that we put them into the legislation to make the best law we can for the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question specifically about the amending process in the committee process. Perhaps he could tell us about some of his experiences that were not in camera, because obviously, if they were in camera, he would not be able to say anything. I can speak to the experience I had with the agriculture committee, when it came to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, when the government brought forward its latest bill on food safety.

We had a series of amendments we actually discussed in an open session, because it was a public session, so I can speak to them. We proposed a number of amendments that we felt were comprehensive and that would not alter the bill substantively but would actually enhance it. We were actually working with the government to enhance what everyone sees as being correct, which is making a strong piece of legislation on food safety. One would have thought they would want to actually do that. If they left something out of the legislation, would they not want to add it in?

It seems that if we propose it on this side, it is going to be denied. What we have seen is that there is no opportunity, because it is simply voted down. I hope my colleague has a comment on that. Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague and comment on the fine tartan tie he is wearing today. Amendments on this side of the House come from testimony from witnesses and stakeholders and from research. They are always thrown away by the government. That is unfortunate.

(1145) Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges . I would like to thank the member for Western Arctic for his work on Bill C-15 . I have never had the opportunity to be in the north, but I feel that I have been there after speaking with him. He knows that part of Canada intimately and regales us with plenty of stories that let us feel as if we have actually been there ourselves, if we have not had the pleasure. This is why parliaments are essential.

They bring people from different parts of the country together to discuss where there is overlap and interest but where there is also disagreement. A well-functioning Parliament is essential to a well-functioning country. Sometimes I wish this Parliament would function a little better. There are a number of measures before the House, either motions or private members' bills, that I encourage everyone in the House to look at, because we need to make this place work a little better. I am happy to say that we are supporting Bill C-15 at second reading. We favour devolution for the Northwest Territories.

They have pushed for it for a long time, and I am happy to see that we are at least going part of the way to getting this right at the moment. However, there are a number of problems we have with the bill, as my colleagues have pointed out in their speeches. We are looking forward to discussing them at committee. My colleagues here today have offered a robust discussion on the details of the bill, although it would have been nice to have had more comments and speeches from the other parts of the House, because what we are here to do is share and deliberate.

Perhaps some of the questions from the other side will help us work through this a little more today. There are two things I would like to do in my short time. One is to continue what my colleague, the member for Welland , was speaking about, which was the idea of devolution and what it means. To talk about it in normative terms, what is it we try to accomplish by devolving? What are the themes, and what would we look at to determine whether devolution is a success or a failure? Second, if I have time, I will also look at the Yukon, which has been devolved for many decades now.

There are lessons we can learn from that territory that perhaps we could transfer to the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, if you have free time on Friday night, there is an

article you may want to peruse. It is titled “Assessing Devolution in the Canadian North: A Case Study of the Yukon Territory”, by Alcantara, Cameron, and Kennedy. It is from the academic journal Arctic , Volume 65 No. 3, published in September 2002. They actually have a very good case study. They conducted many interviews in the Yukon to ask a number of essential questions and to assess how successful the Yukon had been in devolving its powers. I recommend that to you, Mr. Speaker, and anyone else in the House. Sometimes the ivory tower can be useful, and in this case, it does give a good perspective.

What is devolution? All countries have constitutions, and constitutions lay out who has the ability to distribute resources and make rules. They distribute power within a country. However, if we remove the constitution and just say that we have a whole bunch of people living on a particular land mass, how would we write the rules that would determine who makes decisions? In some ways, devolution is a reaction to our current constitutional situation. The provinces and the federal government are enshrined in our Constitution.

They are actually given, under sections 91 and 92, the statutory authority from the Queen of Canada to execute laws and distribute resources in Canada. In some ways, territories are not unlike municipalities. Sometimes that offends people, so I want to be clear that, constitutionally, provinces are recognized. They devolve power to the municipalities. Constitutionally, of course, the federal national government is recognized. It devolves power to the territories. However, there are some real differences between territories and municipalities, and there should be.

Territories are much more like provinces in nature. For example, as we are seeing in this bill, they have more control over resources, such as a 50% split in the determination of resource revenues,

whereas municipalities have much less power.

(1150) However, in nature they are similar because both territories and municipalities are not masters of their own fate. Where a province has certain constitutional powers to determine what they want to do without interference from the federal government, territories do not have that luxury.

When the federal government decides what kinds of powers it is going to devolve to territories, and provinces decide what kinds of powers they are going to devolve to municipalities, we have to make sure that the local population is getting the powers and the resources it needs to do the work it needs to do at the local level. As my colleague from Welland pointed out, devolution has been a major theme around the world, especially in the United Kingdom, for many decades.

I had the opportunity when I was living in the U.K. from 1997 to around 2002 to watch as New Labour decided to move ahead with a very aggressive devolution agenda. For example, we had the Good Friday Agreement, which was signed and devolved some powers in Northern Ireland. Considerable powers were also devolved to the Scottish and Welsh legislatures, as well as the City of London, which is treated more in some ways like a province than a city these days. There was a lot of negotiation about who would get what powers and where. The power to make the change is still with the Queen and with the U.K.

Parliament, however these local bodies have become much more autonomous and independent. Universally, across the United Kingdom, this is a good thing. Local people have much more control over their own lives through their own legislatures. I think devolution continues to be a popular idea, and it should be because, in general, devolution is a good thing. Why would we devolve? What are some of the normative reasons why we might devolve power to a lower level or a government that is closer to the people? One of the first arguments as to why we would do this is that it increases efficiency.

We have heard this from the other side of the House. It does appear in the academic literature. If, for example, there were no territorial government in the Northwest Territories, that would mean all the decisions made in the north would be made from right here in Ottawa. We would debate what is best for northerners with a couple of representatives here in the House, and the vast majority of people who do not live in the north would be making decisions for the north. That is why a devolved legislature with distinct powers in the north is essential. It allows northerners to make decisions about their own lives.

The extent to which these decisions can be made, the decisions that are determined by the federal government and/or the NWT government, is what is at the core of what we are discussing here, both in this act and I am sure, in subsequent acts as we move to devolve more powers. The argument is that sub-national authorities, here territorial governments, are better positioned to access and make use of local knowledge and context when they are making decisions.

If there were no Northwest Territories government and I was asked every few days to make a decision for people in the north, I would feel unprepared to do that, because I have not visited. This is why it is so great that there is a very well-functioning legislature there. Devolution would lead to more efficiency within government. Therefore, efficiency is one reason to do it. The second reason is that, most importantly, devolution encourages government responsiveness. Local people can hold local representatives to account.

The more power that these local politicians and local governments have, the more people will take interest and participate in their own governance. I will close by looking at voter turnout, for example in the NWT. In the late 1990s, it was around 70%. It was around 60% in the 2000s. Northerners are already very engaged in their own governance. I think devolving will increase interest in governance in the Northwest Territories, and for that reason alone it is a grand idea to devolve powers.

(1155) However, I wish that the government would debate more on this. I hope that it will encourage discussion and witnesses to come forward so that we can make sure that we get it right the first time around. This one has been a long time coming. We do not want to wait another 20 or 30 years before we do it again. We have to get it right, now. I implore the government to at least listen to our side of the House as we move forward with the bill. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Sudbury , who mentioned my tie.

Just to let folks know, this is the official tartan of my hometown of Glasgow. There is a plug for the European City of the Year in 1998. Nonetheless, in contrast to how our colleagues on the other side, many of whom come from Alberta, would see the national energy program, which the Liberals hoisted upon them many years ago, how must folks in the north feel? I have been to Yellowknife on occasion. It is a wonderful place. How must they feel, and how would the Conservatives feel if they were under the same sort of program that the folks in the north are when it comes to their resources?

I would love to talk to the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca about how he would feel if he were under the same sort of a regime in Alberta that the Northwest Territories is going to be under, imposed upon them by this legislation. My guess is that there would probably be a riot in Calgary, but that is of course speculative on my part. I wonder if my friend could comment on that very issue and the contrast of the two. It would seem to me that in an egalitarian place such as this country, we would want to treat them the same. Mr. Kennedy Stewart : Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution, we are all Canadians.

We enjoy the rights that are given to us in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, we are not all equal administratively. That is because in the territories, the territorial governments have fewer powers than the provinces. This is a crucial part of the debate. Where Albertans, British Columbians or people from Ontario have provincial governments that have complete discretion over their resources, the people who live in the territories do not. This has not really been addressed adequately in the bill. We have mentioned this on a number of occasions.

There are, perhaps, pending lawsuits over this in the north, and that worries us greatly. We want to make sure that we get this right, but we want to make sure that we treat all Canadians equally. Again, this is a concern that we have brought up and would like to discuss more with the government. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, just to follow through on that particular question and to look at the issue of natural resources and resource development within the agreement, there is the idea that a certain percentage would in fact go over to the territories or remain in the territories as the natural resources get developed. It is estimated into the tens of millions of dollars. They will continue to receive transfer payments over and above that. Does the NDP have a position on what they would like to see as an ultimate goal? Is it talking about 100% of resources that are generated out of the territories staying in the territories?

What is the party's position on that? Mr. Kennedy Stewart : Mr. Speaker, the way I look at Canada and all parts of Canada is that all Canadians should be equal, both constitutionally and administratively. The bill is a move in the right direction. However, I am sure that this issue will come up again and I really hope that we do not take as much time as we have in the past. This has been dragging on way too long. Oddly, there has not been a lot of consultation.

Although it has taken a long time under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government to get the ball rolling on this issue, there has not been as much consultation as there should have been. The Conservatives have had lots of time, but they have not talked to enough people. We should reverse that next time, make it shorter but make sure that we include more people in the process.

(1200) Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Western Arctic for all the work he has done in the House and on the bill, in particular. Here is one man who represents a vast territory and does so very well, above and beyond what I would expect a member to do. He brings his work with him and I have great admiration for him. He brings the issue of Arctic sovereignty to the forefront in an authentically northern way. I will explain what I mean by an “authentically northern way” in my coming words.

It is not easy to represent an authentic northern perspective in the House and that is simply because, save for three seats, the rest of the seats are occupied by people from the south. Therefore, the priorities of the north depend on the voices of their three representatives in the House, of which the member for Western Arctic is one. I commend the member for doing so continuously and doing it to the best of his abilities. I am a southerner, so I have to say right off the bat that my knowledge of the north is limited.

The people of the north, from what I understand, embrace a philosophy that integrates people and places in a way that is hard for southerners to sometimes understand. Nevertheless, here we are again in the House making decisions for the north with the majority of MPs being from the south. In my speech, I will depend more on experts, having said that my knowledge of the north is limited. I have never travelled to the Northwest Territories. I know what I have read in books, but I would like to depend on experts to explore some concepts surrounding devolution. I would first like to discuss Arctic sovereignty.

The NDP is in favour of increased sovereign powers for the Northwest Territories. Other of my colleagues have mentioned province-like powers, but I would prefer to use the term “increased sovereign powers”. In doing so, we need to see the north's point of view of Arctic sovereignty. At this point, I will share a quote with the House by John Ralston Saul. He stated: Most of the sovereignty debate has been framed in old-fashioned western empire terms: We have a distant frontier that must be defended. This frontier is ours, not theirs , whoever they may be.

It is only in this context that the people of the North are mentioned, as if the reason for their existence were to serve Canadian sovereignty. There is little sense in all of this that the well-being and success of the people of the North is a purpose in and of itself. And they do not need to be the guarantors of our sovereignty—even though they are—in order to deserve well-being and success. They deserve these exactly as any other Canadian citizen deserves them. Some of my colleagues touched on the point of equality. In terms of devolution, what are speaking about here today?

I have particularly enjoyed Anthony Speca's

article in Policy Options . He stated: Devolution means first and foremost that the territories’ own elected legislators, not distant southern ministers, make decisions in the local interest over the use and development of lands and resources. Perhaps no less importantly, it also means a share of the substantial revenues those lands and resources may generate. In exploring those ideas about devolution and Arctic sovereignty, we must talk about what Speca mentioned in his article, which is resources. How will we treat them in this agreement?

Again, I point to a quote by John Ralston Saul, which states: ...we are a northern nation. Two thirds of our country lies in what is normally categorized as North lands. One third of our gross domestic product comes out of the three territories and the equally isolated northern parts of our provinces. And that one third is what makes us a rich, not a poor, country.

(1205) One-third of our GDP comes from the north. This GDP is largely from the rich natural resources that exist in those territories. The question we should be asking here surrounding Bill C-15 is this: are we more interested in prosperity for the south or true prosperity for the people of the north? This is an essential question that we should be asking in this House with respect to Bill C-15 . I am quite disturbed that government members are not standing up to give speeches, nor are members of the Liberal caucus, because it is a very important question that we should be asking.

In terms of devolution agreements, we have three that are in process. We have had Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. What Mr. Speca speaks about in his

article is the agreement between Greenland and Denmark. I would like to share with the House, as briefly as I possibly can, his ideas about the agreement between Greenland and Denmark because of what he mentions in his

article in talking about the agreement. He said: As a consequence of assuming self-government within the Danish Kingdom, Greenland obtained jurisdiction over not only its abundant onshore mineral deposits—gold, lead, zinc, iron, rare earths, rubies and so on—but also virgin offshore oil and gas fields that the US Geological Survey estimates contain a tremendous 40 to 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent... He is talking about all of the resources Greenland has. Mr. Speca said that through Denmark's agreement with Greenland, Greenland was able to realize growth at an astonishing rate.

In 2002, the revenues from resources were about zero; they ballooned up to $600 million in 2010. Through its agreement, Greenland can hope to benefit handsomely from resource revenues in the coming years. Mr. Speca goes on to say that had Denmark not handed this potential stream of wealth to Greenland, it would have flowed into the treasury of Denmark. Instead, both parties took a long-term view toward the prosperity and progress of the people of Greenland so that they could, in addition to the self-governance powers they got, also realize their own financial revenue and not depend so much on Denmark. Mr.

Speca goes on to say that under the agreement outlined in Bill C-15 , the Northwest Territories would not benefit as much as Greenland did from Denmark. We could look to this agreement to see an international perspective on a best practice for providing a better guarantee for the prosperity of the Northwest Territories.

The question I have to ask is this: does this agreement give the Northwest Territories the long-term capacity to guarantee their fiscal capacity to deliver northern-sourced solutions and services to the north, rather than what has happened so often in the past, which unfortunately was the south importing unimaginative southern solutions for northern people? Canada needs to catch up on our northern policy by looking at other circumpolar nations.

I will end with another quote from John Ralston Saul: When you look at the heavy hand of the South on northern architecture or power systems or education methods or food supply systems, you begin to realize how difficult it has been and remains for the new Arctic leadership in particular to put a northern perspective in place. Not always, but very often, the insistent and unimaginative ideas coming from the South have solved immediate specific difficulties while creating systemic problems.

(1210) Mr. Speca also said: ...bargaining over resource revenues is both a political and a fiscal game. Following four years of political preparatory work by a joint commission on Greenlandic self-government, Denmark and Greenland together explicitly took the long view toward Greenland's potential emergence as an independent, postcolonial state, with full sovereign rights over its own lands, resources and the revenues that flow from them.

The NDP will be supporting this bill at this reading, but we will always be there to ensure that Bill C-15 will meet northerners' expectations and to discuss these questions at committee. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have been supportive of the broad concept of devolution of power to the Northwest Territories. As my friend mentioned, the New Democratic member for Western Arctic has been fighting for this since before he was elected to the House. We had a very good meeting with Premier McLeod a couple of days ago.

The challenge that the government has created is around a secondary aspect of land and water use in the Mackenzie Valley. As someone who represents a northern riding, I have a great interest in the government's role in devolving powers and transferring wealth back to northerners. Too often we see governments recognizing the north only as a place for resource development and wealth generation, while the rights and title of the people who actually live there are often not respected. There is no equivalent transfer back of revenue from the federal government. In my first year here, we had a study done.

It showed that in Skeena, in my riding in northern British Columbia, for every $10 we were sending out in revenue wealth to the federal coffers, we were getting $1 back in services over the previous 10 years. It is an enormous imbalance in the way that we manage the affairs of this country. As a result, in the Northwest Territories many services underperform because of a lack of resources.

For once the government seems to be listening to northern communities and saying that the devolution of powers to the territories is a good idea, but it has included a little string back to Ottawa, a little control piece back to the federal minister, who will have final jurisdiction over the MVRMA. I am wondering what that speaks to in regard to the government. It almost seems there is a hesitation, that there is not complete confidence in the north's ability to govern itself. This is one of the things we want to study at committee. It particularly pertains to first nations in the north.

There will be implications for first nation communities and first nation leaders as to how the land and water are governed. If Ottawa ultimately has the final say in all of these matters, that seems to undermine just a little the effort the government is making here today to finally respect northern and aboriginal communities. Mr. Jamie Nicholls : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his excellent question, because it touches on the idea of northern people knowing what is best for what happens on their land and with their resources.

As a southerner, I know that I have moved from city to city throughout my career. I have lived in Vancouver, Thunder Bay, and different cities in Canada, and I had a sense of mobility about moving around urban environments in the south. However, there is a particularly northern perspective, a deep understanding and link with the land, that people in the north have that sometimes we from the south tend not to see. We cannot see from the northern perspective, in fact, because we do not live on that land. We do not live and breathe that land every day of our lives for generations and generations.

We have a different perspective. My feeling is that we should discuss this aspect at committee, because we do need a northern perspective. To add this little string to Ottawa is again holding some kind of southern perspective and imposing southern influence on what should be completely under northern sovereignty. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges . Several of my colleagues know that the Atikamekw Nation is found north of Joliette, at the end of an 85-kilometre logging road. You have to rent a good 4x4 to get there.

Some first nations are concerned about the changes this bill makes. It will be studied in committee, and I truly hope that the government will actually listen to the amendments that witnesses want and that will be moved by the NDP in the best interests of these nations. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that. Does he hope that these peoples' needs will be heard in committee?

(1215) Mr. Jamie Nicholls : Mr. Speaker, I feel it is critical that we start listening to first nations, both in the south and in the north. They know their land the best. They know the resources. They know what technology is lacking. For example, snowmobiles are not sophisticated enough to meet the needs in the Arctic. They would have to be imported from Finland to work in that region. They are, however, built by Bombardier. Finland has a northern policy that includes those living in the far north.

We need to do the same, and we can start by listening to the first nations people who live in those territories. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize right from the get-go the incredible effort of the many who people got involved and participated in a worthwhile project that ultimately allowed us to have this debate today.

I am thinking of individuals like Premier Bob McLeod and his group of MLAs in the legislature in Yellowknife, the many first nations, Inuit, Metis and others, different stakeholders, who have a very strong vested interest in ensuring that good, solid policy decisions are being made. I want to, first, recognize their efforts in that sense of commitment to give us a stronger and healthier Canada. When I reflect upon my younger years, a number of years ago, in high school, I would get a sense of pride when we pulled down the map of Canada. It is a massive country land wise. I think we are number two in the world.

Russia, I believe, is the only country that has more land mass than Canada. We all have our own sense of pride. I am from Manitoba and I am very proud of that. I love my city. I am a very strong nationalist. I am a Canadian first and foremost. However, when we look at the map, we see that vast land to the north. At that time, the Northwest Territories looked quite different. We have seen some changes, even since I was in high school.

However, once all is said and done, I recognize, even as a high school student, that there is this great vast beautiful part of Canada, which I believe has so much opportunity into the future, not only for those who live in the Northwest Territories but for all Canadians.

As we become mobile as a society, we understand and appreciate all regions of our country, whether it is the prairie lands in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and a bit in Alberta, or our mountains in British Columbia, or the Shield in northern Ontario, or those beautiful cliffs and the Atlantic Ocean out east, or that vast land up to the north, which has so much to offer. We are finding that more and more Canadians want to visit the north, and for good reason. We can talk about the beauty of nature where we have things such as caribou, polar bears, bald eagles and great fishing.

When I was in the military, there was often talk about the Arctic char on the Herc runs and how they would try to bring it back. When I was serving in the Canadian Forces, I had the opportunity to travel to Yellowknife. It was an absolutely beautiful sunny day. It was an incredible flight, but a little noisy. It does get a little noisy in the back of a Hercules aircraft. However, there were windows, so we saw how truly amazing this beautiful land was. However, it is not only the nature, even though the nature is very important. I like to think that all political parties truly care about what happens up north.

Talking of the beauty of the Northwest Territories, there is the Tuktut Nogait National Park, which has been on the books for many years. It was first recognized as a park in the making, because we had to respect all sort of other issues. We could not just proclaim that this was a park. However, it was an area that was identified for the development of a national park at some point, and it was designated that back in 1971 by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

(1220) This ultimately came to fruition under Jean Chrétien in the mid-1990s. Paul Martin had something to do with the negotiating with first nations dealing with that park. All individuals will recognize that there is so much beauty in the north and it does need to be bragged and boasted about. We should feel very good about the Northwest Territories and what it has to offer all Canadians. We also need to recognize the importance of ensuring it has the tools to do the types of things that many of us take for granted. I go back to my high school years.

I knew it was a territory, but back then I made the assumption it would operate in the same fashion as a province. There is a substantial difference. Provinces are incorporated into the Constitution as a provincial entity with certain powers under the jurisdiction of provincial control. It is quite different for the territories. The territories have had to evolve and the evolution has been somewhat slow, but one has to be careful as they evolve. The bill before us will assist with that. There are some things that we take for granted. I have often made reference to the fact that I was an MLA for a number of years.

We dealt with the delivery of health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction, and public education, again a provincial jurisdiction. We have had that for many years at the provincial level. It has not been that many years that the Northwest Territories has taken ownership or more responsibility in those areas. Today, as we have seen in the past, we are seeing more power or authority being shifted over to the Northwest Territories. We see that as a good thing. We have had some incredible individuals, like Larry Bagnell, who I did not have the opportunity to know for very long.

From discussions I have had with others in the caucus, I know he was an individual who contributed a great deal in making people aware of what was taking place. We have an incredible critic from Labrador, who is a very strong advocate for the north and northern development. That is really what we are starting to see with this bill. The emphasis or the big push on this is about northern development, along with the natural resources and how revenue might be dealt with. These are very important issues.

As someone had pointed out earlier, this is something provinces have had for a good number of years, virtually since Confederation. It is only natural that we would see more movement toward it. When the Liberal Party critic spoke on the bill, it was indicated very clearly that we would like to see the bill go to the committee stage. We believe the bill ultimately makes a positive difference. It takes a step in the right direction. I say that because of the idea of the federal transfer of authority, dealing with our natural resources. It is something that is long overdue.

Because we are going to allow it more at that local level, as a result what we will likely see is more development taking place.

(1225) When I say more development, it is important we recognize that it is of a sustainable nature. We will see that because there will be more local input from the individuals who are there, who live and call the Northwest Territories their home. They are very much aware of their environment and obviously care about it. It is great to see that we appear to have an agreement that would allow for the sharing of the revenues being generated. The actual dollar amount, I understand, is based on percentage, but two things need to be highlighted.

One is in regard to the royalties or percentage of revenue that is generated from resources, which will be a significant amount of money. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars that would remain in the territories, which is great news for a wide variety of reasons. Equally important is to recognize that Canada continues to provide those transfer payments. The transfer payments play a critical role in ensuring there is equity among Canadians no matter where they live in the country.

That is why it does not matter whether one is from a territory, province or whatever part of our vast land, those transfer payments play a critical role. From my perspective, in terms of social development, it is absolutely critical. It is great that we have had some comments highlighting the fact that there will be an ongoing transfers of dollars coming from Ottawa. One of the things we need to have more dialogue on is the amount of money generated from the natural resources and the exportation of them.

Not only does the Government of the Northwest Territories have a vested interest, but the Canadian government does as well. We are very much interested in hearing some thoughts and ideas, which is one of the reasons I posed the questions I did to my New Democratic colleagues. This will be one of those sticky issues and it will be interesting to hear today and in the future of what happens regarding the percentage or share of the revenue that will remain in the north compared to coming to Ottawa. It is important to know.

The second point I would like to highlight is the idea that through the proposed legislation we will be reforming the way in which we review resource development. I have listened to questions and comments and I have had the opportunity to do a very limited amount of study on the issue, but there are a number of first nation communities that are also part of the agreement. From what I understand, there are still some outstanding issues that have not been resolved.

As much as we want government to ensure it is doing the type of consultation necessary to build that consensus, we will have to wait and see what happens at the committee stage on this point. From a personal perspective, I approach it with an open mind when the government says that it has X number of regional committees that are dealing with land development and its concept is to reduce that number to one, which has raised serious concern.

(1230) I have seen amalgamation of other boards. In Manitoba, we had a very heated debate when it came time to amalgamate school divisions. It was believed that having one larger board would be in the best interests of all Manitobans in that particular region, but it was a very emotional time and there was a great deal of protest. However, ultimately the NDP government felt it was important to do it. We will have to wait and see what takes place on that issue. Whenever community input is reduced or removed, concerns will be raised.

We want to hear arguments as to why the Conservatives felt that going down to one board was in the best interests of the Northwest Territories, and to what degree they have a consensus of support that would allow us to be favourable of that aspect of it. One final comment is that within the legislation there are amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.They are quite significant, because resource development and regional land and water boards could have been incorporated into the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

An argument could be made that we would have been better off to have two pieces of legislation before us. As has been pointed out, it would be great to see government members expand on the legislation and provide more clarification on that issue. On the surface, one could easily say that it would have been better to have, at the very least, two pieces of legislation, since this bill would have an impact on 35 or 40 other pieces of legislation, which is quite significant in itself. I conclude my remarks by stating very clearly that I am a big of fan of the Northwest Territories.

It reminds me of Churchill in my home province. When I think of the north, I think of wonderful opportunities. I am not just talking about it from an economic point of view, but also from a tourism point of view. I realize that economics and tourism are tied, but there are many Canadians who truly value the Northwest Territories and how it contributes to the greater community of the country of Canada.

I am not suggesting that it is possible for VIA Rail to go all the way up to Yellowknife today, but I am sure that if we were able to provide an opportunity sometime in the distant future, we would have many more Canadians travelling to places like Yellowknife and the many different communities in and around the Northwest Territories. The point is that it is a beautiful land. We look forward to the bill being passed. We give accolades to the many different stakeholders involved in bringing forward the legislation.

We hope to see more from the government in answer to specific questions, and we anticipate that government members will be open to amendments at the committee stage to add strength to the bill and build upon the consensus that was achieved with the Northwest Territories legislature, which is a beautiful building in itself.

(1235) Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his statement and for the little bit of a history lesson about how long ago he was in high school. That was quite enjoyable. The hon. member brought up a very good point. I ask members to bear with me for one second. Bill C-15 is

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. What we have in here is a lot. There are a lot of acts that we need to study and look at. The member brought up a very good point by asking if we should not have considered having at least two bills brought forward to the House for debate. It is really important.

We are hearing from many first nations, Metis, and Inuit groups that they are concerned about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and what is going to happen. The member talked about having two bills. Those are things that we should be able to discuss in this debate and at least at committee. That said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question.

If we are not able to make the necessary changes right now and if in five years there is a call for review of these changes to the MVRMA, would he and his party be in favour of transferring more authority to the Northwest Territories to ensure that some of these concerns could be addressed? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, the impact of the legislation in its entirety would be quite significant. It would have a significant impact on future generations not only in the Northwest Territories but also in the other territories.

I believe, first and foremost, that the government should have brought in at least two pieces of legislation. It would have been a little bit easier for us to digest and proceed with, and having a review would be a responsible thing to do. One of the things that I appreciate is that my leader has made reference to how consensus is achieved in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories and how politics are pushed to the