“Imperial Oil is shutting down in Norman Wells, which provides most of the town's taxes. A local pipeline is also stuck in environmental reviews. I want to know what the minister is doing to create jobs and economic activity for the people there.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her tabling of the legislation and her work on the file. In regard to pushing forward Bill C‑27, we did note that, in 2022 to 2024, then prime minister Trudeau announced an expansion of one million square kilometres within the Northwest Territories, covering 25% of its land and waters, and to reach that goal by 2025. That announcement was included. Now, Imperial Oil in Norman Wells announced just a few months ago that it will be ceasing operations within that village. The village itself receives about 70% of its tax base from the operations of Imperial Oil. There is a pipeline that would take energy from Norman Wells down to Alberta, line 21, that is caught in three separate environmental assessments. What is the minister doing to spark economic activity for the people of Norman Wells?”

“The government is delaying the replacement of an old pipeline with too many reviews. This is shutting down operations and putting 750 people out of work. Why will the government not approve this pipeline quickly?”

“Mr. Speaker, the government speaks quite often about creating this economy and doing it in speeds never felt in generations, yet we have an existing pipeline, line 21, that runs from Norman Wells to Alberta that has already been in operation for decades. It now needs to be replaced because it is coming to the end of its useful life, yet the government has turned the Northwest Territories basically into a park. It has caught this pipeline up in three separate environmental assessments, causing Imperial Oil to shut down its operation in Norman Wells. There are 750 people in Norman Wells on the verge of unemployment because the government cannot get its act together. This is an emergency. We need our energy sector strong. Why is the government not acting quickly to get this pipeline approved?”

“American tribes are trying to get a say over Canadian energy projects in British Columbia. The government has done nothing to stop this foreign interference. When will the government stand up to them?”

“Mr. Speaker, what we see in the House is that when the government does the job correctly, legislation can move fairly quickly through this place. However, we have growing unease in British Columbia that continues to create a massive amount of uncertainty. Now we have U.S. tribes trying to get legal standing within the British Columbia framework for energy projects that affect Canada. We also have the fact that these U.S. tribes are moving in on the consultation process and requiring their say-so to approve energy projects within Canada. The government has really done nothing to stand up to these U.S. tribes to say, no, there is no foreign interference on projects on our soil. When do we expect that to happen?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 9 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Agreements like this should also protect private property rights for regular people. In Vancouver, millions of people are worried about losing their property rights under a different agreement. I want to know if future deals will protect private land for all Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech on this self-government agreement, which she says could inform future agreements. There is the Musqueam recognition rights agreement in Vancouver, which has become very controversial. It says that it is not a land agreement, and it goes on to add some comfort that nothing in this agreement is going to impact any aboriginal rights. What is missing is some comfort for the other party, the three million people in Vancouver, who are worried about private property rights. Perhaps it could say something like, “the protection and inalienability of fee simple property rights for all Canadians”. Would that be an improvement?”

“Conservatives support this bill to give the people of Norman Wells self-government. Northern communities make the best decisions for themselves. But true reconciliation also needs jobs, and this government is hurting the northern economy by blocking oil development.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, legislation to implement the final self-government agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, for the Sahtu Dene and Métis of Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories. The name breaks down into two main parts: Tłegǫ́hłı is the place where the oil is, and Got’įnę is the government of the people. At the outset, I want to be clear about the Conservative position. We will be supporting this legislation at second reading and to send it to committee for further study. I mentioned this a few moments ago, but we do so because we recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation. We respect the rights of indigenous communities to pursue self-governance, and we believe that decisions affecting northern communities are often best made by the people who live, work, raise families and build their futures there. This agreement before us is the product of decades of mostly Conservative-led negotiations. It builds upon the 1993 Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement and represents another step in the long evolution of governance in Canada’s north. It recognizes that TGG’s inherent right to self-government establishes a new indigenous government and creates a framework through which that government can exercise authority over matters that are of importance to its citizens. Those are goals, of course, that Conservatives can support. In fact, support for northern self-government and devolution is not new to our party. It is part of a long Conservative tradition that stretches back decades. In 1993, under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and then minister of, at the time, Indian and northern affairs, Tom Siddon, whose wife Pat, I am told, was a strong advocate of good local and constituency work and often attended events on his behalf when he was working elsewhere, Canada signed the Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement. This agreement provided certainty. It recognized rights. It established the foundation upon which agreements like the one we are debating today are built. Years later, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Conservatives advanced one of the most ambitious northern agendas in Canadian history. Our government at the time recognized that Canada’s north was not simply a remote region to be administered from Ottawa. It is home to vibrant communities, rich cultures, extraordinary natural resources and tremendous economic potential. Prime Minister Harper at the time developed a comprehensive northern strategy built around four pillars: one, exercising Canada’s sovereignty; two, promoting social and economic development; three, protecting our natural and environmental heritage; and four, improving and devolving northern governance. This strategy reflected the simple but very important principle: Northerners are in the best position to make decisions about the future of the north. That principle guided us throughout our term in government. The north has always been a defining part of our national identity, but for too long, decisions affecting the north were made thousands of kilometres away by people who would never experience the consequences of those decisions. Conservatives worked to change that. Then minister of indigenous affairs Bernard Valcourt described devolution as one of the final major steps in the political evolution of the Northwest Territories. He argued that northerners should have the same opportunity as others to make decisions about their lands, their waters, their resources. He was right then, and he is right today. The Northwest Territories Devolution Act was not simply about transferring administrative responsibilities. It was about trust. It was about recognizing that northerners understand northern realities better than federal bureaucracies ever could. It was also about economic opportunity. Conservatives understood that when communities have greater authority over their own affairs, they can respond more quickly to opportunities that attract investment, create jobs and build prosperity. The success of the Yukon following its devolution demonstrated exactly that. Greater local control led to stronger economic growth, increased investment and greater confidence in the future. This same principle applies today. Self-government and devolution are not merely constitutional exercises. They are practical tools that allow communities to chart their own course and build a stronger future for the next generation. That principle guided our support, the Conservative government at the time, for the expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve, announced at the time by the late Jim Prentice, who was environment minister, and the late Chuck Strahl, the minister of Indian and northern affairs. Again, that guided our efforts to improve northern regulatory systems. It guided the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, and it guided our support for indigenous self-government agreements throughout the north. Indeed, in 2015, Bernard Valcourt, Conservative member of Parliament and then minister of Indian and northern affairs, introduced Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. During debate on the legislation, Minister Valcourt noted that the opportunities and challenges facing the north are best handled by the people who understand them best: the people who live there. That, again, remains true today. The north is not strengthened when decisions are imposed from Ottawa. The north is strengthened when local communities are empowered to shape their own future. That is why Conservatives have always supported devolution. We believe that local governments understand local needs. We believe that communities understand local priorities. We believe that people are more likely to achieve prosperity when they have greater control over the decisions that affect their lives. The TGG agreement is consistent with that principle. It recognizes that the indigenous population of Norman Wells should have a stronger voice in matters affecting their community, their culture and their future. It creates governance structures that are accountable to their citizens. It allows the community to exercise authority over matters such as citizenship, culture, language, social services and governance. While we may not always agree with every element of every self-government agreement, we recognize that moving beyond the Indian Act and empowering indigenous communities to govern their own affairs can represent meaningful progress. This agreement contains unique provisions, reflecting the realities of Normal Wells. Unlike the Déline agreement, which the minister spoke about a little while ago and which combined indigenous and municipal governance, this agreement keeps the two separate but has the possibility for a future merging. The Town of Norman Wells will continue to exist as a municipal government, while the TGG exercises authorities in areas assigned to it under the agreement. At the same time, this agreement contemplates the possibility that municipal powers could eventually be transferred if certain demographic thresholds are met. Importantly, the agreement contains provisions intended to ensure that if such a transaction occurs, the democratic rights of all, indigenous and non-indigenous, are protected. Residents of Norman Wells, indigenous and non-indigenous, would continue to have voting rights and the ability to seek elected office, and of course that matters. Reconciliation and self-government should strengthen democracy, not weaken it. The agreement must work for not only the TGG citizens, but also the broader community that calls Norman Wells home. One of the most compelling aspects of this agreement is the potential contribution to economic reconciliation. Too often, reconciliation is discussed only in terms of governance, structures and legal frameworks. Those matters are important, but reconciliation must create all kinds of opportunities. Communities need jobs. Families need incomes. Young people need reasons to stay, build careers and raise families in their home community, if they so choose. Economic reconciliation means ensuring that indigenous communities have the tools necessary to participate fully in the economy. Norman Wells, unfortunately, now faces some significant economic challenges. The region has long depended on resource development. The energy sector has provided employment, investment and revenues that support local services and community infrastructure. Unfortunately, recent announcements regarding the winding down of operations have created uncertainty about the future, and that is the operations of Imperial Oil, as I mentioned a little while ago. Now, the story of Norman Wells is inseparable from the story of northern economic development. For more than a century, oil production has been part of the community’s identity. It is actually in the name of the bill we are discussing today, in the indigenous translation. Norman Wells helped fuel northern development, supported generations of workers and families, and provided economic stability for the entire region. As I have mentioned many times, the planned wind-down of Imperial Oil operations has created understandable concern throughout the community. Jobs are now at stake, local revenues are at stake and future opportunities are at stake. The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę have been very clear that greater local control over economic decision-making can help address these challenges. They want to be active participants in shaping the future of their region instead of just observers. Conservatives can very much support that objective. We believe indigenous communities should be partners in economic development. We believe resource projects should create opportunities for all. We believe northern communities should have a meaningful role in determining how development occurs within their region. The future of Norman Wells cannot be built solely on government transfers and bureaucratic programs. It must also be built on jobs, investment, entrepreneurship and responsible development. That is what economic reconciliation looks like. It means ensuring indigenous communities possess not only the authority to govern, but also the tools necessary to create prosperity for their people. The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę have argued that greater local control over those development decisions can help support economic growth, attract investment and ensure future opportunities benefit the community. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a little while ago, the Imperial Oil company has decided to shut down its operations. It has a pipeline that has existed for decades, line 21, taking energy from Norman Wells into Alberta. The pipeline has come to the end of its useful life. It is caught within three separate environmental assessments. The Prime Minister tells us that we need to build at speeds not known before, yet we are seeing a pipeline in existence for decades, creating jobs, opportunity and wealth, being shut down because of a lack of action by the government. There are 750 or so people living in the village of Norman Wells and 70% of their tax revenue is from the energy sector. Those people need those jobs, and the government is turning its back on those people. As members have probably guessed, we have always believed that responsible resource development and indigenous participation go hand in hand. We reject the false choice between economic activity and indigenous prosperity. The reality is that everybody, indigenous and non-indigenous, wants jobs. They want opportunities. They want infrastructure. They want partnerships. They want the ability to make their own decisions about development on their own terms. Economic reconciliation means saying yes to prosperity. It means creating conditions that allow communities to benefit from resources located within their traditional territories. It means ensuring that indigenous governments are partners in growth rather than spectators. That is why Conservatives have consistently supported responsible resource development in the north. For those reasons, Conservatives, again, can support this piece of legislation. We look forward to dealing with it as it goes through committee, probably in the very near future. We also look at how the government has dealt with a few other indigenous issues within Canada; British Columbia, for one. Of course, the Cowichan Tribes court decision created a lot of questions about fee simple property within the city of Richmond. The government, unfortunately, through a series of bad decisions, led us to the point that we have arrived at today. In 2018, a directive by the government given to their lawyers not to argue for private property rights was given. The province did the same. Only the City of Richmond argued for fee simple property. Why? We have no idea, but it is the uncertainty that was created because of those decisions. Now there is a K’ómoks Treaty that has passed the B.C. legislature that will be coming to Parliament at some point. It has neighbouring nations questioning whether consultation was done properly. Neighbouring nations want to wait. They have interests in the territory mentioned in this treaty, overlapping jurisdictions. They have what is called a living document, which means it can be opened every 10 years. That goes against the whole view of establishing a treaty. It is a finality that everyone is looking for; this legislation gives that finality. However, it is not given in the K’ómoks Treaty. Why? We have no idea. Again, as I said at the start, when things are done correctly, legislation can move very quickly through this House. However, the government continues to do things that boggle the mind, perhaps to create a level of uncertainty within British Columbia so that no development ever happens again. That seems to be what the government is doing here. On the other hand, it is saying it wants to build as fast as possible and get the economy back on track. It cannot do the two at the same time. It cannot create uncertainty in a province that needs access to the Pacific coast. That scares off investment. There has to be that certainty. There has to be the ability to attract that investment. That is the certainty people are looking for, as well as the protection for private property owners so they know their property is protected. That is the underpinning of our society. I mentioned the Déline agreement earlier. It was negotiated under Stephen Harper and Minister Bernard Valcourt. It was a self-government agreement, as the minister mentioned in her speech, one of five potentially coming our way. The government at the time recognized the potential for people to create their own path forward. Again, that is something we support wholeheartedly. Also, as I mentioned a bit in my speech, although I did not get into it as much as I wanted to, as I am running out of time, a hybrid indigenous-municipal government was created as a result. The town of Fort Franklin is now known as Déline because of the actions by the Harper government to recognize that opportunity means opportunity for all. Reconciliation means reconciliation on both sides, creating a strong economy and a level of certainty to attract investment and create jobs, opportunity and wealth. What has this government done? In 2022, it basically announced that the Northwest Territories would be a park, shutting down development, shutting down existing pipelines already in operation and shutting down the ability to create opportunities for the local population. That is deeply unfortunate, because the north has so much potential and so much going for it. These are amazing people, and we want to see them succeed. As the opposition, we will support this piece of legislation, Bill C-27. However, we would like to see the government take a more focused approach to creating economic activity and employing more people in the Northwest Territories. I only have a few moments left, so I will yield the rest of my time and take questions.”

“I support this self-government bill because it is done well and protects private property. We can pass bills like this quickly when they do not harm private property.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am excited to see those future agreements when they come forward. I would like to say that the government knows where our lines are in the sand. If it is going to impact private property, that is something we cannot really accept on this side of the House. However, if the legislation is laid out clean, as it is here, I think there is greater potential for that to happen. Of course, this legislation, Bill C-27, is built on the framework of the Déline agreement, Bill C-15, which was brought under Stephen Harper. Again, when it is done properly, we can get things done quickly here.”

“I want the member to explain what it means for First Nations to be partners in prosperity.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a real pleasure to hear the speech of my colleague, and I deeply appreciate his work for first nations. As everybody know, I am very proud to be a member of the House, because I represent Wendake, in my riding, and I am very proud to have been the representative of its people for the last 18 years here in the House of Commons and before that in the national assembly. Let me remind members that many years ago, on June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Harper apologized for the crimes that had been done at the residential schools, but a lot of things have not been done yet, especially one of the key elements in our policy when we talk about the first nations as partners in prosperity. Could the member explain to Canadians what we mean when we are using the words “partners in prosperity” with respect to first nations?”