[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 31, 1996
.1111 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
Welcome. First, I'll ask the committee members to move the motion to approve the steering committee report, which you have in front of you.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I'll move it.
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): I'll second it.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I'll ask the clerk to read the order of reference.
The Clerk of the Committee: According to the journals of the House of Commons dated Monday, October 21, it was agreed that Bill C-51, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
The Chairman: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), clause 1, that being the short title of the bill, stands.
On clause 2, I invite the witnesses from the department to identify themselves and to begin their presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy and Transfers Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
[English]
Please allow me to introduce the witnesses appearing today on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Ron Bailey, from the northern affairs program, is the staff officer responsible for designing this bill. Mary Douglas, from Justice Canada, is our lawyer guiding the department in the development of this legislation. Brian Gibson is senior water officer with our department. Mr. Tom Malloy was the chief federal negotiator for the Nunavut land claim negotiations. My name is Will Dunlop; I'm also from Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I'm responsible for developing a number of bills required to implement the northern land claims.
[Translation]
Bill C-51 will make it possible to reach a number of goals.
[English]
Firstly, this bill, one of three, signals the commencement of the legislative implementation of the Nunavut land claim. Canada has an obligation to create public government institutions with duties and responsibilities in the areas of water management, land use planning, environmental impact review, and surface rights adjudication. This bill will implement article 13 of that land claim by underpinning the Nunavut Water Board.
[Translation]
Secondly, this bill will establish the water resources management system for all of Nunavut and will define the relations between the board and the minister.
[English]
Article 13 of the land claim provides a number of elements of the regime and the basic fundamental premise that the board will have powers at least equivalent to the then Northwest Territories Water Board, under the former water legislation, the Northern Inland Waters Act. That act was subsequently modernized in 1993 with the passage of the current Northwest Territories Water Act and the Yukon Waters Act.
This bill will establish the rules for both the administrators and those regulated, based on the model of the existing water legislation, and the precepts of the land claim.
.1115
[Translation]
This bill comes late.
[English]
The land claim calls for its enactment by July 9, 1995, and, in any event, no later than that day this year.
The department originally was developing a larger bill with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, and the Government of the Northwest Territories, which would have established the water board, the land use planning commission and the impact review board. Unfortunately, that process bogged down and the water provisions were split out to form this bill.
Our consultations did bear fruit and this bill profited from the input provided by NTI, the Government of the Northwest Territories, industry and board members themselves. It is regrettable that we have not yet completed all the elements of the three regimes, but it was felt it was improper to further delay the establishment of this familiar and key regulatory board.
[Translation]
Bill C-51 will officially recognize the Nunavut Water Board which is already in existence, and it will reassure those who would like to get a licence for the use of waters.
[English]
We thank this committee for the opportunity to assist you in any way during your deliberations.
The Chairman: Did any of you have a presentation to make, other than this, or are you open for questions?
Mr. Dunlop: We're open for questions.
The Chairman: Were you briefed, members of the Reform Party?
[Translation]
Did members of the Bloc Québécois take part in a briefing session by the department? If they are interested in having more information, Mr. Bachand could simply get in touch with our administrative services.
[English]
So we'll open the questions. I think we'll do this very casually, so jump in as you wish.
John.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My overriding question is one that is philosophical in nature, and would deal with probably the negotiating phase as well as the specifics of this Bill C-51. That is, what was the philosophical basis used to determine or conceptualize the jurisdictional powers that would reside with the territory of Nunavut, the territorial government, institutions, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the federal government?
I know there are a lot of twenty-five-cent words in there, but what I'm trying to say is there are some obvious major powers that still reside with the minister, which is controversial, and it would be useful to know what rationale, parameters, or philosophy was behind the direction taken to arrive at what we've arrived at in Bill C-51.
Mr. Dunlop: I think there are three basic elements that I'll use in the answer.
A number of important powers reside with the federal government north of the 60th parallel, in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and in 1999 in the Nunavut Territory. They're probably best characterized by four major programs, which are water, lands, oil and gas, and mining. Those powers, those jurisdictions, still lie with the federal government.
In the negotiations of this land claim, article 13 of the land claim provides the basic elements of the negotiated settlement of a water board, its creation. The water board is based on the existing federal legislation, the Northwest Territories Waters Act. It's not territorial legislation, it's federal, so the model comes from that legislation.
Is that helping you at all?
.1120
Mr. Duncan: What that really tells me is that Bill C-51 maintains the status quo in many respects. I think there was an expectation, with the creation of Nunavut and with all of the debate and discussion north of 60 about the northern accord and so on, that there would be a major devolution or de-emphasis of federal jurisdiction in these areas, and that doesn't appear to be happening.
Mr. Dunlop: I understand your question now. The basic philosophical approach to this legislation and the negotiation of the claim was co-management, where half the members of the water board will be nominees from Nunavut Tunngavik. Of the other half of the members, two will come from the Government of the Northwest Territories, and two from the federal government.
The make-up of the board and the way the legislation is structured paves the way for eventually being able to devolve the federal jurisdiction over water, in that the relationship between the board and the minister is one that could be devolved to a territorial government and to a territorial minister, and the appointments would be made there.
Mr. Duncan: Do you mean ``could be''?
Mr. Dunlop: Could be, yes.
Mr. Duncan: Okay, fair enough.
Mr. Dunlop: First you'd have to negotiate devolution.
Mr. Duncan: Okay, fair enough.
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point, and I believe I'd be supported by the witnesses, that these appointments are nominated by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and by the Northwest Territories. There are only two that are nominated by the government. The minister signs, or makes the formal appointment, but does not choose the member.
Mr. Dunlop: He chooses the two federal members.
Mr. Finlay: Yes, but that's two out of eight, sir.
Mr. Dunlop: Yes, that's right.
Mr. Finlay: Excuse me; I must have put pepper in that coffee or something.
The Chairman: Anyone else? Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Yes, just a clarification. I wasn't available for briefing on Tuesday, so I wasn't briefed at all.
In terms of the Nunavut Territory and also the western part of the territories, there are very similar legislations - nothing is different; it would be the same.
Mr. Dunlop: The basic legislation, the water legislation, comes from the same act, but in Nunavut it is specific to Nunavut, because there are pieces from the land claim that have caused us to amend parts of the existing water legislation, so we've translated parts of article 13 into the water legislation.
Mr. Harper: The federal water legislation?
Mr. Dunlop: Yes.
Mr. Harper: All right. This comes into effect once we pass it for royal assent.
Mr. Dunlop: That's correct.
Mr. Harper: When does the actual division, the legal division, take place?
Mr. Dunlop: In 1999.
Mr. Harper: So even though that hasn't happened, this will....
Mr. Dunlop: This water board exists today. It has already dealt with two licences. The water board came into existence on July 9, and it is operating without legislation right now.
Mr. Harper: So in part, that legal division or that imaginary boundary line is not legally in effect, because it hasn't been passed yet.
Mr. Dunlop: The new territory doesn't exist yet, but it will in 1999.
Mr. Harper: But this act does exist.
Mr. Dunlop: That's correct.
Mr. Harper: As well as its mandate and regulations and everything?
Mr. Dunlop: Yes.
Mr. Harper: Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Ringma?
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I noticed a provision under the ``Languages'' thing for the directives or other to be done in Inuktitut, in the local languages, and there's even one other provision here, which is good news, because I would think that is very necessary for the inhabitants of that area.
Has this provision in clause 24 been tried in other legislation, since the whole passage of Bill C-132 in 1993? What I'm trying to get at, practically speaking, is has this sort of thing been presented to the Inuit in their own territories, and are they happy that the provision made in this act, as perhaps replicated in other acts, is sufficient to allow them full expression?
.1125
Mr. Dunlop: I don't know if it's in other federal legislation. The languages requirement flows from the land claim. I know that convention throughout many of the municipalities in the north has simultaneous translation of municipal business, for example. So this is not itself new, but I think it may be the first one that's legislated; I'm just not sure.
Mr. Ringma: If there were some means of trying it out ahead of time to make sure that the provisions in these five subclauses are adequate, it would be a comforting thought, I would think, for the people up there, who should have free total expression, particularly in legalistic things that affect them.
Mr. Dunlop: Agreed. The only comfort I think I could offer you at this point is that there's already simultaneous translation going on in a number of locations across the north.
Mr. Ringma: So the provisions here are probably adequate.
Mr. Dunlop: It flows from the land claim.
Mr. Ringma: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: I've asked our researchers to prepare a chart for committee members of the governing bodies and their responsibility. The way Mr. Anawak explained it the other day, one group represents 80% of the population; another group represents 20%; a member of Parliament represents 100%. It's a bit confusing for us, so our researchers will prepare a chart for members - for the next meeting, probably?
Ms Jane Allain (Committee Researcher): We'll try.
The Chairman: Well, if you can, yes. We understand that's pressing. That way we can identify, as we talk about groups, what their responsibility is.
Another thing we should consider now, while we have these witnesses with us, is that after this session with the witnesses we will be discussing the process of consultation. You will decide what process we will choose - if we will travel, if we will videoconference, who we will invite. If you have any questions pertaining to that with which the witnesses can help us, now is the time to ask.
When there are no questions, it's because we know everything or we don't know very much and don't want to be embarrassed. If I don't have a show of hands very soon I'm going to release our witnesses.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: Yes, I'll ask a question, Mr. Chairman, because as I think we're all aware, the budget for the committee is not lavish. I note in the report we ask for a provisional budget, and so on.
I'm wondering whether our witnesses who have worked with these people could indicate just how we could talk with witnesses from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated or anyone else who had something to tell us, either by having them come here or by videoconferencing, rather than by us going there. I don't mind going there. I love going north of 60, except I don't want to get stuck.
The Chairman: For three months.
Some of those groups are represented in Ottawa; they have offices here.
Mr. Finlay: Exactly; that's my point.
The Chairman: Maybe we can identify some of them, and if there's a central point there, if we do videoconferencing, where we can have access to the majority of the witnesses.
Mr. Dunlop: We can give you a written list of names and phone numbers. There are a number of organizations in Ottawa. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has an Ottawa office on Albert Street. The Mining Association of Canada has a small office here in Ottawa. The Makivik Corporation are in Kuujjuaq and Montreal. I suspect you could probably set up a videoconference at their Montreal office. The head office of the Government of the Northwest Territories is in Yellowknife. They do have an Ottawa office, and I'm sure they can make someone available to attend. So you might only have to do a videoconference in Montreal or Kuujjuaq.
.1130
If you wanted to talk to anybody in the water board, they're contactable through Gjoa Haven and Rankin Inlet, but I don't know about the availability of videoconferencing equipment at that location; I'm just not sure.
The Chairman: Are we talking about one individual - the chair?
Mr. Dunlop: Probably Thomas Kudloo, the chairman.
The Chairman: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: A quick one brought up by the witness. Do you know if the Mining Association is going to be asked to be a witness in front of the committee?
The Chairman: Well, it will be up to the committee to decide if we will invite them.
Mr. Ringma: Yes.
The Chairman: If there's an interest - -
Mr. Ringma: You don't have a whole list yet of projected witnesses?
The Chairman: No. We build this together - members of the committee build the list together.
Mr. Ringma: So it's possible, if we thought it would be useful.
The Chairman: Absolutely, and it's always possible to add after we start - yes.
Okay. Thank you very much. You did such a good job in our individual sessions that there weren't too many questions today, so I thank you very much.
Committee members, you have just heard of possible witnesses who are very nearby. I'll throw out an idea, and you decide how you want to go about doing the consultation on this. Is it reasonable to suggest that we start the consultation by inviting those who are here in Ottawa, and after we hear a few you can decide if you want to travel or do videoconferencing? I can tell you the funds for committees - we'll have to go fight for it. I told them I'll fight, but I won't beg.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the great majority of witnesses live here in Ottawa. Some of them, including those from the Makivik Corporation, are headquartered in Lachine, at an hour and a half drive from Ottawa, and their president lives in Beaconsfield, in the Greater Montreal area. He travels extensively between Kuujjuak and Montreal. Since this is really not very far away, maybe we could invite him as a witness. If only one witness flies in from Rankin Inlet, it would probably be cheaper to have him come to Ottawa, than to hold a videoconference. This issue has to be looked at, but I think we should have all our hearings in Ottawa. That is my position. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Members, I'm asking you if this is reasonable, to start inviting the four groups it was mentioned have offices in Ottawa. The Makivik Corporation we will invite to come here, from Lachine. After we do one or two sessions of consultation, at that point we can decide if we invite someone to come from Rankin. I agree it would be unreasonable for all of us to go to Rankin to hear one witness.
In the meantime, committee members, if you have others you think should be invited, every time we meet you can just submit their name and the group will decide. Okay?
So who would you like first, and when? I like to suggest, so who would you like first next Thursday? I think Tuesday is not enough time for them, but do you agree that we should start our work next Thursday with two witnesses, an hour each? Would you like to start with the NTI?
Mr. Duncan: I think so, seeing as that is who we got the correspondence from, and who seem to have the most major beef so far.
The Chairman: Do you agree that an hour per witnessing group is sufficient? It's more than most committees allow. Is it too much? I'd like your feedback. As a matter of fact I'd like you to decide the length of time right now, because I think whatever we allow, we should allow for everybody, and not start going 45 minutes for one, and an hour and a half for another.
Bernard Patry.
Mr. Patry: I think if you're going with NTI, as NTI is probably our major witness, they should have at least an hour. If you're going with some other association like the Mining Association, 30 minutes would be plenty of time with them.
.1135
I think you could judge. We could go to the maximum of an hour, and you judge yourself when you phone these witnesses, and tell us the length of time. But with a presentation of five minutes, if we go with 20 to 25 minutes of questions, I think that would be sufficient for half an hour for every other witness. But NTI is the major one; you should go to a maximum of an hour.
The Chairman: Do you agree that as a starting point of one hour be the maximum for everybody ?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Okay, can you suggest another group that we invite for the second hour next Thursday? If we're going to meet, we may as well meet for two hours, and do two groups.
Mr. Duncan: I suggest Makivik.
The Chairman: So it will NTI and Makivik next Thursday. We'll invite them, and if one of them can't come, we'll leave it up to the clerk to choose another group.
Now you can start thinking of other groups that should be invited. I don't know, but this doesn't seem like something that will last that long. There are key stakeholders, but not that many.
Mr. Harper: Can you maybe check out whether video teleconferencing is available in Rankin? If we invite the individual to come, and there is a lack of facilities - the technology - I think it's best, if it's available, that we have the person there. You would have access to the other board members who are around. We would be able to have the group together there.
The Chairman: Yes, and it worked really well in the Yukon, because the people off the street could come in, sit down and witness, which is good.
Another thing I'd like to suggest is that we do like we did in the Yukon, and put out an advertisement in all the small newspapers and radio stations. It turned out very economical, and we were in a position to say we have informed everybody. What we did there was give them an opportunity to submit a written brief. Do you agree we should do that? If we do it, we'll have to do it tomorrow.
Mr. Duncan: I don't think this is the kind of item that would require that. It's not like -
The Chairman: It's not an off-the-street thing?
Mr. Duncan: I don't believe it is. This is one of the three major arms of government, and I believe the stakeholders, rather than individuals, are identifiable groups.
Mr. Patry: I don't know if I agree, but I think we should.... If we're dealing with publicity, papers and media.... I don't know, I think we have all the lists of the people.
You should at least do a communiqué to send to Nunavut and NTI. The Cree of Quebec could be involved with this. If you send a communiqué stating exactly what you want to do and that there will be hearings, I think that should be sufficient at that time.
This communiqué could be done as soon as tomorrow. I think it could be sufficient. We could ask any members who wish to give names. For this type of a bill, it should be sufficient.
Mr. Duncan: In defence of what I was saying, this water board exists today, this water board is functioning today, this water board is essentially what has been functioning for the last 20 years in the Northwest Territories, and it's very much a status quo document. If we put something out, it gives the impression that we're creating something brand new, and we need....
I'm just concerned that we're going to be looking at circumstances where we're heightening expectations, or getting people running around in circles wondering what's happening, when really there's not very much happening. That's the real logic behind my statement.
It's not that I don't think we should involve public comment, and so on. The time for all that to happen was during the negotiation of the Nunavut agreement. Whether or not that happened properly at that time is water under the bridge. But the Nunavut agreement is what enables this board, and it's even arguable whether this bill even needs to occur.
.1140
So that's the rationale behind why I think advertising is just overkill.
The Chairman: So based on that, we should then be able to conclude this very shortly. Does anyone have major problems with this bill at the present time? I know there are witnesses who will have problems, but around this table is there anyone who has major concerns?
Mr. Duncan: My concerns are that we address the major concerns of people that have been expressed here, and get to the bottom of what is the appropriate way to go. But I doubt if we'll hear street-level concerns beyond these major concerns.
The Chairman: Okay, then we start off with the invitations we have decided on. I will ask the clerk, our researchers and yourselves to submit names of people who should be considered, and another list of people who have asked to be witnesses. So we will have that for you early next week, and we'll meet again next Thursday.
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: Can I just pin it down, Mr. Chairman? Your next meeting then will be on Thursday, November 7.
The Chairman: That's right, at 11 a.m.
Mr. Ringma: And because of the November break, the one following that will be on Thursday, November 21.
The Chairman: It could be Tuesday. We've blocked Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Mr. Ringma: Okay, either Tuesday, November 19, or Thursday, November 21.
The Chairman: That decision will be made next Thursday after we hear the witnesses.
Mr. Duncan: I just have a word of caution. November 21 is the day the royal commission report comes down. As a consequence, I don't think this committee wants to plan anything for November 21.
The Chairman: We'll keep that in mind. Remind us next Thursday, when we.... Well, there shouldn't be any need to remind us.
Okay, anything else? Yes, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: I wanted to ask Mr. Harper if he was still planning to bring his motion forward on October 29.
Mr. Harper: Well, I think it's up for debate. We have a steering committee.
The Chairman: Well, we can talk about it now.
Mr. Harper: Is it on November 29?
The Chairman: I think that's what you had indicated in your letter.
Mr. Duncan: That's what it says in the steering committee minutes.
The Chairman: You were talking about October.
Mr. Duncan: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, right, October.
The Chairman: Would you like to defer this until you advise us of your intention to bring it back, or would you like us to choose a date now?
Mr. Harper: I'm not sure what's coming up, or what is being planned. At some point I'd like to deal with it, but I don't know what other legislation is coming forward.
The Chairman: We have nothing Tuesday.
Mr. Harper: Tuesday, November 19?
The Chairman: No, November 5.
Mr. Harper: Next Tuesday, I see. Well, I mean if it....
The Chairman: It's your motion.
Mr. Harper: I'd be agreeable to that.
The Chairman: I've always been honest with this committee; I'll be honest with you. I'd rather not deal with it, but it's there, so I'll let you choose a date.
Mr. Harper: Tuesday is fine with me.
The Chairman: Is the committee agreed?
Mr. Duncan: Fine.
The Chairman: We'll deal with that motion on Tuesday at 11 a.m. or 12 p.m? We have two hours.
Mr. Harper: At 11 a.m.
The Chairman: Okay, we'll deal with the motion at 11 a.m. on Tuesday.
We have received an invitation for a meeting with a committee from Finland.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): That's on Monday, isn't it?
The Chairman: That's right, yes. So you'll respond individually to that.
Anything else? Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.