AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

• 1538

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): We're going to begin the meeting.

Here is the Order of the Day:

ORDERED,-That Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Extract from the Journals of the House of Commons of Tuesday, April 28, 1998)

We are reviewing section 1.

Today we welcome several groups: the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; the Government of the Northwest Territories; Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.; the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) (Eeyou Istchee); and Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.

Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Binda?

You have five minutes. Since the Members have several meetings this evening, I think we could keep to a five-minute statement and a 15-minute question period for each group.

Ms. Tanguay.

[English]

Ms. Judy Tanguay (Director, Policy and Strategic Planning, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): My name is Judy Tanguay. I am the director of Nunavut Policy and Strategic Planning, Indian and Northern Affairs. We appreciate this opportunity to meet with the committee to speak about Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.

I'd like to introduce the departmental officials in attendance with me. Mr. John Merritt is senior adviser. Mr. Gilles Binda is senior policy adviser. Also joining us is Ms. Mary Douglas, legal counsel, Department of Justice.

We would like to make some opening remarks about two aspects of the bill: the policy context surrounding its development, and the principal contents of the bill. I will begin our presentation in English and Mr. Binda will follow with some remarks in French.

• 1540

The Nunavut Act was enacted in 1993 in association with a companion bill that ratified the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The enactment of the Nunavut Act followed up on a commitment by the crown considering the creation of Nunavut made in article 4 of the land claims agreement.

This commitment has been elaborated on in a Nunavut political accord that was signed on October 30, 1992. Since the enactment of the Nunavut Act in 1993, a number of its provisions have been brought into force; specifically, those provisions dealing with the appointment and activities of the Nunavut implementation commissioner and the interim commissioner of Nunavut.

The bulk of the provisions of the 1993 Nunavut Act will not come into force until the scheduled start-up date of the new Nunavut Territory and its government on April 1, 1999.

The Nunavut Implementation Commission was established at the end of 1993 to advise the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. on the design and setting up of Nunavut. Since its establishment the commission has submitted two comprehensive reports, Footprints in New Snow and Footprints 2, and a dozen subject-specific reports.

Early in its work the commission identified the desirability of a package of legislative initiatives to facilitate the transition to Nunavut. The principal features of the proposed package involve the following: amendments to the Nunavut Act to allow for the first Nunavut legislative assembly elections, to be organized and to take place prior to April 1, 1999, in order that the first sitting of the assembly could take place on or shortly after April 1, 1999; amendments to the Nunavut Act to provide for greater legal certainties surrounding the grandfathering of Northwest Territories laws into Nunavut, particularly with respect to the status of those things that are created under law, such as motor vehicle permits and collective agreements, but do not form part of the law; and amendments to the Constitution to provide for Senate and House of Commons representation for Nunavut.

The bill before the committee contains provisions dealing with the major legislative recommendations made by the Nunavut Implementation Commission. The bill also contains a number of provisions that emerged during the consultative process that accompanied its drafting, including some provisions that reflect specific policy needs of the federal government.

The consultative process featured more than two dozen meetings, some face to face and some by teleconference, starting in 1996. Taking part in this consultative process were officials representing the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Nunavut Implementation Commission, and more recently the office of the interim commissioner of Nunavut. Information exchanges also took place with other groups, including Northwest Territories unions and professional associations.

Gilles.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Binda (Senior Policy Advisor, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada): Here is a brief summary of the main provisions of the Bill.

Part 1 proposes some amendments to the Nunavut Act for the following purposes:

a) clarification that the initial laws of Nunavut will be duplicates of Northwest Territories laws, subject to the possibility of some specific exceptions being made to this general rule;

b) clarification that the duplication of Northwest Territories laws in Nunavut will, also subject to the possibility of some specific exceptions, extend to the duplication of public bodies and offices created under Northwest Territories law;

c) preservation in Nunavut of all rights acquired under Northwest Territories law prior to the coming into existence of Nunavut;

d) assignment to the Government of Nunavut of leases for Nunavut office and housing facilities entered into by the federal government;

e) clarification of the powers of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, including powers in relation to intergovernmental agreements involving the division of assets and liabilities and the assignment of contracts involving private sector parties;

f) authority for the Governor in Council, in the absence of agreement between the Interim Commissioner and Government of the Northwest Territories on the division of assets and liabilities, to transfer the ownership of property other than real property to the Government of Nunavut, and authority to terminate contracts between the federal government and Government of the Northwest Territories, thereby allowing the negotiation of new ones for each territory;

g) authority for the first elections to the Nunavut Legislative Assembly to be held prior to the creation of Nunavut, enabling the Nunavut Legislature to begin functioning at Nunavut's birth;

• 1545

h) carrying forward into Nunavut of collective agreements entered into by the Government of Northwest Territories with representatives of public sector workers in the Nunavut area, and clarification of how matters pending before administrative bodies at the coming into existence of Nunavut will be dealt with;

j) clarification of the continuing jurisdiction of Northwest Territories courts to deal with certain matters commenced prior to the coming into existence of Nunavut.

Part 1 of the Bill further proposes to reduce the minimum number of members required for the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly from 15 to 14 to reflect the number of members that is likely to remain in the Northwest Territories immediately upon the coming into existence of Nunavut. A number of consequential amendments are also proposed in the Bill.

Part 2 of the Bill proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide for representation of Nunavut in the House of Commons and Senate. The Constitution was amended in 1975 along these lines to provide for representation of Yukon and the Northwest Territories in Parliament.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear today and would welcome any comments or questions that committee members may have for us.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Tanguay and Mr. Binda.

We are going to go immediately to the question period.

Mr. Konrad, please.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before we start I'd like to thank you for coming and to congratulate you on what you're doing, despite the fact that the Reform Party has some serious questions. One of our concerns is that we have precious little time to look at this legislation. Given the magnitude of what we're creating there, I think more time should have been allowed for you to make presentations. There are 22 questions just for DIAND alone.

It talks about wide consultation, but was the aboriginal community consulted? I know that non-aboriginals were also consulted up there. In the House someone said they had created an Inuit government up here. Is that the way you see it?

Mr. John Merritt (Senior Adviser, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): To address the last point first, Nunavut will be a public government. All residents will have rights to run for political office and to vote in elections.

In terms of consultation, consultation focused on discussions with the Government of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Tunngavik. As I'm sure you're aware, there are obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to carry out consultations with Nunavut Tunngavik, in particular in relation to any legislative matter that relates to implementation of that land claim agreement. In 1992, as I think was referenced in the opening remarks of my colleague, the Government of Canada entered into a political accord that committed it to intensive consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Tunngavik.

There have been additional, if less intensive, opportunities to obtain the opinions of other groups, particularly in relation to unions and professional associations. There has also been an opportunity to have a fairly extensive discussion with members of the legal community. A major justice conference was organized in Iqaluit last year by the interim commissioner's office, and certainly there has been an opportunity to obtain the outlook of judges, legal aid lawyers, paralegals and groups of that kind.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: As a result of all of these consultations, is there a majority opinion that this is the way to go?

Mr. John Merritt: We haven't conducted any kind of survey, so we obviously couldn't provide you with any hard numbers, but we're satisfied that there is a high level of popular as well as official support for the bill.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay. I could get into a long argument here that I'd probably only half understand myself, but I have pages and pages of notes on a new senator for Nunavut. What it basically boils down to is that the Reform Party, as most people in Canada are aware, looks at a triple-E Senate as an important part of government in Canada to provide balance. What are your views on our views, i.e., on having your senator elected?

• 1550

Mr. John Merritt: I could only fairly respond to that by saying the issue of an elected Senate is obviously a major policy question. This bill doesn't address that. It seems to me that's the kind of question that would really require debate among elected leaders. This bill doesn't deal with that topic, as you know.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm aware of that. We have made our support contingent on an election for the Senate, so we're proposing an amendment to the bill to have an elected Senate. That will be an important issue to us.

The division of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation—how's that proceeding?

Mr. John Merritt: There has been a consensus among the Government of Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik, and the Government of the Northwest Territories as to the desirability of a single power corporation in the immediate period after division, which would serve both Nunavut and the remaining Northwest Territory. That outcome was also supported by recommendation from the Nunavut Implementation Commission.

Discussions have been under way involving the interim commissioner's office, on behalf of the Nunavut side of the equation, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the power corporation itself. Those discussions haven't yet resulted in any kind of agreement, but our department is hopeful that an agreement will emerge.

The way the Nunavut Act is structured, at some point an agreement of that kind will require the approval of the federal government. So the department is following the issue with interest, and we hope an agreement will emerge sooner rather than later.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What other trans-territorial concerns are there? I just listed the Northwest Territories Power Corporation. Are there other corporations? Are they satisfied? Government departments that will have to be divided up—social services, justice—any number of areas will have to be divided up. How are the plans proceeding on that? Given that you only have one year until the territory is declared officially, how are things going?

Mr. John Merritt: As my colleague mentioned in her opening address, the 1993 act has already partly come into force. One of those parts involves creation of the Nunavut Implementation Commission. That commission, in a couple of comprehensive reports in 1995 and 1996, recommended a particular design model for the government.

There is a three-party consensus on that design model—the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Tunngavik—and the interim commissioner of Nunavut has been directed by our minister, through a letter of direction, to set up the government along the lines of that design model. That design involves a smaller number of departments than has existed with the Government of the Northwest Territories, as it is a somewhat simplified design structure.

The individuals who will become the first deputy ministers in that government have recently been recruited. There is an ambitious training program under way that will involve up to 600 Inuit receiving training toward various positions.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: May I just stop you for—

The Chairman: We have no time. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): My question is addressed to the officials from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

I'd like to know where negotiations stand on the dispute between the Government of Quebec and Ottawa concerning the Belcher Islands and the waters surrounding Nunavik, along Quebec. Is there an agreement with the Cree, for example, regarding this agreement between Canada and Quebec on the Belcher Islands?

• 1555

[English]

Mr. John Merritt: When the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was being negotiated, and finally signed in May 1993, there were long discussions involving Makivik Corporation, which represents the northern Quebec Inuit, about shared islands and marine areas offshore Nunavik. As a result of those negotiations, a chapter was included in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that provides for special rights for northern Quebec Inuits in various island and marine areas that are otherwise in the Nunavut settlement area. That chapter of the agreement extends not only to things such as hunting rights but also to some issues of land ownership in some shared island areas, and also the participation of northern Quebec Inuits in at least some of the environmental and other management processes that will take place in Nunavut.

So the short answer to your question is that the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement did address the rights of northern Quebec Inuit, and the agreement did obtain the support of Makivik on behalf of the Inuit of Nunavik when the agreement was signed in 1993.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: May I ask another question?

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but the bell is ringing. We'll check about the quorum. Go ahead, Mr. Fournier. There are two minutes left.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you. When Bill C-39 was drafted, did you do extensive consultations? Did you consult any groups or bodies? I'd like to know whether there are any Inuit groups that are less in favour of Bill C-39 or the creation of Nunavut. Do any of them have any misgivings with regard to this Bill?

[English]

Mr. John Merritt: I'm not aware of any Innu organization that is opposed to either the creation of Nunavut or the particular reforms that are included within this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Did you carry out any serious consultations among the groups? Were any recommendations by these groups included in the Bill? Did these consultations lead you to amend Bill C-39?

[English]

Mr. John Merritt: Just to speak to your last point first, the bill is a product of a very extensive process of consultation. So I can answer the last point in your question by saying yes, the bill was modified to try to accommodate a lot of the points raised in the process of consultation.

In a broader sense, I would say the whole project of creating Nunavut is to some extent a product of a land claims process that itself involved negotiations over 20 years. The Nunavut Act in 1993 involved extensive consultation with Inuit at the time, and since then, Nunavut Tunngavik, which has a formal mandate under the land claim agreement to represent Nunavut in various matters relating to land claims issues, has been at the forefront in terms of efforts by the department to consult around this piece of legislation.

I think the last time we calculated, there had been 26 meetings, either face-to-face meetings or teleconferences, with representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Tunngavik around this bill, stretching back to 1996.

The final point I would make is that much of the bill reflects recommendations from the Nunavut Implementation Commission, which itself is made up of individuals appointed by Nunavut Tunngavik as well as the Government of the Northwest Territories, in addition to federal appointees.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: There's something that intrigues me in your answer. I'm not saying that it's not a good one, but there's still something that's bothering me. If I asked you whether Bill C-39 is necessary and whether the amendments are good, you would surely answer yes, but why did people wait so long? You talk about 20 years. There are Inuit who talk about five years. Why so long? If it's so important to amend the Bill today, what's taken so long?

• 1600

[English]

Mr. John Merritt: I guess an initial point of clarification is that the bill attempts to remedy some defects in the 1993 legislation. Essentially the need for these amendments only surfaced in the wake of that 1993 legislation.

In addition, the 1993 Nunavut Act itself contemplated a process whereby there could be more detailed examination of various implementation issues. As you know, the creation of the government was delayed until 1999, so there was a realization in 1993 that there would be a six-year period in which one could go about the planning of the setting up of that government in more detail.

The process has unfolded as the Nunavut Act contemplated. The Nunavut Implementation Commission was established and has delivered a number of comprehensive and detailed reports. Among its recommendations have been recommendations for certain legislative measures to be adopted, and the Government of Canada has tried to respond as completely and as favourably as it could to those specific recommendations.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Thank you, Mr. Merritt.

Mr. Keddy, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. President.

Reading your notes over, I have to ask a question. You say:

The final comment I would like to make about amendments to the Constitution of Canada to accommodate Nunavut involves the concern in some quarters that the Nunavut Act of 1993 is constitutionally invalid because it creates a province by the back door.

Why would you even include that? What's the significance of it? I don't understand it.

Mr. John Merritt: I think you may be referring to the text of another group's presentation.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I'll ask them the same question. I don't understand it. Somewhere along the way we'll have an answer for it, if that's the situation.

Back to what we are discussing then, the office of the interim commissioner, we've had a number of comments all along that the new territory of Nunavut would not be ready on time, that the deadline of 1999 couldn't be reached. We're learning from the minister and from the department now that there may be areas where construction is not completed, but hopefully everything will be able to be encompassed and the date of April 1 will go ahead.

There's still concern. I've noticed in the last couple of days advertising in the papers for doctors, lawyers, nurses, and administrative types. I, at least, had been led to understand that there would be some surplus employees from the Government of the Northwest Territories and that lot of these people would automatically be in charge of operations in what is the eastern Arctic now, what will become Nunavut. I understood that as many of these people as possible would be switched over.

Some concerns were raised to the minister at the time that unless the Government of the NWT had opportunity to work through their own budgets, which they had to meet, some of these employees would be lost. I'm just wondering if that's the case.

Mr. John Merritt: An initial point to keep in mind is that the creation of Nunavut involves the recruitment of a new headquarters staff for that government, but a good portion, perhaps the majority, of the eventual workers for the Nunavut government are already in place in the regions and communities of Nunavut and are now employed by the Government of the Northwest Territories. Those individuals will retain their jobs. They will be transferred into the Government of Nunavut workforce.

What's taking place now is a process of finding, locating, the headquarters people who will work out of departmental headquarters to add to that existing regional and local workforce. As I mentioned a moment ago, the process for locating those individuals has already started. There has been hiring at the senior level. Our expectation is that that process of hiring will gear up towards April 1, 1999.

There's no expectation on anyone's part, I don't think, that the Government of Nunavut will be doing everything for itself on day one. There's an expectation that some institutions will be shared—the power corporation, the workers' compensation board.

• 1605

I think there's also an awareness, and the Nunavut Act itself reflects this in its allocation of authority, that some programs and services may be delivered in part through contract with adjacent jurisdictions. The Government of the Northwest Territories would obviously be a very well-qualified government in providing some help in early days.

If we look at the horizon as a whole, I think we see progress toward the eventual objectives, but certainly there'll be unfinished business on April 1, 1999. Efforts are being made to ensure the transition, both before and after that date, is as smooth as possible.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: To your knowledge, at least, can you give us any idea about the status and recruitment of prospective employees, such as how many positions will remain to be filled? I'm looking for just a percentage, not numbers.

Mr. John Merritt: I think at the moment—and I could be corrected by my colleagues—25 or 30 of the positions that will eventually be staffed at headquarters have been filled. The full complement of individuals required to run the headquarters of the Government of Nunavut, based on the model that's been approved, would be somewhere between 600 and 700 individuals.

There's obviously a bit of a trade-off going here. On the one hand, there's pressure to hire as many people as early as possible so they can familiar themselves with what they'll be expected to do. On the other hand, arguments based on efficiency and the best use of money would suggest that a lot of individuals should come on stream closer to the start-up date. So a bit of a balancing act is going on.

The other factor that can't be neglected is that locating the right individuals is a time-consuming process, and a great deal of the district commissioner's office's attention in the next 11 months will focus on personnel issues, getting the right people into the right position.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's nice to welcome you here. The last time I met some of you was in Iqaluit. We've got nice spring weather. There it was crisp and brisk, as I remember.

I was very excited to be at a meeting of the implementation committee in Nunavut Tunngavik with the minister in the middle stages of what we have here.

I remember there was a very interesting idea put forward, Mr. Merritt, when we were there. I've been looking in the bill, in clauses 13 and 14, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. There was an idea then there might be dual representation in each of the legislative ridings. One member would be male and one member would be female. That way we would have a perfect gender balance in the legislature.

Does that idea still have some merit and credibility, or has it been superseded by something else? I thought it was a rather unique and wonderful way of making sure that women's issues and the issues of those who nurture children are heard in the assemblies of Nunavut.

Mr. John Merritt: You won't see that idea in this bill. The history of that issue is this. The idea was suggested by the Nunavut Implementation Commission as a possibility for putting together an assembly in Nunavut that would be different from assemblies in other parts of the country, and the world. A rather long research paper, indicating that some similar proposals have been put forward in other jurisdictions, was circulated.

There was a vigorous debate involving a number of public meetings and discussions on the radio and television. Eventually, the idea resulted in a public vote, a plebiscite. Although the results of that vote varied from community to community, the overall vote was against the idea.

The idea is therefore no longer current in the sense of its forming any part of the proposals in front of you. The Nunavut Assembly in the future would of course have an opportunity to redebate that idea if the people of Nunavut wanted to do so.

• 1610

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

There's one other question partly on the same matter in our material here. It says:

The Northwest Territories Act will be amended to reduce the minimum seats in the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly from 15 to 14 to correspond with the number of seats remaining in the western NWT after the creation of Nunavut.

If my mathematics is right, that means at the present time the territory of Nunavut is represented by one member in Yellowknife.

Mr. John Merritt: Perhaps that thought wasn't expressed the right way. In 1999 the members of the existing NWT assembly from the Nunavut will in effect give up their seats. One therefore has to adjust the minimum number to make sure that the individuals left behind in the remaining Northwest Territories can still function as an assembly within the law.

There's more than one at the moment. I believe there are ten members in the current assembly from the Nunavut area.

We may have not expressed the point the right way.

Mr. John Finlay: Is this the minimum number of seats they're dealing with, then?

Mr. John Merritt: Yes. I must point out as well that this measure doesn't lock the NWT assembly into that number indefinitely; it essentially ensures there's no doubt about the capacity of the assembly on that date to function.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: We're on the second round. Now what was the first question I was trying to get an answer to last time? I can't recall it. I didn't think we'd get around twice.

I know this isn't a part of what we're discussing, but you talked about 600 to 700 civil servants to manage Nunavut. I just sat here and thought of an interesting question. How does the ratio of civil servants to population work out compared with somewhere else in Canada? I think we need to ask that question for all those people who ask about accountability.

Mr. John Merritt: I don't have that number off the top of my head. I would like to add one caveat to the number, though: that number is the number that will be needed in Nunavut at the headquarters level. There is an expectation that the headquarters complement in the remaining Northwest Territories will be smaller as a consequence of the jurisdiction shrinking. How big those offsetting reductions will be is still up in the air. I believe the Government of the Northwest Territories has its own process for addressing it.

That number of 600 to 700 isn't a net number. It's essentially just looking at the Nunavut side of the equation.

The effect of all this will be additional employment in eastern Arctic and less employment in the Mackenzie, so I would caution you that the number of 600 to 700 isn't reflective of the total change in the public sector workforce at the end of the day.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm sorry. I said at the beginning of the meeting that there would only be one turn. I made my decision in a hurry. Mr. Konrad was caught off guard. I was reading my notes and I let him speak. It was agreed that we'd just have one turn since we're meeting several witnesses today. I'm sorry. You had the chance to ask one question more than all the rest. We're going to have to go on to another group.

I wish to thank you for attending today. The departmental officials may remain here in case some groups would like to ask them some questions. Thank you.

We will now hear the group from the Government of the Northwest Territories, represented by Mr. Arlooktoo, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Responsible for Nunavut Transition, and Mr. Alastair Campbell, Adviser.

• 1615

Good afternoon, Mr. Arlooktoo and Mr. Campbell.

[English]

You have five minutes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo (Deputy Premier, Minister of Justice, and Minister Responsible for Nunavut Transition, Government of the Northwest Territories): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased and honoured to appear today before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.

My name is Goo Arlooktoo. I am the Deputy Premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Minister Responsible for Nunavut Transition Planning. I have with me Mr. Alastair Campbell, an adviser with our division secretariat.

I am one of the ten members of the present legislative assembly who are from the Nunavut area. I represent the constituency of Baffin South, just for interest's sake, which has three communities: the communities of Cape Dorset and Kimmirut of Southern Baffin Island, and the community of Sanikiluaq in the Belcher Islands in Hudson Bay.

We are in the last year before the NWT is to be divided to establish Nunavut and a western territory. The creation of Nunavut will bring into being one of the most fundamental aspirations of the people of the central and eastern Arctic. It is a goal first put forward by the national Inuit organization, Inuit Tapirisat, in the middle 1970s. It is a goal accepted by the Government of Canada through article 4 of Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Political Accord of 1992, as well as by the enactment of the Nunavut Act in 1993.

The goal of the people of Nunavut has been accepted by the people of the NWT. The creation of Nunavut has been brought about by a process of consultation and a search for consensus, with few parallels anywhere else in the world. There have been no less than four plebiscites conducted in this process. In 1992 a majority of all those voting across the NWT supported the principle of division. In 1992 a majority of NWT voters supported the proposed boundary between Nunavut and the western territory, and in 1996 a majority of voters chose Iqaluit as a capital of the new Nunavut Territory. In 1997 a majority of voters decided the make-up of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly. That is the gender parity issue that was asked about a few moments ago. In addition, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which was a crucial part of this process, was approved by a majority of Inuit voters in 1992.

We have always seen Nunavut as a democratic public government, but the Nunavut Act as it was crafted in 1993 had a major defect. It left a period of time between the coming into force of the act and the conduct of the first Nunavut election. This is because the writs for the election could only be issued once the major sections of the act came into force.

We know that a certain period of time must elapse between the issuance of writs, the conduct of the election, and the convening of the first Nunavut Legislative Assembly. In the best case scenario, therefore, Nunavut would be without a democratically elected government for two and a half months; this period could extend to four months.

Who would govern Nunavut during this time? Only the commissioner would have the legal authority to do so, but to put the government of the new territory at its inception in the hands of an appointed official would be a backward and undemocratic step in the abolition of the territorial government. In the NWT we have had a fully elected legislative assembly only since 1975 and a responsible government only since 1985. It is this tradition that must be protected and built on for Nunavut and must be nurtured from the moment of its birth.

Second is the issue of representation in the House of Commons and Senate. These again are matters that were not dealt with in 1993. This bill will re-allocate one of the NWT's two seats in the House of Commons to Nunavut and create a Senate seat for Nunavut. The electoral boundary between the constituencies of the western Arctic and Nunavut were already adjusted to correspond to the Nunavut NWT boundary before the last federal election.

• 1620

Representation within the Senate we see as important in confirming Nunavut's place within an existing national institution and as a participant in Confederation.

In addition, certain technical amendments are desirable. With the existing act there is some uncertainty as to how some matters will be handled upon the creation of Nunavut. What would happen to legal suits already in progress? Would licences, permits, and other authorizations issued by the Government of Nunavut still continue to be valid? Legal uncertainty around these and other issues could greatly affect the transition period.

The GNWT has participated actively in the development of these amendments. We have done so together with the federal government, Nunavut Tunngavik, Nunavut Implementation Commission, and the office of the interim commissioner. Nevertheless, this bill has been drafted by the federal government and represents compromises. There are parts we would have handled differently, and the federal government knows of our concerns in these matters. We will be looking to the federal government for its cooperation in resolving any issues that arise during the transition process.

I want to conclude by emphasizing why speedy passage is needed, Mr. Chairman.

April 1, 1999, is a mere 336 days away. The tasks in this transition period are enormous. To proceed, we need to know the legal environment in which we are operating. As one example, the GNWT must enact several pieces of legislation between now and next year that are required for division purposes. Our drafters need to know the federal law and the basis on which we are exercising our jurisdictional authority.

As a second example, we need a clear statutory authority to begin the organization of the first Nunavut election. This involves the hiring and training of returning officers, enumeration, and so on. An orderly election requires months of preparation.

Mr. Chairman, it is 100 years since the Yukon was created from the NWT, 50 years since Newfoundland entered Confederation. The creation of Nunavut will mark the first major change in the map of Canada since that time. For the people of Nunavut, this will be a monumental event and one that is for all Canadians to celebrate.

In conclusion, I would like to commend Minister Stewart for her cooperation and for making this bill a priority. I urge all of you to do your part to help bring Nunavut into being by speeding this bill on its way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

You're my neighbour in northern Abitibi. I'm one of the rare Members from above the 60th parallel and I didn't know you were my neighbour. It is an honour for me to welcome you.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo, for your presentation.

I listened with interest when you talked about the need to be represented in Ottawa as a full member of Confederation. You also talked about the Senate. In your deliberations, have you considered a Senate election for your territory?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: Thank you. The short answer is no. We've basically seen as our priority getting a Senate seat. We know the future of the Senate is a major issue, but we have not discussed the different aspects that you spoke of earlier about an elected Senate and whatever. So no, we have not.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Do you have any fundamental problem with that concept?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: If you look at the creation of Nunavut as a whole, as I said earlier, there are hundreds of tasks that need to be done. We need to prioritize what are the most urgent and what we need to do right now in the next year. Basically, I don't see the issue of the election of a senator as being one of them.

• 1625

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I appreciate that, seeing that your concern is mainly with your territory. You probably have your own problems in having to rerun for your seat, in addition to getting this thing off the ground. I can appreciate where you're at.

However, I have one other question along the Senate line. Would you would be interested in considering having a senator-in-waiting election after the creation of Nunavut, much the same as Alberta is considering doing now?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: The arrangement, as proposed, is that Nunavut would be assigned a Senate seat. The senator who currently sits for the Northwest Territories would then become our senator. I don't have a problem with that and don't see the need to rush for a change.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: All right. Thank you.

Do I have any time left?

The Chairman: You may have one question.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: The federal government retains the authority to put in place agreements where there is no agreement between the two territories. Is government intervention and imposing settlements a problem to you?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: As I said, there are many issues we need to deal with. As it turned out, we've been able to deal with the vast majority of them. But when you are dealing with such a complex project as the creation of Nunavut, you will have certain things the two parties will not agree on, and it is important to have some kind of mechanism to resolve difficult questions.

I would say that we would prefer very much to work amongst ourselves in the north in resolving problems, but if it comes to the point of getting a third party, the federal government would be the one to do it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I intended to ask two questions, but I think I'm going to ask another one following Mr. Konrad's comments. You'll correct me if I've misunderstood.

I saw in the Bill they were talking about a first election, but I didn't see anything specific about senators. I'm surprised. I'd like to know whether senators are a priority in you consultations and why.

I understood that this wasn't your priority and I'm happy about that. If I were given the choice today in my area and if I had to create other governments, I wouldn't talk about senators first; I'd talk about a democratic government. I don't think senators are their priority.

I'd like to know whether you're holding this up. Is a government being elected strictly in their interest?

[English]

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: As I said earlier, our priorities are getting a Senate seat, having representation in the Senate from Nunavut, and having our views known in that House. The issue of whether senators should be elected, or Senate reform, we realize is a very important one that requires further debate and a wide discussion across the country. We are interested in being a part of it, but in my view now is not the time and this bill is not the forum to do it in.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I understand that you wanted to be represented in the Senate. Will your senator be elected or unelected? Are you going to specify that in your Bill?

[English]

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: Mr. Chairman, what the bill allows, as I understand it, is the creation of a new Senate seat for Nunavut. Right now there is one Senate seat for the Northwest Territories, and that would be made into two for the existing Northwest Territories. It would be divided: one for Nunavut, and one for the western Arctic.

The effect of that change is that the present senator, Mr. Willie Adams, an Inuk from Nunavut, would become the new senator for Nunavut. The western territory would have a vacancy.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Notwithstanding senators, do you think this Bill has addressed the main concerns? In your opinion, are there any issues the Bill doesn't deal with and that should be in it? Or do you think the Bill is complete? Do you have any recommendations that are not included in this Bill?

[English]

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: As I said earlier, we've been working with the federal government and the other major northern groups on this bill. It was originally drafted by the federal government. We have had many discussions, and we have had the federal government make many of the amendments and changes we have asked for. There has been some movement in that area, and we are pleased with it. But of course there are some relatively minor areas on which we have a difference of opinion and on which we'd rather make some changes.

Overall, we're happy that some of our views have been accommodated, but we would have done it a little differently. If the chair would allow, I could have Mr. Campbell to very quickly elaborate on what some of those concerns are. I don't know if that is what you want.

Mr. Alastair Campbell (Adviser, Government of the Northwest Territories): I think you'll appreciate that when lawyers for a number of parties get around the table, they're perceiving issues from many different angles and discussion becomes very complex. What is finally put together is a best effort to achieve a compromise. Nevertheless, it is the federal government's responsibility to pass this legislation and they're acting within their jurisdiction in doing so.

In terms of its impact for the Northwest Territories, there are parts we would have handled differently. In some sections we were concerned with earlier drafts that some parts of it were unworkable. We made representations on those. We received fairly substantial modifications of them, and in the end I would say that there are still things we would draft differently but they're not so significantly substantial for us to want to hold the bill back in any sense. If difficulties arise in the transition process, we would expect cooperation from the federal government in meeting those.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome both of you here. We spoke in Yellowknife. I don't know if you recall that conversation. It was a couple of times actually.

I was listening when you started off, and I'm going to preface my comments by stating that I'm not going to not ask any questions about the Senate; it's very clearly stated in the text. We have a number of questions—important questions—that need to be asked about the formation of a new territory in Canada and questions that should take precedence over things that can be discussed at a later date. That's the only comment I would like to make about the Senate discussions.

• 1635

You discussed a four-and-a-half-month lag of time during which the interim commissioner would be in charge of the government of the new territory of Nunavut. What I didn't hear in that discussion is this: If the interim commissioner isn't in charge of the new government before elections can be held and before a government can be set up, is there anyone else who could be in charge? Are you suggesting it should continue to be governed by the Government of the NWT for a period of time if there is one, or...?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: No, we're not making that suggestion. They proposed changes, and we are counting on their being passed, that would allow for an early election and an elected government to be in place to govern the new territory.

Failing that, we would have the interim commissioner or the commissioner running the territory during the period of time between the act's coming into force and the issuance of the writs for the election, the swearing in, and the convening of the first legislative assembly. It will take about two and a half to four months.

Those are the two scenarios we are looking at. One is that with this bill there will be an early election, so there would be nothing to worry about; and the other is that the interim commissioner would be in charge. Beyond that, we don't have a suggestion.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If we make amendments to the bill to accommodate that or if the government chooses to move the election date ahead, how far ahead do they have to move it in order to do it? I'm assuming the elected members would take their seats only as of April 1, 1999.

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: The present legislature, the present MLAs—I and my colleagues—would be MLAs up until April 1, 1999. The bill would allow for elections to take place in February of 1999, and the members would take their chairs on April 1, when this present legislature is dissolved.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I take it the key point is that you're trying to get as seamless a transition as possible between the period leading up to March 31 and the establishment of the new territory. Could you describe for me the nature of it? I was reading some of the history of the formation of the Yukon. Of course things were a lot different in those days in terms of the population and the impact. The impact we try to mitigate, and from a community standpoint the communities are still going to be delivering the services, so nothing really will change there, but when you get down to the issues of who owns what truck, who owns what property.... I'm wondering what the relationship is between yourselves and the implementation commission and how you work out successfully, given there is technically no elected government in the eastern Arctic to inherit whatever the decisions are. How is it being worked out?

• 1640

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: The way we have the government organized right now—and it has been like this for quite a number of terms—the legislative assembly, shortly after it is elected, after each term, elects from its chambers cabinet ministers. There has been a deliberate system of ensuring that the number of cabinet ministers is divided equally between the Nunavut, the eastern area, and the western Arctic. That has allowed the government to be well balanced. We have four members of cabinet that are residents of Nunavut, and it has been like this for many years. It therefore allows some certainty that the decisions made by the government always have a Nunavut flavour or have Nunavut representation in them. That has been occurring for many years.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In terms of the move towards the establishment of the new territory, you've indicated repeatedly today that you'd like to get it passed as quickly as possible. Can you give us some indication as to specifically why that is so important, other than obviously creating some stability in people's minds that in fact this is going to go ahead? How does that assist you in terms of the transition?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: The creation of Nunavut, as I said earlier, is a very complex project. There are hundreds of tasks to do, a government to build, a workforce to prepare, and so on. You also have many technical and bureaucratic issues you need to deal with, legalities, and you also need to ensure that there's an elected government in place.

The passage of this bill will allow us to ensure that there are the 19 MLAs in place for the Government of Nunavut. This will ensure that there's certainty in issues such as contracting and legal suits, and so on. If it doesn't pass—and I don't think I should get into that—there would be major problems with progress in the coming year.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Were you disappointed with the original Nunavut Act when it finally was passed and you had a chance to examine it? What I'm concerned about is there seem to have been a lot of shortcomings that we're addressing now with Bill C-39. Do you feel that perhaps we could have done a better of job of this the first time around?

Mr. Goo Arlooktoo: That's kind of a difficult question to answer. I wasn't around then.

Again, it gets back to the point that it's a complex exercise, and at every corner in the creation of a new territory we are breaking new ground. We are doing something that has not been done for 50 years or more. Therefore there are complexities that you don't always fix the first time around. So yes, of course, some of these things probably should have been done the first time around, but the fact is they weren't and here we are.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate very much your statement and your declaration.

[Translation]

We'll now hear, from the Nunavik Implementation Commission, Mr. John Amagoalik and Mr. Randy Ames.

• 1645

Mr. Amagoalik, if you have a statement to make, you may begin. A question period will follow.

[English]

Mr. John Amagoalik (Chief Commissioner, Nunavut Implementation Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very much to the committee for the invitation to speak on this bill.

My name is John Amagoalik. I'm the chair of the Nunavut Implementation Commission. Mr. Randy Ames is here with me. He's one of our researchers.

I think our mandate and how we came into existence has already been explained to the committee, so I won't spend too much time on that. Also, our major works, Footprints in New Snow and Footprints 2, have been referred to, and all the other reports that we have submitted have already been mentioned.

Since its inception, the commission has focused on developing practical advice to assist in the smooth and orderly transition to Nunavut. We have been pleased that our core recommendations on the design of the Government of Nunavut, dealing with such things as the size of the workforce and the number of departments, have been adopted by the three parties that we advise.

A number of our other recommendations have also been well received, including a number of recommendations on the need for Parliament to effect some legislative amendments.

In Footprints 2, the commission identified two areas that will benefit from Parliament's attention: one, amendments to the 1993 Nunavut Act to make the transition to Nunavut smoother and the initial life of Nunavut more predictable; and two, amendments to the Constitution of Canada to reflect the reality of Canada being made up after March 31, 1999, of ten provinces and three territories. I would like to make a few comments about each of those two areas.

With respect to the amending of the Nunavut Act, the commission makes the following recommendations in Footprints 2:

The NIC recommends that...a special working group be constituted to examine the substance and form of any legislative and related measures that could be adopted so as to:

1. underscore the validity and clarify the status, in relation to Nunavut, of permits, licences and similar kinds of authorization that were granted under territorial legislation prior to April 1, 1999, and provide that occupational qualifications and accreditation in relation to individuals holding such qualifications and accreditation in the NWT immediately prior to April 1, 1999, would be “rolled over”, at least on an interim basis, into Nunavut;

2. provide that the governing body of any NWT-wide profession or trade—e.g. the Law Society of the Northwest Territories—in existence immediately prior to April 1, 1999, would, at least on an interim basis, remain the governing body of that group in Nunavut;

3. make special purpose provisions for the post-division operations of those corporate bodies created under territorial statute, most notably the Workers' Compensation Board and the Northwest Territories Power Corporation;

4. allow the Interim Commissioner, on behalf of Nunavut Government, to assume the obligations and benefits of the GNWT in contracts...entered into by the GNWT in relation to the Nunavut area, and overcome any deficiencies that might exist in relation to the power of the Interim Commissioner to enter into reasonable transitional arrangements; and,

5. ensure a smooth and timely process for the conducting of first elections to the Nunavut Legislative Assembly.

This working group should, specifically, examine the need for relevant amendments to the Nunavut Act.

• 1650

The commission had three comments with respect to what has occurred by way of follow-up to this recommendation regarding Nunavut Act amendments. The first comment is that the Government of Canada has taken to heart the commission's suggestion of a multi-party working group to examine relevant amendments to the Nunavut Act. A very active working group on legal and legislative issues involving officials from the Government of Canada, the Government of the NWT, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and, to a lesser extent, our commission on the office of the interim commissioner has worked in the spirit of frank disclosure and wholesome discussion to shape the bill now before the committee. The commission believes this process of consultation has been very useful and has contributed in no small way to the strength of the bill.

A second comment is that the proposed amendments to the Nunavut Act go beyond the deficiencies first identified by the commission in its work. This is not surprising. The intense scrutiny of the 1993 Nunavut Act that characterized the multi-party consultative process uncovered a number of uncertainties and unpredictabilities beyond the commission's initial analysis. From the commission's perspective, the more uncertainties and unpredictabilities removed, the better for all concerned.

A third comment is that the amendments to the Nunavut Act proposed in the bill strike a fair balance between pairs of competing factors that must be considered in evaluating its contents. For example, the bill strikes a balance in each of the following respects: the need for the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly to have some flexibility in modifying the grandfathering of laws in Nunavut, balanced against ensuring that Nunavut's interests are protected in any such modifications; the need for duplicated public bodies in Nunavut to have an equitable share of the assets and liabilities that now belong to the NWT-defined public bodies, balanced against the need for those NWT-defined public bodies to continue to function without interruption in the western part of the NWT; the need for appropriate representatives of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories to make appropriate agreements regarding the sorting of government assets and liabilities, balanced against the responsibility of the Government of Canada to act effectively in the event of deadlocks. Other examples of balancing in the bill could also be identified.

Not everyone will likely be happy with all the provisions of the act, and the commission does not claim to have a complete in-depth understanding of all the aspects of what is a complicated bill. Notwithstanding, the commission is confident that the bill represents a workable and sensible compromise of competing interests.

The second area of legislative change recommended by the commission involved amendments to the Constitution of Canada. In its Footprints 2 report, the commission suggested the following in this respect:

The NIC recommends that the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982, be amended to make appropriate reference to Nunavut, specifically to explicitly for the appointment of one Senator and election of one member of the House of Commons from each of Nunavut and the NWT, and for the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Legislature and Government of Nunavut.

How does this bill compare with this recommendation? My first observation is that the bill delivers on the key point of guaranteeing representation of Nunavut in the most important democratic institution of Canada—the House of Commons in Parliament. For residents of Nunavut, and I believe for our fellow citizens throughout Canada, it is a matter of simple justice. In 1975 the Constitution of Canada was amended to guarantee representation in Parliament for residents of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Surely there can be no going back for the people of Nunavut.

Committee members will note that the commission recommended the Constitution be amended to include specific reference to Nunavut in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such an amendment would require the consent of provinces. While such an amendment remains desirable, there is no reason to hold up the guarantee of parliamentary representation because of the charter reference issue. The charter, no doubt, will apply to Nunavut even in the absence of explicit reference to Nunavut.

The final comment I would like to make about amendments to the Constitution of Canada to accommodate Nunavut involves the concern in some quarters that the Nunavut Act of 1993 is constitutionally invalid because it creates a province by the back door. This strikes me as an argument without much foundation. As someone who has worked on the creation of Nunavut for most of my adult life, I can assure you that there is no confusion in the north that Nunavut will be a territory, not a province.

• 1655

The lengthy and comprehensive recorded public discussion and debate supports that conclusion. Relevant documents such as the plebiscite questions of 1982 and 1992 and the Nunavut political accord of 1992 also support that conclusion.

Most importantly, the commitment made to the Inuit of Nunavut in article 4 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and the wording of section 3 of the Nunavut Act itself—“There is hereby established a territory of Canada, to be known as Nunavut...”—reflect an intention to create a territory, not a province. The commission is convinced that Nunavut's existence will have a secure constitutional footing.

Viewed as a whole, the commission believes that early enactment of Bill C-39 can in no small way make a tangible and significant contribution to the smooth, efficient, and fair establishment of Nunavut.

Thank you. I would be prepared to answer questions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Amagoalik. Very interesting, your statement.

Mr. Konrad, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

I'm going to be seen as riding this horse a long way, but you are training MLAs in waiting, so why not a senator or senators in waiting, given the possibility of an elected member of the Senate? You are talking about representation of Nunavut in that most important democratic institution of Canada—Parliament. What are your views on having that person be the people's choice?

Mr. John Amagoalik: I don't have any views on it.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No recommendations?

Mr. John Amagoalik: As has been pointed out by previous witnesses to this committee, there is a lot of work to do between now and April 1, 1999. The list is long. It includes things like hiring civil servants, getting the departments in place and getting the infrastructure in place. To be honest, no one has brought up the Senate as an issue. It's way down on the list of priorities. As chairman of the Nunavut Implementation Commission, my first concern is to get the territory up and going. If the country can wrestle with the Senate issue and come up with a solution, we'd be happy to support you.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Of course we'd like you to be a part of that solution.

I have a couple of questions on training for MLAs. How many are in training or plan to be in training, and how are those people chosen? Did they step forward on their own?

Mr. John Amagoalik: Did you say MLAs?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes. Did I understand you to say that there was training for members of the legislature?

Mr. John Amagoalik: You can't do any training of politicians.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's been proven over and over.

Mr. John Amagoalik: Politicians are popularly elected by the people. There will be 19 ridings and the election will take place around the middle of February, probably around Valentine's Day. Those MLAs will be sworn in on April 1, 1999, and they'll be in charge of the territory. They'll have jurisdiction over that.

I think the training you referred to is a process we've been going through for the past 25 years. We've been getting a lot of practice running our organizations and getting to understand democracy. Democracy is something the Inuit of northern Canada have embraced without any reservations, so training for MLAs—I don't think that's really necessary.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Actually, we may be untrainable, but they tried when we first got here.

When you talk about the importance of democracy, you will understand why I'm talking about elections for senators.

• 1700

When will the implementation commission be winding up its work?

M. John Amagoalik: The Nunavut Act states that the commission will exist until the end of June 1999. We have an understanding with the Minister of Indian Affairs that we will exist until that date.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much. I think that's it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: If the recommendations expressed in the Bill had a negative reception, what are the priorities the Members from here should follow up?

[English]

Mr. John Amagoalik: The bill before you is a product of cooperation among all the parties involved in the creation of Nunavut. It involves the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Government of the NWT, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and to a lesser extent the Nunavut Implementation Commission and the office of the interim commissioner.

Because of the partnership in putting together this bill, I'm very confident that all parties agree that the bill should go ahead and that we don't have any major concerns about it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Mr. Amagoalik. I tried to ask this question a while ago, but I had the wrong notes in front of me.

In researching the Nunavut Act—and all of us have—and in talking and discussing it with a lot of people, both in the north and here, I never heard anyone say that somehow this was a back door to provincial status, as you state in here. Where did that comment come from?

To add to that, I would hope that Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut are in a transitional stage and someday will take their place with provincial status. I think that would be the normal evolution of the political process. But this is not something I've heard discussed or heard any negative comments about. I don't understand why that is there. It's constitutionally invalid because it creates a province by the back door—is that right?

Mr. John Amagoalik: We're just repeating the words of your leader, Mr. Preston Manning.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm a Conservative. We don't put our party allegiance on our name tags. You're in the wrong spot. You have to move up the line.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Down the line.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: In all seriousness, that statement does bother me. I think we're all interested in a normal transition of events here, and at some stage of the process I would expect that all the territories.... As far as I'm concerned, two of them are ready for provincial status now, but that's a personal comment.

If that's why it's there, I'll accept that as your answer, but—

Mr. John Finlay: You have to consider where it comes from.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I've considered it.

There are a number of outstanding issues here, and number one is the timing of the transferral of power and the fact of getting everything ready and in a row—getting all your ducks in a line here.

• 1705

The recommendations made earlier that we move the elections ahead or make provision in the act to do that—and I think everyone understands that—do you see that as one of the major stumbling blocks, something that needs to be done immediately? If it is, what do you think is the next most important thing to be dealt with by parliamentarians?

Mr. John Amagoalik: I think the early election of the legislative assembly is the issue we're most concerned about. We don't want a period where things are up in the air. We don't want a situation where unelected officials are running the territory. We want to make sure that people who have the mandate from the population of Nunavut have the authority on April 1, 1999. So that's our first priority.

As far as a second priority, I really haven't thought about that. We just want to make sure that there are no legal grey areas. We want to make sure that the employees who are presently working for the GNWT have some comfort and understand that they will have a job on April 1, 1999, and that sort of thing. We just want to make sure there are no legal grey areas.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a very short question. I think most of the grey areas have been covered in the legislation. Anything that hasn't been covered can be covered in amendments, and a bunch of them have been recommended.

Some of the areas of shared responsibility with the Government of the Northwest Territories.... What I'm trying to say is that there would be no hurry in some of those areas of shared responsibility. You can put a government in place, you can get your infrastructure built and working and negotiate some of this at a later date, as long as the process is there that you can go back and negotiate it.

Mr. John Amagoalik: Yes, but—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: My concern is that it would drag on forever if it's not done now.

Mr. John Amagoalik: That's one of our concerns too. We don't want things to drag on for too long. We don't mind the Government of the NWT delivering some of the services under contract with the Government of Nunavut until things are in place, but at the same time, we don't want that transition to take too long. We would like the Government of Nunavut to take on its full jurisdiction in a matter of a few years, not too long. I think that's....

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

[Translation]

We're going to go to the last witness, Mr. Bryden. You have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: You were very much involved in the planning for the original Nunavut Act, as I understand it. This has been an effort of many years, so you are experienced with the planning that led to the original act. Is that correct?

Mr. John Amagoalik: Yes, the original concept of Nunavut was born around 1971, when our national organization, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, was first formed. It got its genesis around that year. I've been involved since 1975, so it has been 22 years for me.

Mr. John Bryden: Was it never discussed before the first Nunavut Act was passed? Was there no discussion about having House of Commons and Senate representation?

Mr. John Amagoalik: That was always part of the discussion. We have been discussing Nunavut and consulting with our people for the past 26 years, and it was always envisioned that the territory would have its own member of Parliament and would have—

Mr. John Bryden: But was it discussed with the government?

Mr. John Amagoalik: We always had an understanding with the government that these would be provided for.

Mr. John Bryden: Was there ever discussion about an interim period before the election of the first assembly? Was this not part of the discussion?

• 1710

I'm trying to fathom why we're making these corrections if there were discussions before the first Nunavut Act.

Mr. John Amagoalik: I think the problem was that we assumed the act would make sure that elected people would be responsible on the first day. We were assuming that. Apparently the Department of Indian Affairs weren't thinking about that in the same way. That's why. I think it was an oversight more than anything else.

Mr. John Bryden: So you were very surprised to discover that you didn't have representation in the Nunavut Act.

Mr. John Amagoalik: Yes, that's right.

Mr. John Bryden: And you were very surprised to discover that there wasn't provision for transition.

Then, if I may say so for the record, not having been involved in the original Nunavut Act, but now looking at these corrections, that was pretty crummy legislation that was originally put forward in 1993, wasn't it?

Mr. John Amagoalik: Oh, I wouldn't say crummy.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, it wasn't very well done then, to use, shall we say, more politically correct language.

Mr. John Amagoalik: It was necessary.... There were times when we had to get things done. It was not possible to create something perfect on any of these occasions. We had to get a bill through the House before an election was called. There was some pressure to get legislation through. Certainly it was not perfect, but we knew we would have another opportunity to make amendments if they were necessary.

Mr. John Bryden: What I'm driving at, though, isn't your desire to see legislation coming through. What I'm trying to establish is, has there been a failure on our side, at the federal government level, to provide decent legislation the first time around? If you wanted and pressed for Senate representation or House of Commons representation, which seems mighty obvious to me, there's been surely a failure to provide it the first time around, no matter what the pressure to get the bill through.

So you did expect that type of legislation?

Mr. John Amagoalik: Yes, we did.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Amagoalik and Mr. Ames, for your statements and your answers. Good luck.

[Translation]

We're going to go on to the group.

[English]

Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, with Mr. Alex Campbell, executive director, and Leena Evic-Twerdin, policy and program adviser.

Do you have a statement of five minutes?

Mr. Alex Campbell (Executive Director, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ublukkut, good day, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Alex Campbell; I am the executive director of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the successor for Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, which negotiated the land claims agreement. With me is Leena Evic-Twerdin, NTI's policy and program adviser.

On behalf of NTI and the Inuit of Nunavut, we are here today to respond to the government's Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act of 1867.

We're going to take turns doing the presentation. Leena is going to be doing the first part of the presentation.

Some of the information we're going to be covering has been talked about around the table so far, so just bear with us. Our main focus of the exercise is to try to educate the members of Parliament as to what NTI's role is in this process and to give them a feel of where we're coming from in this exercise.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's the bell ringing in the House of Commons. It's for the quorum.

[English]

Go ahead.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin (Policy and Program Adviser, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.):

[Witness speaks in her native language].

• 1715

First of all, I'm going to brief you on the background of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. In 1993 the Inuit and the Government of Canada became parties to the largest aboriginal land claim agreement in Canadian history. The constitutionally protected land claims agreement clarifies Inuit rights to ownership and use of land and resources, Inuit wildlife harvesting rights, and Inuit rights to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management, and conservation of land, wildlife, water, and resources, including offshore. The Inuit are also provided with financial compensation and means of participating in economic opportunities.

Important for our purposes today, the agreement also required the Government of Canada to recommend to Parliament a new Nunavut Territory and to negotiate the Nunavut political accord, defining the details of the new territory.

The land claims agreement is intended to encourage self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit and to meet in part Inuit self-government aspirations.

When the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act was passed by the Canadian Parliament in 1993, another piece of legislation entitled the Nunavut Act became law as well. That will lead to the creation of the territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999, the first territory to enter the federation of Canada since Newfoundland joined its brethren in 1949.

The Nunavut land claims settlement is the largest aboriginal land claims settlement ever concluded in Canadian history, giving the Inuit title to 355,842 square kilometres of land within a large region of the eastern Arctic that also comprises crown lands. Nunavut, stretching about 1.9 million square kilometres, is an immense area, almost one-fifth the size of Canada.

NTI is a not-for-profit corporation established in 1993 to ensure that the promises made in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are carried out, including the creation of the Nunavut Territory. It represents the interests of the almost 19,500 Inuit of Nunavut for whom the $1.1 billion land claim agreement was settled. Inuit are considered shareholders of NTI and meet to vote on issues at an annual shareholders' meeting held in a Nunavut community.

Under the Nunavut Act, NTI is one of three parties, along with the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, responsible for receiving and considering the advice and recommendations of the Nunavut Implementation Commission on the details for the establishment of the Nunavut government. NTI has been closely involved in the decisions made based on those recommendations and in the preparation of the written directions from the Minister of DIAND to the interim commissioner of Nunavut.

Mr. Alex Campbell: I'll continue the presentation.

We are not here today to debate or advocate for the support of the establishment of Nunavut. That debate has already taken place and was clearly confirmed through the passage of the Nunavut Act in 1993. The Nunavut Act is a demonstration of the government's commitment to create the new territory and government for Nunavut and its residents.

I am here today to express the urgency of your continued support for the amendments to the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, which have been put before the House of Commons. This effort is a testament to how much closer we are to realizing the dream of Nunavut.

I would like to talk about Bill C-39. The proposed legislation is not unfamiliar to NTI. In fact NTI has participated in a multi-party working group on legal and legislative matters relating to Nunavut. This working group has representatives from the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, NTI, the Nunavut Implementation Commission, and recently the office of the interim commissioner. Through this multi-party consultation, collaboration, and commitment, the volume of critical issues, conflicts, and omissions were identified and resolved in the form of Bill C-39.

• 1720

NTI would like to compliment the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the process of developing this draft legislation. All the parties involved have shown a commitment to a consensus process for the development of the first principles and objectives and then the potential drafts of the legislation.

We are not suggesting that the amendments are picture perfect or that NTI might not have preferred alternatives at various points in the process, but in the final analysis, all the factors were on the table. It was the hard work and hard compromises made earlier at the working group level that now allow us to give our unqualified support to these amendments.

This working group is one of several that were organized to address the host of issues that are part of creating a new political jurisdiction inside Canada. As was mentioned earlier today, in a mere 306 days, the most recent corner piece of the puzzle called Canada will be snugly set in place. Nunavut will have a long-awaited representative government. Nunavut will have a growing representative workforce conducting territorial government business through a decentralized government across 11 of the Nunavut communities. Nunavut will promote, protect and preserve the language and cultures in the workplace, in our laws, and among our citizens through the delivery of programs and services. As always, Nunavut will draw from previous lessons to make Nunavut a better place to live. That is the will and the desire of Inuit in Nunavut.

The Government of Canada's tribute to Canadian Inuit aspirations for self-determination is pending one important hurdle toward the smooth transition of establishing the Nunavut Territory and government after April 1, 1999, with the passing of the act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The groundwork has been done through many years of negotiations between the Inuit and the government that were capped off through the signing of the Nunavut political accord in October 1992, the Inuit ratification vote in November 1992, the passage and royal assent of the Nunavut Act on June 10, 1993, and the coming into force of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in July 1993.

Again, I'll defer to my colleague.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin: Thank you.

On Bill C-39, the amendments to the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act of 1867 allow us the opportunity to address matters that are both necessary to the timely and efficient implementation of the new government and territory and were not captured in the first rounds of legislation talks on Nunavut.

One amendment would allow for Nunavut's first election before April 1, 1999. As Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, noted last week in her opening comments on the matter, the election must occur before that date to allow for an elected legislature to be in place for Nunavut.

The transition to the establishment of a new political jurisdiction must be as seamless as possible so as to maintain the quality and level of services for the people of Nunavut. In that context, other amendments are required to provide certainty that the body of laws that Nunavut will adhere to are those that Nunavut is most familiar with.

The laws of the Northwest Territories will become the laws of Nunavut to the extent that they can be duplicated and still apply in Nunavut. All government institutions will be duplicated in Nunavut as school boards, municipalities, boards, and agencies will all be created. The people of Nunavut will need to be assured that their licences, permits, and registrations will still be valid inside Nunavut during the transition period.

In case there are disagreements or a lack of consensus on such matters as the division of assets and liabilities between Nunavut and the remaining Northwest Territories, the federal cabinet up to April 1, 1999, will be able to unilaterally transfer property to Nunavut. However, we are hopeful and confident that every attempt will be made to adequately and fairly divide assets and liability.

• 1725

An additional amendment will allow the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to create special legislation by passing a different version of any of its existing legislation. This version will be made for Nunavut, and will not apply to the Northwest Territories. However, to make special legislation, the Government of the Northwest Territories will have to first consult with NTI and have the consent of the office of the interim commissioner. Through this process, legislation could be created in Yellowknife with amendments made to adapt the legislation to Nunavut.

Mr. Alex Campbell: The amendments further call for rules for pending applications, court cases and decisions, and their transfer to the new jurisdiction as required. After all, the people of Nunavut should be informed about which court or tribunal will hear their case after April 1, 1999.

All in all, it is intended that these amendments to the Nunavut Act facilitate an orderly, timely, and efficient transition to a new Nunavut territory and government. The new territory and government, however, will need representatives in our country's highest decision-making forum. That is, Nunavut needs confirmation that a member of Parliament and a senator will represent our interests. To do this, there is a requirement to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

These amendments are vital to allow the Nunavut government to function on April 1, 1999. They allow the new territory to come into existence with an elected legislature. The status of the laws will be clarified and the courts will be confirmed in place to assist when they need elaboration.

The amendment process is one hurdle among several that need to be overcome and dealt with to the benefit of the people of Nunavut. Other specific hurdles are related to the adequate funding of the new territory and Inuit recruitment, employment, and training. We are expecting to deal with these and many other matters enthusiastically in our ongoing negotiations with the government.

We must ensure that the amendments are supported and passed as quickly as possible. As Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, MP for Nunavut, so clearly pointed out last week, Nunavut's interim commissioner requires the direction and confirmation to proceed. This must happen for Nunavut to succeed. NTI is committed to the realization of the vision of Nunavut.

The framework required to set up the Nunavut government is there as a result of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Nunavut Act, and Nunavut political accord. Since the 1960s, Inuit have struggled to define a form of self-government satisfactory to the Inuit of Nunavut. The rights and benefits identified under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, including a guaranteed role with the government in the joint management of lands and resources in Nunavut together with the establishment of a Nunavut territory and government, should equip Inuit in Nunavut with many of the critical tools that Inuit need to govern themselves.

In conclusion, NTI carries the responsibility to safeguard the rights of Inuit in Nunavut under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It is our duty to be the voice of Inuit on political development issues in Nunavut and to ensure the safe birth of the publicly governed territory that was conceived as part of our aboriginal claim.

NTI has taken an active role in each step of the process creating Nunavut and will continue to watch over and guard the process as Nunavut becomes a reality. That reality will be founded in many years of hard and dedicated work, not only in Nunavut, but also in Yellowknife and Ottawa. Inuit and non-Inuit have contributed to that reality. You are contributing now by acknowledging our work and aspirations, and by assisting in the smooth passage of this legislation.

I respectfully acknowledge Minister Jane Stewart for her commitment to Nunavut and Inuit aspirations. We would like to thank the committee members for the passage of this critical legislation.

Without a doubt, Nunavut is unique. I hope that this much was communicated to the people who attended the Countdown to Nunavut celebrations we had here on March 31 at the Canadian Museum of Nature.

• 1730

There is real excitement in Nunavut, and we hope you feel that excitement as you join us in taking the next step. We recognize that the project of creating a new territory is huge and contains complexities that we only discover as we actually put this legislation into effect. We know that there will be difficulties to overcome at every step of the way. We ask that you give this legislation your support and accept our invitation to participate in a very important step in fulfilling the dream and reality of Nunavut.

Qujannamiik. Thank you you for allowing us this five minutes to make the presentation and provide comments on Bill C-39. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I appreciate it very much. Qujannamiik.

[Translation]

We're going to go to question period. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you for your presentation. And I hope this committee is able to help you make this the best legislation you can get.

Just with respect to the last speaker there, and to my colleague Mr. Bryden, who pointed out that in the rush to royal assent last time they forgot about senators and having an elected legislature, and there's been some fairly significant constitutional looking-into to see about the accidental creation of a province, I think it would be worth while if other parties looked at that very hard to be sure everything goes smoothly.

Anyway, in your presentation you talked about how the creation of Nunavut meets in part Inuit self-government aspirations. I wonder what the other part is. What is the remainder of the aspirations?

Mr. Alex Campbell : Just to clarify—and it's a point we've always made, from Nunavut to Inuvik—this is a public government, and the NTI, which represents the Inuit, supports that concept. This has always been clear.

I'll get Leena to talk a little bit about the other aspirations of the Inuit, about what the other portion means for Inuit in Nunavut.

Ms. Leena Evic-Diverin: Since we have close to an 80% majority of Inuit populating Nunavut, there is a hope from this population that Nunavut and Nunavut government will mean to them their opportunity to develop and to grow in all aspects of their livelihood. And this includes to a high degree the use of their language and respect for their culture—in short form.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think those are all the questions I have, given the shortage of time. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: My understanding was that you were satisfied with the content of Bill C-39. I'd like to know what you are satisfied with. Are there any parts that you like less? In your opinion, are there any questions that this Bill should deal with and that do not appear at present?

[English]

Mr. Alex Campbell: As I indicated in our presentation, we've participated in the working group leading up to the draft bill. And through that process we've related our recommendations of what should be included in the Nunavut Act. As far as NTI is concerned, we're happy with the amendments that have been made and the process leading up to this and the consultation the government has proceeded on.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a lot of our questions have been answered here, and this is further discussion about them.

• 1735

Because there may be some discussion of adjoining land claims, and specifically with the next group coming up, in the offshore islands in southern Hudson Bay and eastern James Bay, which are to be part of Nunavut, and given another claim by the Cree, is there anything in place for discussion on that or ongoing discussion to settle that issue and put it soundly behind both groups? What's your feeling there?

Mr. Alex Campbell: We have had discussions with the Makivik Corporation, which is the northern Quebec Inuit, during the process, and we've been talking with them regarding some of the offshore interests they have. In terms of the Cree specifically, they haven't made any contacts with our office to start any discussions in regard to their concerns about the boundaries and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement itself.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As a supplementary to that question, historically, and certainly in recent memory—I'm trying to get a feeling here from someone from the area—have they always been looked at as being Inuit lands?

Mr. Alex Campbell: Yes, Sanikiluaq is in the Belcher Islands, in that area, and they're Inuit. They're part of Nunavut and we consider them as part of the land claim process as well. So that's where we would start opening discussions on offshore interests.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: When the first assembly is held for the new territory of Nunavut, will you disband as an organization?

Mr. Alex Campbell: Certainly not. NTI was established under the Canada Corporations Act and NTI will continue to exist as a political advocacy organization, and also of course will be continuing to monitor the implementation of the land claims agreement. In this case, we'll be monitoring the activities of the Nunavut government, as well, on some of their obligations.

Mr. John Bryden: I appreciate that. If I may ask, who finances your organization at this point in time? Where do you get your financing?

Mr. Alex Campbell: The government is paying out the capital to the Nunavut Trust. We've set up a trust, and the Government of Canada is paying out its capital payments, the money that was agreed to in the land claims agreement, to the Nunavut Trust. The Nunavut Trust is the safeguard of that money. They're investing that money for Nunavut. Right now what we're doing is investing that money and we're borrowing against that money to operate as an organization. Eventually there's going to be enough revenue income generated so that we'll live off the interest or operate just using the interest from that claim.

One of the things we're working towards of course is coming up with some kind of real compensation for the Inuit who have given up their rights in the land claim process. So NTI is in the process of coming up with innovative ways of compensating Inuit.

Mr. John Bryden: But I take it when Nunavut is formed the federal government's responsibility to finance your organization will cease and desist, and if you receive financing it'll be from Nunavut.

Mr. Alex Campbell: The government is not financing the organization; the government is paying a compensation payment to the Inuit. So they're obligated to pay that money out. It doesn't matter if it's post-1999.

Mr. John Bryden: No, I'm just trying to get a grasp on it. So the federal government has made a commitment of money, and you exist by drawing on that commitment of money and it doesn't represent a continuing charge on the federal government.

• 1740

Mr. Alex Campbell: That's correct. We're getting annual payments from the Government of Canada. The final payment will be in 2007. So the government will meet its obligations under the land claims agreement in paying out the capital to the Nunavut Trust.

Mr. John Bryden: I have to explain. I find NGOs have a tendency to exist beyond their usefulness because they.... I'm not suggesting this is the case in point here, but I really don't understand why you should feel that you need to be—what were the words you used?—“the voice of the Inuit on political development issues”, when you're going to have the elected representatives who are supposed to be the voice of the Inuit. I don't understand why one needs a non-profit corporation to speak for people when you have elected representatives.

Mr. Alex Campbell: Like I said earlier, you're right, there are going to be elected members of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly, but there's also the land claims agreement in place that has to be implemented by the governments, including the federal and territorial governments. So somebody has to be there to tell the government they're not fulfilling their obligations to the Inuit. That's where the NTI comes in. NTI's focus right now is setting up the Nunavut government as part of its mandate under article 4.

Mr. John Bryden: I see, okay.

Mr. Alex Campbell: So that aspect will probably come down or that responsibility will be lessened, I guess, when the first elections occur. That's basically it.

Mr. John Bryden: So you're here until 2007.

Mr. Alex Campbell: No, we'll continue to exist. One emphasis of the organization now is economic development and social conditions for the Inuit. So as I said earlier, there are some processes we're going to be implementing in NTI to address some kind of a compensation payment to the Inuit for giving up their rights under the land claim.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Campbell, I have two quick questions. The first one is following the question of my colleague Mr. Bryden about the existence of NTI after April 1, 1999.

First of all, you mentioned that you're still going to be there, but the body will be the people elected as members of the national assembly. You're going to take your...I don't say your orders, but I mean what you're going to do in the future after April 1, 1999, from the national assembly of Nunavut.

Mr. Alex Campbell: No, that's the point I'm trying to make here. NTI will continue to exist as a corporation, even if five or ten governments are created after April 1, 1999. That's the obligation the government has, the agreement they signed off.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay. The other question I have is along the question of Mr. Keddy regarding the islands, about James Bay and Hudson Bay. You answered and you didn't answer. You answered as a politician about Belcher Islands, and there's no problem about it; it was Inuit. But what about close to Hudson Bay—Long Island, North and South Twin Islands, and also Charlton Island? These islands have been indicated by the Cree association.

My understanding is this bill and the Nunavut Act of 1993 don't change anything about the rights of anyone; it's just a modification of a political jurisdiction. Do you agree with this statement?

Mr. Alex Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

I have a question to ask you about Makivik. You talked about Makivik, Mr. Campbell. In my federal riding, there are 14 Inuit villages. You are my neighbours. You're having discussions with Makivik and the federal government. I know we're on the brink of an agreement. Has there been any discussion of the matter of cost compensation?

[English]

Mr. Alex Campbell: No, we haven't been talking compensation at all in those discussions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

In closing, I wish to tell you that the Member representing your big, beautiful region in the House of Commons, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, does a good job of representing you daily. She has the opportunity to tell us about you and your Inuit people, and we are delighted with her work. In Inuit, they say qujannamiik. That means thank you. We say nakungmiik.

The committee will meet with you in Iqaluit in two or three weeks.

• 1745

[English]

Thank you very much.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chair, I have a little question. It's interesting that we have this bill in English and in French, which is quite correct, but I wonder whether we're going to have it in Inuktitut by April 1, 1999, because that is going to be the language of Nunavut.

Mr. Alex Campbell: That's certainly what NTI has been advocating, to make sure that all the legislation in Nunavut will be translated into Inuktitut eventually. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate very much your statement, Mr. Campbell and Madame Evic-Twerdin. Thank you very much. Good day.

[Translation]

We're now going to meet the Grand Council of Crees, represented by Mr. Bill Namagoose and Mr. Brian Craik, Director of Federal Relations.

[English]

We will take a two-minute break for coffee.

• 1746

• 1751

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're beginning.

It is an honour for me to welcome my friends Bill Namagoose and Brian Craik, who is very familiar with my region of Abitibi. They're friends. Welcome to the committee.

You may begin your statement.

[English]

Mr. Bill Namagoose (Executive Director, Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this opportunity to appear before you.

I'm the executive director the Grand Council of the Crees. The Grand Council of the Crees represents the nine Cree communities in the James Bay territory, and the Grand Council of the Crees is the signatory to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975 in a land claim agreement.

By way of background to our presentation on Nunavut, the Grand Council of the Crees and the Cree Nation signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975. Mostly, this agreement was provoked as a result of the massive hydro project that was announced in our territory, which led to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Of course, that's another story, on the conditions around that issue.

After two years of negotiations, there was tremendous pressure to sign the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to clarify certain issues and activities that were taking place in our territory.

There were some outstanding issues that were not signed or included in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and one of these outstanding issues was the offshore islands in James Bay. The islands stretch from the Ontario and northern Quebec border all the way up to James Bay and Hudson Bay waters. The way these issues were dealt with, among other things, was that we received a letter from Judd Buchanan, who was then Minister of Indian Affairs, in 1974. This letter we called the “letters of undertaking”, signed by Judd Buchanan.

Several times there have been discussions on these issues, but there has never been a conclusion for the offshore islands. The Crees are the original inhabitants and users of these islands, and legally and technically right now they are part of the Northwest Territories. When we travel by boat from Waskaganish to Moosonee and Moose Factory, we are travelling technically and legally through the Northwest Territories. When we have a drowning in James Bay, the drowning happens in the Northwest Territories, but we still have the responsibility to search for and rescue people, whoever they are, in the offshore islands. So those are the original and aboriginal claims by the Cree.

Now these islands are proposed to be part of Nunavut, and there has been no consultation with the Cree as to whether we agree or consent that part of our islands be part of the Nunavut territory.

Our claim to those islands and the claim to begin negotiations on those islands' offshore land claim happened prior to the Nunavut agreement or process. We think we had a prior claim to those islands. So that's why we are surprised that there was no consultation either from Canada, which had the obligation.

Now we are asking this committee to use its offices and pressure to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs to begin these negotiations. We've been ready to begin these negotiations for a very long, long time; it's just that there was nobody on the department side that we could engage with because they have not set the proper mandate and negotiations in place.

I will ask our director of federal relations, Brian Craik, to give you a little background on our attempts to start these negotiations.

• 1755

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Craik, we received a letter concerning the off-shore islands. Could you read this letter?

Mr. Brian Craik (Director of Federal Relations, Grand Council of Cree of Quebec: I can read it.

[English]

The letter says:

I am writing to you in regard to the consideration by the standing committee of the question of the creation of the Territory of Nunavut. The Crees have one outstanding issue related to this question and we would like to ask that the standing committee pose the question to the minister of the status of setting up the negotiations with the Grand Council of the Crees related to the off-shore islands in eastern James Bay and southern Hudson Bay.

The Cree claim to these islands, the intervening ice and waters, the seascape and to the resources found there has been recognized and accepted by the Minister of Indian Affairs. The rights of the Crees to this area were first recognized by the Minister in 1977...

It actually goes back further, to 1974, but it was reconfirmed in 1977.

...at which time negotiations began. The negotiations were subsequently suspended due to fundamental differences relating to compensation and the status of the areas under negotiation. Since the first efforts to implement the Nunavut Territory, the Crees have pressed the government for the opening of discussions on this issue.

In 1996 the then minister, Ron Irwin, recognized the Cree claim as including the off-shore waters and ice and stated that negotiations could proceed. Since that time the ministry has, however, been dragging its feet in relation to the claim. Ministry officials first demanded to know the extent of the Cree claim, asking if they claimed the marine mammals and wildfowl. This had been previously indicated in meetings with officials and in other negotiation forums.

That is, the negotiations with Mr. Vennat on the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The Grand Chief replied to repeated requests, stating that yes the Cree claim was to all of the resources and that this and any other questions could be cleared up in the context of the forthcoming discussions. We have yet to hear a reply as to whether the department has or has not gone to Cabinet to set up the negotiating mandate. We have made representations to the minister that this be done immediately and have suggested that the mandate be given to Mr. Michel Vennat who also represents the ministry in negotiations concerning other Cree rights and issues. The ministry has yet to reply.

In the absence of a reply, we are now forced to consider our legal recourses. The question of Cree rights is being considered in the context of the creation of Nunavut. We strongly support Nunavut, but we will not stand by and see Cree rights ignored by the government. We stand ready to negotiate with the government but the lack of action on the part of the ministry and the Government of Canada is forcing us to consider other options.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're going on to the question period.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: If I understand correctly, you're using Bill C-39 as a negotiating tactic to try to bring the government back to the table to discuss your issues.

Mr. Bill Namagoose: We wouldn't say it's a tactic. It's been an outstanding issue since 1974.

Mr. Brian Craik: We heard you were having hearings on this issue, and the question for us was whether we always stay silent when these things go on or whether we have a chance to speak as well. Remember that Nunavut, as described in the bill and as it has been developed, includes Cree islands. There has been a lot of discussion and there have been plebiscites in the Northwest Territories on the issue of Nunavut. There has never been one federal official come to the Cree territory to talk about Nunavut.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In the plebiscites that we heard about earlier, were the Cree islands' inhabitants, if there are any, included in those responses? Can you tell me what their responses were?

Mr. Brian Craik: The Cree islands are inhabited part of the time. Right now there are people on some of the islands, and some of the islands have people on them in the wintertime as well. Some of the islands are very small. Others, like Charlton Island, are big enough to have populations of game that people hunt in the winter.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Just for my clarification, do the Cree who are involved live in Quebec?

Mr. Bill Namagoose: Yes, the Crees involved are in Quebec.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: The islands you're claiming are included in Nunavut, so you really have a big jurisdictional problem here.

Mr. Bill Namagoose: At the moment they are in the Northwest Territories, but they are proposed to have a different legal status after this bill is passed.

• 1800

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Was it a problem for you previously, when they were under the control of the Northwest Territories? I presume these negotiations took place in the context of the Northwest Territories, so that question doesn't need to be answered.

Mr. Bill Namagoose: There are problems, but at the moment.... The jurisdiction of the Cree police force is not recognized inside the Northwest Territories. We cannot legally conduct search and rescues on the offshore islands, but we do anyway because it's a matter of life and death. If we need police services or other services from the Northwest Territories, they're just not available. We have to call Yellowknife to get constables to take action on certain issues. Alcohol is transported through the Northwest Territories from Moosonee to our area. We're in a legal limbo, as you said. That has to be settled.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: All right. I'm going to listen with interest as the other members, who may be have been here longer and have a little more insight into this, ask questions. But I can certainly see your problem here.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Craik, could you give us the names of the villages like Waskaganish which are on the coast?

[English]

Mr. Brian Craik: The village in the southeastern part of James Bay is Waskaganish. The next one north is Eastmain. Next north from that is Wemindji, the next north is Chisasibi, and the next one on the bottom of Hudson Bay is Whapmagoostui.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is there a large population there?

Mr. Brian Craik: There's a large population. I'd say that nearly half the Cree population is on the coast. More than 6,000 people.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I have a threefold question. First I'd like to know why negotiations concerning your rights, in the context of the creation of Nunavut, have been broken off since 1996. Second, can you clarify the nature of your claims? Third, how are they linked to the Nunavut Bill?

Mr. Brian Craik: I could tell you that, in 1977, negotiations concerning the off-shore islands between the Government of Canada and the Cree were stalled mainly, at the time, by questions concerning compensation to be paid to the Cree. A scheme was developed for these islands, but there was a big dispute between the two parties concerning compensation.

There were other issues, which weren't taken into consideration by the Cree people. We didn't want to go any further with consultations with the village people because we weren't very close to an agreement. So consultations with the Cree people were not completed. Our claims concerning the off-shore islands have evolved over time because native people's rights have also evolved in Canada's courts. So now we should deal with the matter of Cree titles on these off-shore islands and also with questions of Cree aboriginal rights.

At the time, in 1977, it was mainly a question of Cree aboriginal rights. There weren't any land titles recognized by the court. Since then, land title has been recognized. So we're going to go ahead with our claims in this regard.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: How are your claims connected with the Nunavut Bill? What is the link between the two?

Mr. Brian Craik: People who set up schemes like the Nunavut one always say to those who aren't consulted that it doesn't affect their rights. That's what they always say, but it's not always accepted by the Cree.

• 1805

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

I'd like you to clarify something for us. You even have some Inuit in your Cree villages.

Mr. Brian Craik: We have some Inuit in the village of Chisasibi, and they too have interests in the off-shore islands. It's not a matter of taking Inuit rights on the off-shore islands. We want to negotiate with the Inuit to find out what the Inuit rights are and the Cree rights are on these islands.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Craik.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think a very important piece of information has come forth here, and I'm going to try to summarize it as it's been laid out.

It has been a long-standing land claims issue for the northern Cree in Quebec. You said 1974 and 1977. Obviously you have records that there was discussion of an ongoing land claim at that time. If the land claim was not settled, it was not a problem to cross territorial lines, whether crossing the territory of the province of Quebec into the territory of the Government of the Northwest Territories....

I'm trying to work through this, but it seems to be a jurisdictional conundrum. I'm a little bit shocked about the amount of settlement and discussion that has taken place between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the new Territory of Nunavut, understanding that they all occupy one assembly so maybe that was a bit easier to establish the boundaries. There's been a lot of work and it seems to have worked fairly well, but there's another boundary here that's been completely overlooked.

I don't see anything in the.... I'm not saying that your claim is correct or incorrect. I don't have enough background beyond what you've said here to make that decision, and I don't know if I'd want to if I could. However, somewhere within the act or within the amendments to the act, we have to recognize, if there's an unsettled claim here, that we have to provide an avenue for dispute settlement. What I'm concerned with is the fact that it hasn't been done prior to this time.

The question I'm leading to—and you can correct my summary if I'm mistaken in any part of it—is talks broke off in 1977 over compensation.

Mr. Brian Craik: Largely over compensation.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: All right. So there are three parties involved in this. There is the jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec, the Cree, and the Government of the Northwest Territories, and now it will be the new Territory of Nunavut. Jurisdiction is a wonderful thing. Would you care to answer on that before I mix it up too badly?

Mr. Bill Namagoose: On the boundary issue, they're dividing the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Exactly.

Mr. Bill Namagoose: One will be Nunavut. At the moment the Quebec boundary ends at the high tidewater mark, and then you're in the Northwest Territories. So your camp is in Quebec and then you go hunting in the Northwest Territories—that's how they divided up the boundary.

We have 11 months to settle this issue. We are ready to sit down and negotiate with the Quebec government, but we need somebody to engage with us on the other side. That's the Department of Indian Affairs, Canada, the federal government.

• 1810

The Chairman: This is your last question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As committee members, and certainly for myself, I requested some information already, but I need more. The thing I don't think we need information on, that we can carry forth, is the immediate need of the department and the minister to deal with this.

Mr. Bill Namagoose: That's what we're asking.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Craik and Mr. Namagoose. I'm very pleased to see you here.

As I mentioned prior with the NTI, we know the boundaries of this Nunavut were to be the same as they were previously in the NWT. Also, what is quite important with this bill, as I mentioned when I asked the question previously to Mr. Campbell, is that this bill and the 1992 Nunavut Act don't change at all any rights of the aboriginal people living in the Quebec area and the Cree.

You asked a question about negotiation. I've had discussions with the department before on some other issues, and sometimes this comes out. I hope—I'm not the minister, I'm the parliamentary secretary—that we will have a negotiator as soon as possible, because we feel, as you just mentioned, we need negotiations. You're ready to negotiate, and I don't know if it's going to be the person you mentioned in your letter, Mr. Vennat, but we hope to have a name and to enter into negotiations with the Grand Council of the Crees and also with the Inuit.

That's my comment. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bill Namagoose: On the question of Cree rights, our people get upset when they have certain claims to certain lands or offshore islands, and then the Quebec government—well, the federal government—comes along and changes the legal status of those lands without prior consultation. There has to be some kind of protocol and certain respect required here. This is a long-outstanding issue, and we were prepared to resolve this issue a long time ago. So changing the legal status of these lands without prior consultation wasn't called for.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Craik and Mr. Namagoose. I want you to know that the committee has clearly understood your claim. I think we must respect the James Bay Agreement. There are departmental officials here who have clearly understood your statement. It's up to us to act.

[English]

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

We're now going to meet the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, represented by Mr. Alan Braidek, Executive Director.

[English]

Mr. Braidek, you have a statement. You have five minutes.

Mr. Alan Braidek (Executive Director, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very brief statement.

My name is Alan Braidek. I'm the executive director of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. ITC is the national Inuit organization representing approximately 40,000 Inuit across 53 communities in six regions of northern Canada.

For all Inuit of Canada, the establishment of Nunavut is a significant and important recognition of their place in Canada. Bill C-39 will make required changes to the Nunavut Act that will make the transition to Nunavut smoother, more efficient, and more effective. Those necessary changes were reviewed earlier today, so I won't review them.

• 1815

ITC is satisfied with the level of consultation and the consultation process that was undertaken in the development of Bill C-39. NTI, as you know, has been extensively involved in those consultations.

Through its membership in the board of directors of ITC, Nunavut Tunngavik has kept the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, representing the Inuit in the Mackenzie Delta, Makivik Corporation, representing the Inuit in northern Quebec, and the Labrador Inuit Association, representing the Inuit of Labrador, informed about the development of Bill C-39, the need for that amendment to the Nunavut Act, and the specifics of those amendments.

ITC believes that Bill C-39 appropriately amends the Nunavut Act and is a workable compromise among the various parties to allow for a timely and effective establishment of Nunavut. ITC urges the swift passage of Bill C-39, as has been presented.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Braidek, for your statement.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

There wasn't a lot there to question you on. Maybe that's the strategy.

I'm going to go back to the question I asked several times before, because you represent Inuit across the entire north, but at this time you're particularly interested in the Inuit of Nunavut.

The Reform Party's position, again, is that this bill should be amended to allow for the election of a senator to the upper chamber to properly represent the people of Nunavut, rather than having the Prime Minister make the appointment for Nunavut. I wonder what your thoughts are on that.

Mr. Alan Braidek: Briefly, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada does not have a position on whether the Senate member should be elected or appointed. I would just say that the point of Nunavut Act is to enable Nunavut to take its place in Canada, as it exists now, and to become a member of Confederation, as Confederation is represented now with the appointed Senate. So I would suggest it would appear appropriate that the current method be followed, because that's what Nunavut is joining.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Did I understand you to say that Inuit across Canada had been consulted on the establishment of Nunavut and were in agreement with it?

Mr. Alan Braidek: The organizations that represent them, through their membership on the Inuit Tapirisat board of directors, have been informed about the development of Nunavut and the need for the amendment to the Nunavut Act. As an organization, ITC is saying we agree with the need for the amendments, in the format they're presented to you.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How is the organization funded, if you don't mind my asking, and what is its exact mission?

Mr. Alan Braidek: Our mission is to represent the interests of the Inuit of Canada on national issues.

How we are funded? We receive project funding for the specific projects we undertake, and we receive core funding, mainly from the federal government but from other sources as well.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So the organization is not funded or supported by the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, or any provincial government or territory, is it?

Mr. Alan Braidek: That's correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Fournier.

• 1820

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: During your remarks, I noted three questions. As the body representing the Inuit of Canada, the overall development of this Bill C-39 originated with you. Are you satisfied with the Bill or are there some issues that haven't been dealt with and that should be?

[English]

Mr. Alan Braidek: We are satisfied with the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: You are satisfied with the Bill overall.

Is the creation of Nunavut positive, generally speaking, for the Inuit people? Were your people broadly consulted and can we conclude they are satisfied?

[English]

Mr. Alan Braidek: As has been mentioned earlier today, one of the original goals of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada was to work toward the establishment of the Territory of Nunavut. So we are very satisfied with the process and with the establishment of the territory, and we see it as a very positive thing for all Inuit of Canada to see the recognition of the Inuit of Nunavut in an appropriate place within Confederation.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: So, if I asked whether you felt you'd been properly consulted and that your recommendations had been taken seriously, you'd answer yes. So, I can leave without any concerns. I know that the Inuit were consulted, their recommendations were taken seriously and the passing of this Bill is going to satisfy your people.

[English]

Mr. Alan Braidek: Yes, ITC feels there have been appropriate consultations with the Inuit of Nunavut, and we support the bill strongly.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Braidek. Thank you, Mr. Fournier. As usual, you always have some good questions and you do your Member's work well.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Braidek, I know it's short, but the Members have meetings at 6:45. Some of them have two meetings this evening. Some of them want to go and grab some soup. I wish to thank you for coming. I also wish to thank the departmental officials who have attended, our work team and the people who came from as far away as Iqaluit.

[English]

Have a good day. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock.