AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 18, 2001

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order. We are gathered to deal with Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today we have with us, from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Mr. Will Dunlop, director of resource policy and transfers directorate; Mr. Ron Bailey, lands specialist, resource strategies;

[Translation]

Mr. Ian McGregor, Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch; Brian Gibson, Senior Advisor, Offshore Waters, Land and Water Management Division.

[English]

You know the routine. I'm not too good at formalities and stretching things out too long. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mr. Ian McGregor (Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Please allow me to introduce the witnesses appearing today. Ron Bailey is the Senior Officer responsible for designing the bill. Will Dunlop is the Director of Policy. Brian Gibson is a Water Policy Specialist in the Northern Program. I am Ian McGregor, the Director General of Natural Resources and Environment. I have overall responsibility to develop natural resources legislation needed to implement Northern land claims settlements. We are also accompanied by Ms. Mary Douglas.

[English]

She is our legal adviser on the legislation.

[Translation]

Bill C-33 has been a long time in the making.

[English]

We began working on part 1 of the bill in 1995, and on part 2 in 1993. The committee may know that the department used drafts of the bill during our extensive consultations. Many versions were refined over that period, resulting in the bill that's before you today.

Bill C-33 is important for a number of reasons. It meets two of Canada's land claim obligations to legislate new public government bodies. The bill details the responsibilities and mandate of the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal.

Members may notice similarities to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act and the comparable legislation from the western provinces and British Columbia. We again looked west to these jurisdictions for successful models for the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal.

• 1110

Regarding the Nunavut Water Board, the bill also reflects similarities with water board counterparts in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. This is not surprising in that the boards are all institutions of public government, with comparable mandates and overall structure.

[Translation]

We are pleased that the bill is now before the Parliament. This law will profit the territory, private industry, the public and the Water Board itself. The law will create confidence and certainty for the public and will encourage exploration and development. Bill C-33 will address the legislative void by detailing mandates and processes and confirming roles and jurisdictions. Should this bill be enacted, the legislation will be an important building block in enhancing responsible government in Canada's newest territory.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, we thank the committee for the opportunity to assist you during your deliberations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, I'll open the floor to questions.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for Mr. Gibson.

As regards Nunavut's inland waters, what I am concerned about are the former military bases, the DEW Line and the Mid-Canada Line. We know that the same thing is happening in our sector, in Nunavik. The waters have been contaminated by the American bases, by the DEW Line and the Mid-Canada Line. Can you tell us if the bill provides for the cleanup of these sites over the next few years? We know that there is a $300 million process in Canada, but I would like some additional explanations about what is going to happen over the course of the next few months.

[English]

Mr. Brian Gibson (Senior Adviser, Offshore Waters, Land and Water Management Division, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): The contaminated sites I believe you're referring to are part of the northern contaminated sites management program, which we have in place now. It essentially has the objective of identifying contaminated sites that have been there from past operations, doing a risk assessment on those sites, and determining priorities. It is now setting out a plan for cleaning up those sites over the coming years.

While the bill before you will not explicitly address those particular sites, the legislation in place will hopefully prevent such occurrences from happening in the future.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have another question, Mr. Chairman.

Are there any specific references to these sites in Bill C-33? Can you give the members of the committee some idea of the order of magnitude of this pollution that has remained in the ground and waters of Nunavut? How many sites are there? How much will this cost? Is there an agreement with the northern Inuit?

[English]

Mr. Brian Gibson: I'm sorry, I'm not personally part of the contaminated sites program. Certainly we can provide that information to the committee. It's well known. I'm just not personally familiar with it.

• 1115

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give Mr. Gibson an explanation because it is important that we know this. We are talking about water. We know that this problem exists in my sector, in Nunavik. The same problem must exist in the territory of Nunavut.

Have any discussions been held with the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Environment? We know that those two departments are involved. I have here a letter from the minister dated October 1, explaining what is going on in my riding. The same thing is happening in Nunavut. We would like the committee to be informed about this because these waters are important. We wouldn't want to wake up 10 years from now and discover that there hasn't been any cleanup, that the problem has not been solved. There are rivers and lakes that have been contaminated for several years.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy and Transfers Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I know there are 21 abandoned DEW line sites across the north. We'll find out for you how many of those are in Nunavut. I don't know the number of other sites, that aren't former military sites, but we'll find out that number for you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In closing, I would like to ask one last brief question.

Mr. Dunlop, can you tell us whether there have been agreements with the Department of Defence and the Department of the Environment? It is important that there be co-ordination between the Department of Indian Affairs and these other two departments. The minister confirms this to me here, but it is important for the protection of the Inuit and also for the protection of the waters of Nunavut.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: We involve a number of departments in our risk assessments. We don't do the assessments on our own.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. That is what I wanted to know.

[English]

The Chair: Any more questions, members?

Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know if this question is appropriate with regard to Bill C-33, but there seems to be contention between the minister and the Nunavut Water Board in terms of who has final jurisdiction to issue the licence. Will Bill C-33 correct that? Will it make clear who has that final authority, and if not, how can we address that? Does it have to go to the Supreme Court? How do we finally solve that issue?

Nobody wants to answer that one.

Mr. Will Dunlop: We're struggling to see who gives first.

We hope that clause 56 of the bill makes it clear that in the case of major licences, type A water licences, the minister has the ability to approve or reject those licences. There has only been one rejection in Nunavut, and I can tell you that in the past 30 years the minister has only ever rejected a handful of licences. So it's a rather unique circumstance, but we think that Bill C-33 makes perfectly clear the roles of the water board itself and the role of the minister.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Will Bill C-33 take precedence over the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement?

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, the land claims agreement is paramount. In the event of an inconsistency, the land claims agreement, and the legislation that ratified it for Canada, takes precedence over this act.

Mr. Benoît Serré: If it's the position of the board that within the agreement they have authority, who solves that? Does it have to go to court, or...?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Well, we hope it doesn't have to go to court. The water board has a certain number of authorities that I think are arrayed quite clearly in the legislation, in the bill. There is one circumstance where the minister would be involved, and that's in the case of a major type A water licence. But other than that, the water board has the authority to issue licences, to hold the hearings.

Mr. Benoît Serré: The Town of Iqaluit appeared before the committee on Tuesday. They appear to be in a very difficult situation right now. They are being sued by one of their taxpayers. It went before the courts. Apparently the judge basically rejected the claimant's claim, but he can revisit it at the end of the year.

Is there a mechanism within the department, or is there an authority by the minister, to solve the problem of the Town of Iqaluit on a short-term basis? In other words, can the minister issue a temporary licence exonerating the town from certain conditions imposed by the water board for licensing? Is there a way we can help the Town of Iqaluit at least in the short term?

• 1120

Mr. Brian Gibson: No, sir, the minister does not have authority to issue licences on his own. Only the water board has authority to issue licences. The minister's authority is restricted solely to approving or not approving the licences. The minister cannot change the licence or issue one of his own.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the membership of your Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal—I want to get off water for a second, because we're dealing with the entire issue here—the bill provides that, excluding the chair, half the members of the Nunavut Water Board are appointed by the minister on the nomination of the designated Inuit organization, either NTI or a designate. The bill, however, contains no such requirement for ministerial appointments to the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, which consists of a chair and ten members.

In your opinion, why does the bill not require at least half the designates in the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal to be appointed by the NTI or its designate, the same as the Nunavut Water Board does?

Mr. Ron Bailey (Lands Specialist, Resource Strategies, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): The reason for it is that the agreement doesn't require it. In the case of the water board, it's quite explicit about who designates and who appoints. In the case of the tribunal, it was not explicit at all. It simply said that the minister will appoint all the members and that at least one of them will have to be from the Nunavut Territory.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It would seem to me, when discussing surface rights and the possibility of future revenues from mineral exploration and other issues, that this would be an extremely important area for local people who live in the area or on the ground to be represented on that board. I think it's a major failing of the piece of legislation, as I see it at this time.

Mr. Ron Bailey: I should point out one other thing in addition to what I've said. The agreement requires that all of the members on the existing tribunal are from Nunavut.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But they're still ministerial appointees, and not coming from a designated group representative.

Mr. Ron Bailey: Well, they were nominated by the DIOs but they were all appointed by the minister.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Let's make this clear, because I want to be clear on it. In the Nunavut Water Board, that's fine. In the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal are ministerial appointees that don't necessarily have to be appointed by NTI.

Mr. Ron Bailey: We have to distinguish between “appointment” and “nomination”. In the case of the water board, they are nominated. Half of the members on the water board are nominated by the DIO, but all members are appointed by the minister. In the case of the tribunal, the agreement didn't have that nominating requirement. That's why the bill tries to reflect the agreement as best we can. That's what the parties agreed to, so that's the way we went ahead with it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: One more question, Mr. Chairman, if I have time.

On the issue of cross-border jurisdictions and water flowing from the NWT into Nunavut, or vice versa, are you satisfied that the bill handles it in a way that shows representation on those issues from both governments, that they have some influence on the water boards of the other territory? Do they have a direct representative? Is there an opportunity besides through their jurisdiction as governments, and government representations, for the NWT to have representation to appear before the Nunavut Water Board, and vice versa?

When you get into water boundary issues, I think it's an important issue that we have to take into consideration.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, I'm satisfied; we have the ability of the Nunavut Water Board to collaborate with the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. In return, in the Mackenzie Valley legislation, which the committee dealt with three years ago, we also have the ability to collaborate with any water board it shares a boundary with.

• 1125

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

The Chair: For the information of all, DIO means “designated Inuit organization”.

We know you work in this area 24 hours a day, but most of us don't, and acronyms are very difficult for us. Sometimes by the time we explain what it is, we've forgotten what it was about. I'd appreciate if we could keep away from acronyms.

Mr. Finlay.

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

I want to go back to something Mr. Dunlop said about the kinds of licences and what degree of approval the minister has on these things.

You mentioned “type A” water licences. Now, I think you said type A water licences only, but would you sketch for me, please, the parameters of that? What does that mean—volume, position, quality?

Mr. Brian Gibson: I can address that, if that's acceptable.

The water authorization regime that's set up in the bill, and essentially mirrors what's in the existing NWT Waters Act, basically says you can't use water unless you either get a licence or are authorized by the regulations. We have a two-tiered licensing system set up, type A and type B, as Mr. Dunlop referred to. The distinction between the two is the set of criteria established in the regulations. They may refer to quantity of water, depending on the type of use, whether it's mining, industrial, or hydroelectric. A series of schedules covers the water uses in the regulations.

We could refer to the type A licences Mr. Dunlop mentioned as the major licences whereby you're into large projects, whether they be a large mining project, a large municipal use, or whatever. The minister's approval will be required through this bill for those type A licences.

The other licences, type B, the water board will have complete discretion over, with one exception—that is, if there is sufficient public interest for a type B application, the water board has the discretion to hold a public hearing on it. If the public hearing is held, then the minister's approval is required for those type B licences.

There are also criteria set out to determine whether a licence requires a public hearing. There are criteria set out to guide the board in determining whether a public hearing is necessary or not.

Mr. John Finlay: So in some cases it's mandatory to have a public hearing and in some cases it's discretionary.

Mr. Brian Gibson: That's right.

Mr. John Finlay: In either case, it involves the minister in the final issuing or approval of the licence.

Mr. Brian Gibson: Only if the public hearing is held.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, but whether it's held because of certain conditions or whether it's held because somebody applies for it, it doesn't matter.

Mr. Brian Gibson: It's up to the board to determine whether a hearing is in fact held.

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, they have to determine it.

Mr. Brian Gibson: Yes. There's a general clause that says the board may hold a hearing if it considers it to be in the public interest.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I want to get back to the issue of the minister and the terms for the board members. My question there is comparative to territories and elsewhere, I guess.

Is there perhaps some merit to having limitations here? Because it could be that the person would be appointed indefinitely, term after term. I guess some tentative thinking here would be that maybe there's some benefit to having some limitations—two terms, or three, or whatever—and a change having to be made.

• 1130

From your point of view, are there some strong reasons why that's not in the bill? Can you give me some background as to why there are no limitations of any kind?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, Mr. Vellacott. The land claim provisions dealing with water did not negotiate specific terms for members. There is no limitation on a term of office as a board member.

What we've done, basically, is mirror other water legislations' appointment procedure. I guess the term would expire, could be renewed, or a member could be removed for cause.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

As you look at other jurisdictions and so on, are there cases where there are limitations? Are you strongly opposed to there being any limitations, or is it just the fact that you're taking other comparable legislation, and that's why it ends up this way, with no term limitations?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's not just comparable legislation; it's a pattern in the north, I guess, if I can put it that way. It's not just water boards. There are environmental impact boards, land use planning boards, and tribunals. They fall into a certain pattern.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are there reasons for that pattern? I guess that's what I'm getting at. Can somebody present a rationale as to why there are never terms?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I don't know if it's a rationale so much as an underlying root source for these boards and these tribunals. It's based on co-management. That's the way the comprehensive land claims are negotiated. It's quite a fundamental principle that the first nation or the Inuit people who are negotiating their rights are going to be guaranteed a part of that regime that's going to run natural resources.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Mr. Will Dunlop: So it's a quite fundamental principle, if you will.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In this case, though, these are not elected positions, they're just appointments—in perpetuity, I guess, potentially.

Mr. Will Dunlop: These comprehensive land claims settlements are in perpetuity. These are modern treaties.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I understand that, but with regard to the terms, I would probably have less objection if these were elected positions. Then you'd get the consensus of the people there, that a person should be in, but because we're doing it by appointments and so on.... I just would be more inclined to say there maybe should be some term limitations there.

I have another quick question. We talked a bit before about the numbers there compared with in the Northwest Territories. Again, give us some background—and maybe this goes for others here as well. We have a larger board than, say, in the Northwest Territories; a bigger population there and so on, and a bigger land mass, I think. Again, give me the background and the conviction as to why there has to be as many as eight, and so on.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The actual numbers were negotiated in the land claim negotiations themselves, in the late eighties and early nineties, but I think we can sense that one of the reasons is there's quite a large geographic area to Nunavut—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The Northwest Territories, of course, is somewhat smaller now after the creation of Nunavut. The Northwest Territories Water Board has quite a distinctly smaller geographic coverage now than it used to have.

In the case of the Nunavut Water Board and the jurisdiction of that board, there's quite a large geographic region now, and three distinct regions. We have the Keewatin, we have the Arctic islands, and we have the eastern Arctic, Baffin. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a larger board with representation from those regions and the designated Inuit organizations resident there.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But when they did have, Will, the Northwest Territories larger at a point prior, and the smaller numbers, was that awkward? Did they find, on a regular basis, that was just not workable or wasn't good? Because it was a larger land mass at a point prior.

Can you give me some background there? Was it just shown to be not a workable thing or not very good with the smaller numbers?

Mr. Brian Gibson: No, actually the numbers on the NWT Water Board can go up to nine. Before the creation of Nunavut, membership, I believe, was nine on the NWT Water Board.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just prior to this?

Mr. Brian Gibson: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Normally the numbers have been much lower than nine, though, have they not?

Mr. Brian Gibson: No. Since the creation of Nunavut, with the corresponding drop in activity for the water board to handle, we have discretionarily limited the board to seven. We just haven't filled two positions.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Based on that, then, you're saying that's why you think you need to be doing it in the same manner now. I thought at points in the past there were three and four board members at a time in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Brian Gibson: No, the legislation stipulates that there have to be at least three members nominated by the government leader, or the premier now, of the territory. There has to be at least one member from each federal department, named in an Order in Council, determined to be most directly involved in water management. That Order in Council now stipulates three different departments. So we have six, and then there are three other positions that can be filled, appointed by the minister.

• 1135

So there has never been less than the present number of seven officially on the board, unless there were vacancies at the time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's the Northwest Territories you're talking about.

Mr. Brian Gibson: Yes. Since it started, as I recall, we've had the maximum nine members on that board, except for the last couple of years, with seven.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

In terms of their writing of regulations, then, do you have any...? Sustainable development for the north is obviously quite important in terms of jobs and those kinds of things. I guess I'd be concerned for people that we get it right in terms of the balance and protection of the environment and that it doesn't stifle or hamstring also some opportunity for jobs. Do you have any sense that the regulations won't stand in the way of sustainable development?

Will.

Mr. Will Dunlop: With the enactment of this bill, the existing regulations now in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are automatically embraced by the legislation. If you look at clause 173 of your bill, you'll see those regulations are enforced upon passage.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And there have been times in the past, I guess depending on what side of the fence you're on in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, where there have been impediments to development and so on?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Well, I guess there's always been opinion, Mr. Vellacott. There has always been a balancing act; one party thinks that regulations don't go far enough and another think they're too stringent.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I guess the strength is that whatever people's opinion, at least the same regulations come across, so it will be a known quantity. Some would argue that the regulations are so strong—but perhaps we'd never have had a Norman Wells pipeline. The regulations are too tough—but you know, Canada's going to open its second diamond mine.

So I don't know; in some cases it can be a disincentive, I'm sure. Perhaps other exploration would have taken place but didn't. Certainly there has been development, and hopefully sustainable development will continue.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess what I'm getting at here is there's nothing in terms of what we learned from the past necessarily that gives us reason to believe there should be adjustment to those regulations that are now coming over, carte blanche, to apply here. Has there ever been any thinking in recent years to change or adjust that because it's now coming over into a new territory?

Mr. Will Dunlop: No.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Gibson.

Mr. Brian Gibson: I just want to add one further point. The objective of the water boards since they were established in 1972, carrying over into the Nunavut Water Board, is to provide for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water resource. The idea of development is built into the objectives of the legislation and the water boards. The regulations are not simply geared strictly to environmental protection. So they have the flexibility within their objectives to consider that as well.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Thank you.

The Chair: With regard to Monsieur St-Julien's question to which you will be responding in writing, I would appreciate it if you would send it to the clerk so we can share it with all members.

If you remember, colleagues, last meeting there were concerns about clause 73. I'm sure the department must have read the blues, so I suspect they may be prepared to put on record some information on that. If they are prepared, we should ask them to put it on record.

That's just a suggestion.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And “blues” is an acronym for...?

The Chair: The non-edited copy of the transcripts.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for any of the four witnesses. Concerning the Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut, I would like to know what is happening with regard to the offshore islands in the Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay, with the exception of the Sanikiluaq Islands.

We know that the inland waters of these islands belong to Nunavut and that there is a dispute with Nunavik, with the Inuit of Nunavik. We know that the Ottawa and Charles Islands, which I don't see on your map... I want to know whether the offshore islands and inland waters on those islands are mentioned in the bill.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm not sure I found a question there, Monsieur St-Julien. Are you looking for a reference in the bill?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I want to know whether the offshore islands are included in the bill, when the waters of Nunavut are discussed. The territory of Nunavut includes offshore islands that are situated in Hudson Bay, Ungava Bay and the Hudson Strait. I know this because the territory of Nunavut adjoins my own. I represent the third largest riding in the 10 Canadian provinces, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. I often hear about the offshore islands because those islands are a topic of concern for the Nunavik Inuit and the James Bay Cree.

I want to know whether the bill refers to the inland waters on those islands—I have visited several of them—whether they are mentioned in Bill C-33, whether they will be protected by this bill.

[English]

Mr. Brian Gibson: Bill C-33 is restricted to what we call “inland” waters, the management of inland waters. Article 13 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement excludes its application from the marine area. But if there were inland waters on the islands, this bill would apply to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: It is up to you to let us know whether these inland island waters have been inventoried, including the waters of the Sanikiluaq Islands.

[English]

Mr. Brian Gibson: I agree. If ever an application comes forward for a use of inland water on those islands, that would be addressed by the Nunavut Water Board.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

My second question, Mr. Chairman, concerns the brief from the Municipality of Iqaluit, which I read because I had to be away this week for family reasons.

You know that things are different in the northern and southern regions. Often, urban members make up 96.9% of governments, with the remainder being made up of members from northern regions, remote regions. You know that in the regions those members represent—the remote regions, the northern regions—it costs three to four times more to implement any system, be it an incinerator or anything else. Those people don't have the budgets that are needed to implement new systems.

I hope that the Nunavut Inuit will not some day, as some countries do, take the waste they no longer have the right to burn, put it on a boat or a barge and send it on a world tour in search of a haven.

I want to ask you the following question: In light of the brief presented by the Inuit leaders of the City of Iqaluit, are there any provisions in Bill C-33 to help them financially? You know that everything costs three to four times more in the North.

I would also like you to elaborate a little on the issue of the waters of Nunavut and the problems of the City of Iqaluit, if you are aware of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concerning Nunavut?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: The department has large annual grants each year to each of the three territories for them to operate their governments and to operate their programs. Included in those grants each year are moneys for services—infrastructure, transportation, water, sanitation. It's up to each of the three territorial governments to decide how they spend those capital moneys for infrastructure, whether it be sewage treatment or water supply. And it's up to the water board to do the licensing of municipal licences for the use of water.

• 1145

Should the water board decide on, or should the water board in a licence require, a treatment level of sewage higher than is being done by a municipality, it's then up to the Government of Nunavut and that municipality to agree on a capital plan to replace, upgrade, or modernize that treatment facility.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: And to the federal government as well.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, sir, no.

[English]

We are the originator, I guess, of the original grants of money to the territories, but the provision of municipal water and sanitation services is a responsibility of the Government of Nunavut, not the Government of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

The Chair: Also, Mr. Keddy, I'd like to tell you—and everyone else as well—that Mr. St-Julien was absent on Tuesday because he became a grandfather for the first time. He chose to be with his daughter and to be there for the birth of his first grandchild, a boy. You can see how happy he is by the smile on his face. I understand how he feels because I have four grand-children myself.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: There are no cigars, though, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: That's why I wanted to put it on record; we do expect to have cigars this week.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I respect the smoking ban, personally.

[English]

The Chair: And we know that Monsieur St-Julien does nothing in moderation, so we'll have good cigars.

Mr. Keddy.

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

Congratulations, Guy.

I'm not assured, in my own mind, that there are enough guarantees in the bill on the cross-border issues, not only with the NWT and Nunavut but also within Nunavut. Unlike Guy, I'm not disturbed about the islands. That's very clearly Nunavut territory, and surface rights upon them are Nunavut responsibilities. That's something that Nunavik and Nunavut need to sit down and discuss if there are future and ongoing discussions about it.

On the issue of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.'s objections to the power of the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing the fees to be paid for the right to use waters and to deposit waste waters under the licensing—they see this as an infringement on the property rights set out in Nunavut land claims—I'm not sure there's a clear interpretation of jurisdictions here. So can you answer clearly, does the authority to prescribe the fees for water use or waste deposit extend to waters on, or flowing through, or in, those Inuit-owned lands?

Mr. Ron Bailey: We believe it does. Certainly as you've indicated there's disagreement on the part of NTI as to that fact, but we did take this matter to an independent facilitator, and he concurred with the departmental position. That's where we sit at the present time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So your response to NTI's objections in that case was to seek independent third-party legal advice or to look at more of a tribunal situation. Did you actually sit down with the Nunavut organization, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and talk about those objections across the table?

Mr. Ron Bailey: Yes, we did. First of all, we talked to them about it. We talked to them with a facilitator and discussed the issue there. Following that, the facilitator agreed with our position.

So we did have full dialogue on that, yes.

• 1150

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate that answer. I'm not trying to suggest that you can fix every clause to suit every individual and every organization, but I do think you have to have at least a sense of cooperation and a willingness for dialogue. That's important.

Those are my questions for now.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a couple of things here very quickly, and then I want to get to the issue of this section that was talked about by the Mayor of Iqaluit last time.

First of all, under this, I understand that the minister can issue and rescind licences. Can the minister also expropriate land under this particular bill?

Mr. Ron Bailey: On the business of the first part, issuing licences—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: He can issue and rescind.

Mr. Ron Bailey: No. As Mr. Dunlop indicated before, only the water board can issue a licence. The minister can only approve or disapprove. He cannot, on his own initiative, issue a licence.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. I wasn't precise enough there, sorry.

Mr. Ron Bailey: On the expropriation matter, land can be expropriated. That provision is a carry-over from the Northwest Territories Waters Act. If the land is needed, and there's a public need for it, then the land can be expropriated.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Who expropriates it then? Is it with the approval of the minister? Where is he involved in the process? Can he initiate that himself in some way?

Mr. Ron Bailey: It's initiated by someone who wants a water licence.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The expropriation of the land?

Mr. Ron Bailey: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Mr. Ron Bailey: Then, I believe with the permission of the minister, the expropriation can go ahead. Appropriate compensation is subsequently determined.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This would be, for example, a community, individuals, corporations?

Mr. Ron Bailey: I guess a hydroelectric project would be a good example of the need to perhaps expropriate land.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. So that's where it might potentially get into more controversial things, and as those cases come up, you would see more people digging in. Controversial stuff could happen at that time, really.

Mr. Ron Bailey: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is any of that foreseen? Is there any possibility of that? Is there anything coming in the immediate future, or any time soon?

Mr. Brian Gibson: Not that we're aware of. Similar expropriation authorities exist in the existing Yukon and NWT water acts. I'm not aware of any expropriation that has been carried out for that purpose since 1972.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. But you're thinking it's theoretically possible and may inevitably occur at some point.

Mr. Brian Gibson: I have no idea.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

The other thing we talked a bit about before is with respect to the sale of bulk water and so on. I just want to put it on the record again. That is clearly a federal jurisdiction, is it not? Does the Nunavut Water Board in any way trump that in terms of the sale of bulk water? What prevails here?

Mr. Will Dunlop: In our view, the sale of water, or bulk removal of water from Nunavut, would require a type A major licence. The minister would not be in support of such a licence.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you saying that the federal has the upper hand there, or predominates?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, sir, but I would hope to offer you comfort in telling you that we don't expect or anticipate any confrontation on the subject in any of the three territories. We have conversations and discussions under way with the three territorial governments about bulk removal. They're in accord with the federal position that Parliament has talked about, I guess recently in Bill C-6. We'd like to continue that dialogue and come up with a consensus with the three partners in the north of how they would like to approach that in each of the territories.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

On the striking of clause 73, the Mayor of Iqaluit mentioned in his brief to us yesterday...and then the water board having rules and regulations that would apply. How does striking clause 73 strike you—no pun intended—with regard to fisheries and so on?

• 1155

Mr. Brian Gibson: I don't know how it strikes Will, but we certainly wouldn't be in favour of striking that clause. That's a clause that basically prohibits the water board from issuing a licence that would in fact give someone permission to violate the Fisheries Act.

We don't think that's appropriate, for one thing. The history of that actually goes back to when the original Northern Inland Waters Act was in Parliament. It, the Fisheries Act, and I believe the Canada Water Act were all being debated at about the same time. There was concern in Parliament that there was room for conflict and overlap and debate about which act would supersede which act. That particular clause has been in the water legislation since 1972.

If you look at the bill, another clause says nothing in this act, licence, or regulations is deemed to provide the authority to anyone to contravene any other act of Parliament. So if we were to strike that clause and the board felt...and they would have the authority to put in conditions less stringent than the Fisheries Act. They issue a licence, and it offers no protection to that licensee; he in fact can go out and do what the licence says he can do without being prosecuted by Department of Fisheries, for instance, or the Department of the Environment. It would create a conflict between two federal statutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Has your office had any discussions in the past to try to get a sense of what their concerns are and why that particular proposal to remove or strike clause 73? Have you had discussions with them in the past, the mayor's office in Iqaluit?

Mr. Brian Gibson: I haven't personally. Perhaps our regional office has. I mean, I can provide what I believe is probably their concern. Their concern is that if they were to be required to meet the conditions of the Fisheries Act as far as the deposit of sewage goes, they would have to treat that sewage to a level that is going to require them to put in some additional treatment. So it's going to cost them additional money.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You would be open to talk with them a little bit on that, I would suppose, and maybe in the days ahead? Being as they brought that up, I would assume it's probably in your interest to go to them. Or maybe the kinds of things they had concerns about can be addressed in other ways.

Mr. Brian Gibson: We could certainly be open to talk to them about that particular clause in the bill and our feelings on that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. Maybe there's a meeting of the minds that will come, you know, as they bring up some immediate concerns they have right now.

Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Are there other questions?

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: It seems to me that all the problems the Town of Iqaluit has with the bill boils down to money. I don't think any of them object to the stringent rules or whatever. They want to do what's best for the environment and whatnot. At the end of the day, however, they feel that their capacity to do it is very limited.

I think all of those problems would be better addressed in negotiations, in terms of funding by the territorial government and the federal government, than by going through a change of legislation that seems to me to be proper.

The Chair: Other questions, colleagues?

Thank you very much. Do you have closing remarks that you would like to get on record?

Mr. Ian McGregor: No, we don't, Mr. Chairman, other than to just thank the committee for their attention and to reiterate our offer to provide assistance in any way we can in the course of your deliberations.

The Chair: We thank you very much for appearing, and apologize for the short notice. I think you know me—I've been chair before—so I'm not saying it will never happen again. I'll try to prevent it, though, and I'll try to be reasonable. Thank you very much.

I would ask my colleagues to stay five minutes just to plan our work. We don't have a quorum but perhaps I can just have guidance so that I'm not planning everything alone and we can get at it right away.

Mr. Finlay, I understand there may be another bill coming from aboriginal affairs—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can we recess, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Do you want to do this in camera?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That would probably be best.

• 1200

The Chair: Okay. We'll suspend proceedings and go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]