[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 19, 1996
.0935 
[English]
The Chairman: The order of the day is Bill C-51, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut.
Our first witnesses are from the NTI. If I miss some names, please add them before your presentation. We have Mr. James Eetoolook, first vice-president; Alan Braidek, legal counsel; Lois Leslie, legal adviser; and Paul Okalik, adviser. Is that everyone? Did I miss someone?
Madam Clerk, have we decided as a committee if it was 40 minutes or an hour?
The Clerk of the Committee: One hour.
The Chairman: We have an hour together. We consider this to be your hour. You're our witnesses, and you are here to inform us of whether or not you support the bill and for what reasons. What you're doing here is really the highest form of lobbying. The hour is yours and we want it to be used by you. You have an hour. We expect you to make a presentation. We'd like you to name yourselves before you speak for the record, and it will be followed by a period of questions and answers.
As I explained to you, if you take an hour for a presentation there will be no time for questions and answers. Sometimes some of us politicians tend to ask you long questions. When that happens I'll try to interrupt. It's not because I don't want you to get your message across, it's because I'm more interested in the answer than I am in the question. Welcome to Room 200. We reserved the most beautiful room on Parliament Hill for you. The floor is yours.
Excuse me, this is something I should do every time: I'll ask each member of this committee to introduce themselves so that you know who you're dealing with. I'm Ray Bonin, the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt and chair of the committee.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I'm Claude Bachand, member from Parliament for Saint-Jean; that's 25 miles south of Montreal. I'm the official critic for Indian affairs.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): I'm Garry Breitkreuz from Yorkton - Melville in eastern Saskatchewan, and I'm here representing Reform.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): I'm John Murphy from Nova Scotia, Annapolis Valley - Hants, and I have in my riding three aboriginal communities.
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): I'm Charles Hubbard from Miramichi, New Brunswick. We have three aboriginal communities.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I'm John Finlay, vice-chair of the committee, and I'm from Oxford County in southwestern Ontario. We have a very large aboriginal community in my neighbouring county of Brantford, but there are none in Oxford.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): I'm Jack Anawak from Nunatsiaq in the Northwest Territories.
The Chairman: Everybody knows Jack.
I want you to know we didn't do this on your time. Your hour starts now.
Mr. James Eetoolook (First Vice-President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the standing committee.
My name is James Eetoolook, and I'm the first vice-president of Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated. Next to me is Alex Campbell, the NTI executive director, and Paul Okalik, who's a consultant; he was the negotiator on the part of the Inuit in the land claims. Also with me is Lois Leslie, our legal adviser on the legislation and other matters. That tall guy over there is Alan Braidek, NTI legal counsel. There was one more person who was coming, but she's not here.
.0940
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to do a presentation on behalf of NTI.
Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated, NTI for short, is the Inuit organization with responsibility for the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, an agreement on behalf of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic.
We are pleased to be here today to present NTI's views on Bill C-51, the Nunavut Waters Act. NTI has also prepared a written submission to the standing committee outlining in full NTI's concerns with Bill C-51. I understand that the document was delivered to the committee yesterday. I hope you have it. This morning we wish to highlight major issues of concern and to invite questions from the committee members.
In my presentation I will be speaking about issues and processes in the development of Bill C-51. Lois Leslie will address NTI's substantive concerns with Bill C-51.
Bill C-51 is the first of a number of bills that will come before this committee in partial fulfilment of Canada's constitutional obligation under the terms of the agreement. It is therefore important to begin with some general observations on the agreement and the role of the committee.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement took nearly two decades to negotiate. Inuit negotiators persevered until they were satisfied that in exchange for their aboriginal title Inuit had secured for present and future generations the essential tools for self-determination. The agreement is not intended to perpetuate the status quo but signals a new relationship between Inuit people and the rest of Canada.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is a constitutional document. Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) provides that:
- (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby
recognized and affirmed.
- (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) ``treaty rights'' include rights that now exist by way
of land claim agreements or may be so acquired.
As outlined in article 10 of the agreement, central to the agreement is the protection of a relationship between the Inuit and the land. In order to sustain their relationship, the Inuit negotiated a number of joint management institutions that are designed to provide Inuit with a greater role in key decision-making over the regulation of wildlife, land and resources, and development activities in Nunavut.
These joint management institutions, which include Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, and the Nunavut Planning Commission, form part of a broader integrated lands and resources management regime.
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the first to be negotiated, was established by agreement upon its coming into force on July 9, 1993. The Government of Canada undertook, under article 10.1.1 of the agreement, to establish the other four boards by legislation within a specified period of time.
The Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal was to have been established by legislation by July 9, 1994. Legislation to establish the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission, and the Nunavut Water Board was to have been passed by July 1999. To date, no legislation has been passed in relation to the four institutions of public government.
.0945
Since January 1994 the Government of Canada is in breach of that fundamental constitutional engagement it made in relation to the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, and since July 1995 for the other three boards. This committee must not countenance unconstitutional behaviour on the part of the Government of Canada.
As a potential remedy for continuing foot dragging by the government, NTI insisted that the agreement contain what is in effect a default provision in the form of article 10.10.1 of the agreement. Under article 10.10.1, the four institutions shall be established by the terms of agreement if legislation has not been passed within one year of the date specified in the agreement, and these institutions ``shall be considered to have, for the purposes of law, all the powers and duties described in the Agreement''.
All four institutions have now been established by the terms of the agreement. Appointments were made to the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal on April 25, 1996, and to the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission on July 9, 1996, pursuant to article 10.10.1 of the agreement.
Since its establishment on July 9, 1996, the Nunavut Water Board has been up and running and carrying out its functions under the agreement. The water board's establishment by the agreement does not prevent government from re-establishing the Nunavut Water Board under Bill C-51; this is expressly provided for under article 10.10.1 of the agreement.
However, if government chooses to re-establish the Nunavut Water Board, and the other institutions of public government under the agreement, article 10.10.1 requires that it must do so ``in a manner provided for in, and consistent with, the other parts of Article 10''. It is NTI's assesment that Bill C-51 does not meet these explicit requirements. The remainder of my presentation will address NTI's concern with the process by which Bill C-51 was developed.
In regard to the consultation process, under the article 2.6.1 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement the Government of Canada made the following commitment: ``Government shall consult closely with a DIO'' - which is a designated Indian organization - ``in the preparation of any legislation proposed to implement the Agreement, including any amendments to implementing legislation.''
In NTI's view, the Government of Canada has failed to meet its constitutional fiduciary obligation to consult closely with the Inuit in the development of Bill C-51. There has been government delay in development of legislation. The Nunavut Water Board was to have been established by legislation by July 9, 1995. Officials of the Government of Canada, the Government of Northwest Territories, and NTI first met in September of 1993 to begin discussing legislation to establish the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission. While the parties continued to meet on the development of Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, no further discussion took place on legislation in relation to the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, and the Nunavut Planning Commission over the next two years.
As evident in our written submission and its attachments, NTI made a number of requests to DIAND over this period to initiate discussions on legislation for the remaining three institutions. The consultative process has been ignored. As a result of various meetings involving senior DIAND officials and the president of NTI and myself in the spring and summer of 1995, it was agreed that discussions would commence on legislation for the three institutions of public government, beginning with a joint workshop, which was held in October 1995. NTI proposed that the legislation be as simple as possible, given that the deadline for establishment of the three institutions would not be met and that the institutions would be established by the agreement by July 9, 1996. The principle that ``simpler is better'' was accepted by DIAND officials.
.0950
In January 1996, DIAND officials sent out for review draft principles to guide the development of the legislation. Before NTI had an opportunity to comment on the draft principles, DIAND signalled its intention to proceed on a separate process by distributing completely drafted legislation for each of the three boards on February 9, 1996. NTI had never seen the draft legislation and was given no warning that it was about to be circulated. NTI was only one name on a general distribution list.
The covering letter indicated that the three draft bills were to be incorporated into one Nunavut Resource Management bill and that DIAND intended to finalize the bill by the first week of May, 1996.
Consultation on Bill C-51 was less three months. NTI was faced with a difficult choice when DIAND decided to unilaterally disregard the joint process to impose its own agenda. NTI would have been justified in refusing to participate in any further discussions on the legislation in view of what NTI considered to be bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada. If NTI agreed to participate in the review of the legislation according to DIAND's imposed agenda, NTI's ability to provide a meaningful input into the bill would be severely compromised.
On the other hand, NTI was concerned that the boards be able to operate with a clear mandate upon their establishment of July 9. With respect to the water board, legislation would assist in providing additional detail not set out in the agreement. NTI therefore felt it had no option but to agree to try to work with the government on the Nunavut Waters Act to ensure that the legislation was in accordance with the agreement. Given the unreasonably short timeframe, NTI's agreement to review the draft Nunavut Waters Act was premised on the condition that the remaining two draft acts be withdrawn.
Discussions did not begin on the draft Nunavut Waters Act until April 1996. While some progress was made on the draft bill, it soon became clear that major differences existed between the parties that could not be resolved in the few short weeks. Notwithstanding a significant number of outstanding issues, both major and minor, NTI was advised by DIAND officials that the draft bill was to be tabled before the summer recess. On June 13, 1996, I wrote a letter to Ron Irwin, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, asking him to refrain from tabling the draft bill until NTI's concerns had been adequately addressed. The request was refused.
As a result of this appalling process, we appear before the committee today with a long list of outstanding issues with respect to Bill C-51. It is NTI's view that in light of the inaction of the Government of Canada with respect to the development of Bill C-51, even the absence of the outstanding substantive issues, Bill C-51 should not proceed until the government has fulfilled its procedural obligations. Bill C-51 is the first of a group of statutes implementing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that will be referred to this committee. It is therefore particularly important that we get it right this time.
.0955
If the committee countenances a procedure for developing and implementing legislation that is not in accord with the agreement, the department will receive the message that this committee has an unconstitutional behaviour, slipshod practices, back-faced negotiations and a cavalier attitude towards the development of implementing legislation.
That ends my presentation. Thank you very much for allowing us to make the presentation.
The Chairman: Thank you for an excellent presentation, although it was very complex, as you can imagine, from our end. What you have presented is on record and is in a position to be researched now.
Do you have other presenters?
Mr. Eetoolook: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Lois Leslie, our legal counsel. She'll do the presentation on Bill C-51, since that's our issue.
The Chairman: Carry on.
Ms Lois Leslie (Legal Adviser, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated): Good morning. As James Eetoolook pointed out in his presentation, the constitutional validity of Bill C-51 is measured against the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
NTI submits that Bill C-51 does not accord with the agreement in numerous respects. NTI outlines in detail in its written submission the specific provisions of Bill C-51 that in NTI's position conflict with the agreement. Other than take you through NTI's written submission, we wish to highlight some key issues this morning that we hope will assist the committee in its consideration of NTI's submission.
I will speak first to the purpose of Bill C-51. NTI submits that the purpose of Bill C-51 must be to establish the Nunavut Water Board in accordance with the agreement. To be in accordance with the agreement, the bill must be faithful to the letter, spirit and intent of the entire agreement.
Instead of using the agreement as a basis for drafting Bill C-51, however, the Government of Canada has used the Northwest Territories Waters Act as a template. The apparent intention of Bill C-51 as presently drafted is to duplicate the current NWT water regime in Nunavut.
NTI rejects the proposition that the Northwest Territories Waters Act is an appropriate legislative blueprint for the Nunavut Water Board for the following reasons.
First of all, there is no reference to the Northwest Territories Waters Act in article 13 of the agreement. The only reference to legislation in article 13 is found in article 13.2.1. That provision states that:
- A Nunavut Water Board (NWB) shall be established as an institution of public government. It
shall have responsibilities and powers over the regulation, use and management of water in the
Nunavut Settlement Area, on a basis at least equivalent to the powers and responsibilities
currently held by the Northwest Territories Water Board under the Northern Inland Waters Act
- And the cite is
- RSC 1985, c. N-25, and any other responsibilities acquired under this Article.
Secondly, NTI submits that article 13.2.1 of the agreement does not adopt the entire scheme of the Northern Inland Waters Act but merely establishes the baseline for the board's powers. Since the government appears to rely so heavily on article 13.2.1, it is important to spend a little time on this provision of the agreement.
What is article 13.2.1 saying? First of all, it states that the water board shall be ``an institution of public government.'' Secondly, as an institution of public government, the water board will have ``responsibilities and powers over the regulation, use and management of water in the Nunavut Settlement Area.''
.1000
The third thing that article 13.2.1 is saying is that the responsibilities and powers the board shall possess over the regulation, use and management of waters shall be ``at least equivalent to'' those enjoyed by the Northwest Territories Water Board under the Northern Inland Waters Act.
In addition to powers equivalent to those held by the Northwest Territories Water Board under that legislation, the Nunavut Water Board may acquire additional responsibilities under article 13. That is what the provision is stating.
Article 13.2.1 does not speak to the objectives of article 13 or the purposes of the Nunavut Water Board. That article simply speaks to the scope of the board's powers. What article 13.2.1 contemplates is that the Nunavut Water Board shall regulate by means of licensing powers and that the licensing powers conferred on the board shall be at least as broad as the powers granted to the Northwest Territories Water Board under NIWA.
Article 13.2.1 cannot be read to determine the objects of the board or the purpose of Bill C-51. It does not make grammatical or legal sense to speak of the regulatory purpose of one administrative board being at least equivalent to the purpose of another board. It does, however, make legal and grammatical sense to refer to the powers and scope of the board's powers as being at least equivalent.
One must look to the other provisions of article 13 and the agreement as a whole in order to determine the purposes and objectives of the Nunavut Water Board. When the Nunavut agreement is viewed in its entirety, as it must be interpreted under article 2.9.1 of the agreement, one can see that the agreement departs significantly from the scheme of the Northern Inland Waters Act.
As James Eetoolook pointed out in his presentation, the agreement reflects an attempt to establish a cohesive regulatory regime in Nunavut with interrelated land use, planning, land and water and wildlife management and development review functions. A basic component of this regime is the principle of comanagement by Inuit and government. Through the joint management of lands, waters and resources, Inuit would be better positioned to ensure the successful achievement of the fundamental principles and objectives of the agreement.
Because Bill C-51 was drafted using the Northwest Territories Waters Act as a template on which the provisions of the agreement have been grafted, the bill does not reflect the purposes and objectives of the Nunavut agreement. The resulting legislation is disjointed and not easy to interpret. More significantly, there are a number of omissions.
Key interrelationships between the various institutions of public government created under the agreement are ignored. Inuit rights that are relevant to the water board's operations are admitted or dealt with in a peripheral fashion. Provisions duplicated from the Northwest Territories Waters Act are in conflict with article 13, for example, the requirement for ministerial approval of licences and the authority to provide for unlicensed use by regulation. We go into these kinds of issues in detail in the written submission.
In conclusion, NTI submits that in considering bills such as this bill that implement land claims agreements, this committee has the responsibility to uphold the fiduciary duty of the Crown and to ensure the Government of Canada has fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities in developing this legislation. More specifically, NTI submits that the committee must ask the following questions.
Did the process followed by the Government of Canada and specifically the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs accord with the procedure laid out in the agreement and any subsequent administrative arrangements agreed upon by the parties to the agreement for the development of implementing legislation?
Secondly, does the bill fulfil the substantive obligations of the Government of Canada for the development of implementing legislation that accords with the terms of the agreement?
NTI submits that both questions are of equal importance and that the response to both questions is an unequivocal no. Because the deficiencies in the development of the bill are both substantive and procedural in nature, NTI submits that the committee is not in itself in a position to cure these deficiencies as it might be if the deficiencies were purely substantive.
Therefore, the committee should recommend that the bill be withdrawn and reintroduced into Parliament when and only when the department has fulfilled its procedural obligations for the development of this bill.
Thank you very much.
.1005
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Are there others to make a presentation? No. Therefore, we'll proceed to questions and answers.
Does Mr. Anawak wish to start? I don't like putting you on the spot like this, but this is your area. You certainly will have an opportunity later if you prefer to wait.
Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I commend you on your presentation, but I must admit that I am a bit surprised. As far as I know, there is already a water board in operation. Moreover, there will be someone here to make a presentation on it later.
I read the bill, and I commented on it during second reading in the House, and I did not see anything major in it. And now, all of a sudden, you are asking for the bill to be withdrawn. I am a member of the Official Opposition.
In passing, Mr. Eetoolook, when you write to the minister, you should send a copy to the Official Opposition, because that would greatly help us to follow the debate. I have not even had the time to read the letter from the minister, and I must admit that I am finding the issue a bit complicated this morning.
I am surprised that you are calling for the withdrawal of the bill. If I have understood correctly, the consultation process was not followed at all by the federal government. You are also saying that it is not in accord with the text of the agreement and that the federal government has failed to meet its fiduciary obligation with the Inuit by trying to pass Bill C-51.
As someone who thought this was a minor bill with regulations that are not that complicated and which protect the environment, I am astonished this morning. I would like more information. Is it enough to tell the government that it has failed to meet its fiduciary obligation, that it has not followed the process set out in the agreement and as a result, ask it to withdraw the bill? Is there anything good about the bill or are you asking us to withdraw it because the conditions were not complied with from the outset? That is my question.
I may seem a bit confused this morning. Maybe I have not had enough coffee, but I have trouble understanding the logic behind your request. I was preparing to vote and perhaps propose some amendments, but from there to saying that the bill must be withdrawn... That means that if the government wants to continue, the Official Opposition will oppose and vote against Bill C-51. So I would like you to give me some arguments other than the failure to meet its fiduciary obligation and the fact that the procedure followed is in conflict with the fundamentals of the agreement.
[English]
Mr. Eetoolook: Thank you. I'll get Lois Leslie, our legal counsel, to answer your questions.
Ms Leslie: There are two issues, as we pointed out in our submission, that NTI is concentrating on this morning. One is the process and the other is the substantive problems with the bill. We did not go into those problems in detail. We have detailed them in our submission, which is approximately 43 pages, and we invite the committee to review our written comments on the substantive problems in the bill.
It is our position that one of the reasons there are so many problems is that the process was so short. There was not an opportunity for NTI to resolve many of these issues. Also, the fact that the bill is modelled on the Northwest Territories Waters Act creates problems in terms of grafting that legislation onto an agreement that has an entirely different set of principles and objectives.
With respect to the water board, it was established under the terms of the agreement on July 9, and the water board is up and running under the terms of the agreement. It is the opinion of NTI that the withdrawal of this bill will not prejudice the water board in continuing to function under the terms of the agreement. Rather, it is important that once this legislation is passed, it is passed in a way that accords with the procedural obligations of the Government of Canada to consult closely with Inuit and that the terms of the legislation are in accordance with the constitutional obligations under the agreement.
.1010
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you for coming before the committee. I have just a brief question before I ask another question. Have you given us any information as to your concerns previous to this submission?
Ms Leslie: To the committee itself?
Mr. Breitkreuz: No. There are two parties in opposition to the government in this House. Have you given either of those parties information as to your concerns?
Ms Leslie: I don't believe information was given to the other parties. I know Mr. Anawak has received information on this bill, but I don't believe information was sent from NTI to the other parties.
Mr. Breitkreuz: You talked about procedural obligations in dealing with the government. If you have a concern and you only deal with the government, we cannot help you hold the government accountable if you don't keep us informed, and to my knowledge we haven't been given any information. I don't know for what reason you have not kept us informed.
It's the same with the royal commission report that will be coming down this week. We haven't been given any information on that. It's really difficult for us to do our job if you don't keep us informed. I don't have any questions because you have not given us any information. We cannot help you in holding the government accountable if you don't keep us informed with the information we would need to do our job properly. When we talk about procedural obligations, it's very helpful if you keep us informed as to what's going on. Thank you.
The Chairman: For your benefit, I will treat this as a question. This is one of the fillers I was talking to you about. There are other things you want to get in. You may want to elaborate or summarize for us where you feel there is unconstitutional behaviour. Maybe it would be of benefit to the committee to hear it specifically.
Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Breitkreuz: One of the questions I would have, because I haven't studied your information in advance, is how is what you are requesting different from what the provinces presently have? Are there going to be inequities created here by this? I don't know if that's in fact the case, and without having studied it, I can't even comment on that. Maybe you've done the research on this.
That would be a logical question I would like to ask. I thought my colleague from the Bloc would ask that. That would be something that would concern many Canadians, and it's our job to represent all of Canada in regard to this. Do you understand where we're coming from? Maybe you can comment on that for a starter. Without information it's really difficult to ask questions.
Ms Leslie: The NTI has provided a written submission to the committee and we invite the committee members to review these comments at your leisure. From the point of view of NTI, this legislation is important because it's legislation to implement the terms of the agreement.
Perhaps Paul Okalik can elaborate on this following my submission, but during the negotiations the Inuit had wanted to include details relating to the various boards in the agreement itself. As we point out in our written submission, the Government of Canada refused this. They insisted that additional legislation be developed sometime down the line.
Article 10 of the agreement provides that legislation was to have been passed within two years of the ratification of the agreement with respect to this board and the planning commission. As a default provision in the event that legislation was not passed in time, as a partial remedy, Inuit negotiated that the boards themselves would be established under the agreement if legislation had not been passed, and that is in fact what has happened. Nevertheless, government can still develop legislation and re-establish the boards, but it must do so in accordance with the agreement.
From NTI's perspective, to be in accordance with the agreement government has to follow clearly the obligations set out in the agreement. One obligation that is identified in article 2 of the agreement is the constitutional obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to consult closely with the Inuit organization in the development of implementing legislation. This provision is there because the legislation must be in accordance with the agreement. It cannot detract from provisions in the agreement that have already been constitutionally entrenched.
.1015
So it's very important that the Inuit organization participate closely with government in the development of this legislation. That did not happen in this case. Because this is one of the first bills to come before the House, we feel it is very important that the message be sent back to government that they cannot get away with this kind of behaviour.
There will be three additional bills. The service rights legislation, I understand, is to be tabled very soon. That bill we have spent over three years discussing. On the other hand, with the Nunavut water bill, discussions began in April and they were broken off in June - just a matter of weeks. From NTI's perspective that is completely inadequate.
The Mackenzie Valley resource management bill, which is also to be tabled in the House very shortly, is the product of at least five years of negotiations between government and western aboriginal groups. So for the government to table a bill that deals with the critical aspect of the agreement after discussions of only a matter of weeks is just not acceptable in terms of government's explicit obligations under the agreement and also its fiduciary obligations to treat aboriginal treaty rights in a careful manner.
Mr. Breitkreuz: In essence what you're saying to us, then, is slow this down so we have more time to deal with it.
Ms Leslie: Exactly. Slow this down, and also send a message that this process is not acceptable for any future legislation with respect to this agreement.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Now Messrs. Anawak, Finlay and Murphy, in that order.
Mr. Anawak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Part of the problem is that Nunavut Tunngavik pass on their comments to their MP, which happens to be me. I happen to be on the government side, which does not prevent me from objecting to some of the same things that NTI may object to and that I believe the chairman of the Nunavut Water Board will object to in relation to this particular bill. That's why we're going to have to take a closer look at this bill in view of the fact that it's the first bill and it will reflect on any other bills we'll have with regard to Nunavut.
We're 30 months away from Nunavut, and we have to start putting in place the organizations. You were wondering why there is already a functioning water board. Those are transition boards that are now being instituted in preparation for Nunavut.
Now that the members have the comments from Nunavut Tunngavik, it will be up to us to have a constructive look at the bill and decide whether we want to, at all costs, go forward with it, with amendments, or take a second look at it.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I found the presentation very interesting. I'd like to ask a question on the second-to-last paragraph, with respect to the agreement. We have copies of the agreement, but I don't have it with me today.
There may be a difference of opinion, interpretation or understanding. It seems to me you are saying here that if it isn't specifically in the agreement, then what the ministry, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Nunavut Planning Commission and so on are trying to negotiate can't be considered.
.1020
It would seem to me that's an impossible position. If the agreement covers everything, then let's just translate the agreement into law. But it doesn't. It's an agreement to negotiate, an agreement to put these things into effect. If we're going to keep going back and saying, the agreement didn't specifically say that but it suggested this, then we have an interpretation problem. My interpretation or yours or the government's or the interpretation of whoever is drafting the bill may be a little different, and that may be quite legal and appropriate.
Maybe we can't get it all today, but I want to know.... Outside of the process, which I agree seems to be fast...but I can suggest some reasons why it might have been faster, and that is that we have such a board up and running, apparently successfully, in the western Arctic. I may be wrong. Maybe it isn't running successfully, and I'd like to hear. But surely we can use those things that work, up to a point, into the future.
Approval requires consultation; that's true. Five years is a long time. Maybe we have forever, but I don't think so. Mr. Anawak just said that Nunavut is going to be declared in April 1999, so there's some urgency about getting some of these things in place. I wonder if you would comment on that.
Ms Leslie: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.
We're not suggesting that it take five years. On the other hand, government had three years to pass this legislation. It committed itself in article 10 of the agreement to pass this legislation within two years.
Attached to our submission at the back, in the appendices, are letters demonstrating that NTI made several requests to government to begin discussions on this bill from September of 1993. As Mr. Eetoolook stated in his submission, there was finally an agreement to begin a process in the spring and summer of 1995; however, discussions still did not begin until April 1996. NTI made every effort to get the parties to the table begin discussions, because we are aware that the consultation process does take time. NTI has to consult with its constituents in the regional parts of Nunavut and this cannot be done in a very short period of time.
Mr. Finlay: Can I ask a supplementary question? Is it your contention that there is no valid reason why these negotiations didn't start in 1993? I can think of a couple, but that seems to be the suggestion. Was nothing being done by DIAND to move along the process of Nunavut implementation? Was this just something that was shoved aside because we didn't have the time, manpower or interest to do it? What's the reason it wasn't done?
Ms Leslie: I suggest that you ask DIAND for the reasons. I'm sure that resources and all sorts of reasons come into it, but from NTI's point of view the government made a constitutional commitment to pass this legislation. Resources were identified when the land claims agreement was ratified in order to implement its terms, and this obligation has to be honoured whether or not it means additional resources and manpower put towards the development of this legislation. These are the obligations that government has undertaken.
Mr. Finlay: But you put the government in a catch-22 situation, don't you? The date has passed. We can't go back and start again in 1993. We have to do it now.
Ms Leslie: We agree, and that's why there's a default mechanism in the agreement that establishes the boards. The boards are up and running now. At least the boards are not waiting for this legislation.
The point we wish to make today is that there is no need now to rush this legislation through to meet a deadline that is far passed. We suggest that the government take time now to get this legislation right so that when it is passed it will be in accordance with the agreement. In the meantime the water board, as I'm sure it will tell you in its submission, is up and running and interpreting its mandate under the terms of the Nunavut agreement.
.1025
I realize I didn't answer your earlier question with respect to whether the legislation can give additional powers to the water board. Of course it can. In fact there is a specific provision in article 10 that says legislation may provide additional powers and functions. We don't disagree with that.
In fact there are many details in the legislation that are perfectly acceptable. We're not suggesting that the entire bill be scrapped, but we do believe there are a number of provisions that are not consistent with the agreement that must be changed. Where provisions that conflict with the agreement are included in the bill, these provisions are unconstitutional and must therefore be removed.
Mr. Finlay: Are all those things outlined in this document?
Ms Leslie: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Campbell, did you wish to add something to this?
Mr. Alex Campbell (Executive Director, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated): Yes. I just want to say that it wasn't NTI that put the government in the catch-22 situation; it was the government that put itself in that process by not making the consultation process work effectively. It's not for lack of trying on our part. As Lois suggested earlier, we tried to get this process started as early as April 1993.
The Chairman: Mr. Braidek.
Mr. Alan Braidek (Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I felt I should direct one point to Mr. Finlay's comments.
You indicated, Mr. Finlay, that the water board was already operating in the western portion, and you wondered why it isn't appropriate to use as a model the legislation creating the water board.
I think it's important to realize that the board being created by the Nunavut Waters Act is a result of the land claim agreement, and it's there to implement the obligations under the land claim agreement. Specific structures were agreed to by the parties with respect to what the board would do, how it would be structured, and how it would interact with the other institutions with respect to environmental and resource management in the Nunavut area.
Making sure that this board will work within that structure is essential. That is why simply relying on the template of the current Northwest Territories Water Board is incorrect. It doesn't accomplish the job of making it a board that reflects the priorities agreed to between Canada and the Inuit. This is a board and a piece of legislation that are being instituted only as a result of the agreement, yet the agreement is not the basis for the bill. It is another piece of legislation, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, that is the basis for this legislation.
That's the problem. The problem isn't that this is not legislation that is attempting to implement the obligations of the government under the Nunavut land claim agreement. It is legislation that is just trying to cover over and make sure there are as few changes to the regime as possible.
The Inuit signed the agreement on the understanding that this was a radical change to the relationship that they had with the Government of Canada, and that relationship is now defined in the agreement. So it's important that the legislation reflect that change in the relationship. It's our opinion that little attempt has been made to reflect the change of relationship between the Inuit and Canada that is reflected in the agreement. That is why we feel strongly that this legislation is not effective, both because procedurally the consultation process doesn't reflect that, and substantively.
There are provisions in the legislation, like the role of the minister, like regulation-making authorities with respect to certain aspects, that are not contemplated in the agreement. Yes, if it's not in the agreement it doesn't mean it can't be in the legislation, but you have to look at the agreement as a whole.
.1030
In other places where a role for the minister has been provided for, the agreement is quite detailed. As an example, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has an extensive description of how the minister would interact with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Similarly, with the Nunavut Planning Commission, there is legislation that will at some time come before this committee. There's extensive explanation within the agreement of what role the minister should play and how he should interact with the board or with that commission, but in this case the agreement is silent. It has no role for the minister, and it's our position that this is because there was no role contemplated. So we have serious concerns with this legislation.
The Chairman: We'll move on now to Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy: I'm new to this agreement, this proposed legislation, and as you come to us it's almost like you're telling me that no consultation has really taken place. It's the process that has broken down to allow the changes that you want to see made.
I have before me the consultation process and the number of meetings that have taken place, namely thirteen. I just want to try to understand why the Government of Canada hasn't listened. I see that back in August of 1995 there was a meeting with the NTI. Then in October of 1995 there were again two meetings and there were some in January, February, March, and April of 1996. Those were twelve of the thirteen times that the NTI has consulted with somebody. I'm wondering why a lot of the points you're making have not arrived at the table before.
As I said, this is new to me. Jack may have heard it. I'm just wondering what fell apart so that nobody listened. Am I making up a story here? I have these consultation process times and I'm just trying to figure out why there's an urgency now when obviously there's been some consultation in the past.
Ms Leslie: Unfortunately, the problem is that we are also new to this. This is the first piece of legislation to come forward to Parliament under this agreement and perhaps NTI didn't realize that it had to do some lobbying in order to hold the Government of Canada to its obligations.
We understood that NTI's relationship in discussing the legislation was with the Government of Canada, and NTI made every effort, including asking for political level meetings with the minister and the minister's staff on this legislation. It was NTI's view that it did everything it could to prevent the passage of the legislation in terms of appealing to government.
Perhaps what NTI needs to do in the future is to appeal to members of Parliament as well before the bill is tabled. From the point of view of the committee, we understood that this was our opportunity, once the bill has been in the House, to appeal to Parliament to put the reins on this legislation and to send a message to the government that it can't get away with it's proposing to do.
Mr. Murphy: Perhaps I could just follow through on that. Were the issues that you raised, which you articulated very well, raised during these consultation times and nobody listened to you? The NTI met with somebody twelve times. Nobody listened?
Ms Leslie: I can't say nobody listened. Certainly there was an exchange of views at the table and an exchange of letters. All of these issues have been raised.
The point of view from NTI's perspective is that had there been adequate time, the parties might have been able to resolve some of these issues. Some of the issues we detail in our submission are the lack of reference to the relationship between the water board and the other institutions of public government, which we think must be set out clearly in the bill, and the wording in relation to the objects of the board. The response from DIAND officials was that these are worth further discussion, and in fact the proposal that was made to NTI was that at some time in the future when the bill might be amended, these issues might be addressed at that time.
.1035
Well, it's NTI's position that it's bizarre to contemplate amending the bill in the future when issues have been identified before the bill has even been passed.
The Chairman: We have four minutes left. Mr. Anawak has asked for the floor. We'll grant you two minutes for the question and the answer, and then two minutes for concluding remarks by yourselves. Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: Thank you.
I think part of the problem we are encountering here is that this is the first bill we're looking at that is for a non-existent entity. That's what the problem is.
I think what we're going to have to do is probably take a very hard look at the bill and maybe have further discussions with the Nunavut Tunngavik as well as the Nunavut Water Board. There has to be the understanding that the concerns NTI is expressing about just taking the NWT Waters Act and applying it to Nunavut.... There has to be the understanding that NWT and Nunavut are two totally different areas. Nunavut is part of the NWT, but Nunavut won't be part of the NWT in 1999. It will be a public government concept, but with a predominant group of people who have a way of looking at things in a very different light from the present NWT government.
The Chairman: And you would like an opportunity to request that, after we hear witnesses?
Mr. Anawak: I guess what I'm saying is that we have to very seriously take a look at the concerns that are being put forward by NTI and that I think will be put forward by Nunavut Water Board.
The Chairman: Okay.
Closing remarks?
Mr. Eetoolook: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you take into consideration our presentation to you regarding Bill C-51. Hopefully down the road we'll have better communications about the legislation being drafted or adopted by Parliament. We'll keep in touch. Thank you very much for listening to us. We wish you all a Merry Christmas.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. From our perspective you have confirmed the value of inviting witnesses before finalizing legislation, because many of us were under the impression that this was something that would be dealt with very quickly, and everybody agreed. So you reinforced the process that we have of inviting people like you, and we appreciate and we thank you very much for your input. Thank you.
I now invite, from the Nunavut Water Board, Thomas Kudloo, chairman of the board, and Philip Dipizzo, executive director, and of course anyone else who is part of that delegation.
We'll have to proceed quickly. We're ten minutes behind.
.1040
Good morning and welcome. Already I know that I missed someone. First of all, I want to wish you a hearty welcome to this committee. As you have just heard, you reinforce the value of inviting witnesses. We are learning an awful lot already this morning and we look forward to your presentation.
Before you start, please introduce your partners, especially the one I missed. We have an hour. Please proceed.
Mr. Thomas Kudloo (Chairman, Nunavut Water Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Thomas Kudloo, chairman of the Nunavut Water Board. With me are Alastair Lucas, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board, and the executive director of the Nunavut Water Board, Philip Dipizzo.
The Nunavut Water Board was officially established on July 9, 1996. The federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appointed its nine members, of whom four are appointed upon the recommendation of the NTI, and two upon the recommendation of the Government of the Northwest Territories. The chairperson is appointed by the federal minister following the advice of the other members of the Nunavut Water Board. Seven members, including the chairperson, currently compose the board. We expect the Minister of Indian Affairs to appoint members to the two vacant seats very soon.
A small staff of five full-time employees and two regional coordinator positions shared with the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission assist the board. The board is now operational, and its head office is at Gjoa Haven, Northwest Territories. Since its establishment, the board has reviewed several projects and held one public hearing on the renewal of a water licence for Nanisivik Mines operating near the community of Arctic Bay, in the high Arctic.
Of course the Nunavut Water Board is not a party to the agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, which we will refer to as the agreement. It has quite understandably a very selfish interest in Bill C-51, and it has followed and participated very closely with NTI, DIAND and other resource management bodies in preparatory discussions on the resource management legislation.
We were given the opportunity to review the brief prepared by NTI. Right from the outset, we can say that we are in full agreement with NTI's interpretation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and that we share their concerns with Bill C-51 as currently drafted.
NTI, as one of the signatories of the agreement, did a thorough and detailed legal analysis of Bill C-51. Therefore, going through another legal review of the bill would be redundant for the Nunavut Water Board and would not bring any more water to the mill. Instead, we would prefer to focus on some practical aspects of the proposed legislation and on moral obligations the agreement has imposed on the Government of Canada.
.1045
As a matter of principle, I wish to stress that we must always bear in mind the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is the tangible result of several years of lengthy and intense discussions. The agreement was not the first comprehensive land claims agreement in Arctic Canada, but unlike the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, it attempts to create an innovative and holistic approach to resource management where traditional and contemporary Inuit practices are at the same level as western ideology.
The Inuit negotiators spent days and weeks away from their families and communities in Arctic debates that sometimes ended in the middle of the night. After some struggle they came back home with a document that addressed most of the demands of the Inuit of Nunavut. They told their people we have worked hard, you can trust us, this is a good agreement and we should ratify it now. Their people agreed that this agreement, although not perfect, would be the foundation of a new relationship between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Government of Canada.
They had hoped that their homeland, which for decades has been administered by the federal government, would soon become Nunavut - our land, our territory. The negotiators negotiated in good faith and assumed, maybe candidly, that the federal government stood for the same principles. A couple of years later the proposed Nunavut water bill does not stand in front of many provisions of the agreement, and it is very tempting to conclude that the federal government is trying to obtain, through this proposed legislation, concessions from the Inuit that its negotiators failed to get during the negotiations.
Even for someone like myself, untrained in legal matters, it is obvious after a quick reading that several important provisions of the proposed legislation are in flagrant contradiction with the agreement.
With that, I'll pass it on to Philip.
Mr. Philip Dipizzo (Executive Director, Nunavut Water Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Philip Dipizzo and I'm the executive director of the Nunavut Water Board.
As NTI mentioned, Bill C-51 is in serious breach of article 10 of the agreement. First, we must remember that the Nunavut Water Board was established without specific legislation on July 9, 1996. However, under the agreement the board should have been created a year earlier, on July 9, 1995.
Furthermore, as NTI pointed out, that piece of legislation should have been drafted in very close cooperation with NTI, but obviously it was not, since most if not all of NTI's recommendations were not taken into consideration following the tabling of the bill in front of Parliament last May. It seems that the federal government has decided to rush through this procedure in an attempt to deal with the problems caused by their failure to put this legislation in place on time, and of course it doesn't live up to the expectations of both NTI and the Nunavut Water Board.
As we said, the board is currently operational, but it operates without a complete legal framework. In a very uncertain and troubling context, the absence of legislation to guide our daily actions is creating unnecessary risk and indecision for the board and its staff. Every day since last July we have asked ourselves the same question every time a project comes on the table: What do we do with it? Must we hold a public hearing? Should we send it to NERB - the environmental review board - for screening?
Without the guidance of appropriate legislation, the decisions of the board are open to legal challenge from all sides - from the developers, the interest groups, Inuit organizations like NTI, etc. When we expressed our concerns to the Minister of Indian Affairs last summer, we were told no problem, just follow the provisions of Bill C-51 and you'll be protected.
.1050
This suggestion was very controversial. It did not stand up well to legal agreements. As you know, a bill doesn't offer any legal protection. It's simply a piece of paper that has no value until it is approved by Parliament. A bill can be modified and even turned down, and in this case it's even more particular because one of the signatories of the agreement doesn't agree with the bill.
Following Bill C-51 doesn't offer any solution for the board. We would be stuck if we decided to follow the bill as currently drafted.
When someone reads the provisions of the agreement and the provisions of Bill C-51, it's very clear that we have a problem. There is a lot of inconsistency between the two documents. It's difficult to unearth the philosophy of article 13 when we look at this bill. It looks like the federal government took the easy lane and used the Northwest Territories Waters Act as a prototype, as a template, here and there adding some allusions to the agreement. While the letter of the agreement admittedly is very inexplicit in some areas, its spirit and intent are very consistent throughout, and this is very true for resource management matters. In fact there is a very strong structural link between article 13 of the agreement relating to water and the other articles in the agreement.
One significant omission of Bill C-51 is the failure to recognize the comprehensive lands and resource management regime created by the agreement. The relationships between the water board and the other institutions of public government, especially the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission, in particular specific provision of parts 4 and 5 of article 13, which provide a coordinated structure and process for the co-management institution, are quite diluted if not non-existent.
We think the numerous sections of article 13 relating to the other management institutions should be replicated integrally in Bill C-51. There are a few minor problems with Bill C-51, and these could be resolved following close work between NTI, the Nunavut Water Board and the federal government.
One major problem that we have relates to the powers of the minister. Under section 13.7.1 of the agreement, the Nunavut Water Board has the sole authority to approve all water usages and deposits of waste in the whole Nunavut settlement area. Neither the letter, the spirit nor the intent of article 13.... Although the federal minister has powers to approve the issuance, amendment or cancellation of our water licence, the board has full authority in this field. No decision power is granted to the minister, and our decisions are not subject to the approval, review or consideration of the federal minister, except perhaps in matters of national security.
If this had been the intention of the drafters of the agreement, they would have included such a reference in article 13. Provisions for the role of the minister exist in several other provisions of the land claims agreement - in articles 5, 11 and 12, for example, but not in article 13. It is not very convincing to say several years later that the absence of a direct or indirect role for the minister is the result of an oversight of the federal negotiators.
While we understand that the rationale behind section 55 of the bill may be to provide a mechanism for direct ministerial accountability, it was not the intent of the agreement to promote or guarantee such a principle. There is clearly no reference to the minister with respect to the assurance or approval of licences by the Nunavut Water Board, and this should be plainly reflected in the proposed legislation.
.1055
Another important area in Bill C-51 that clearly departs from the agreement is the geographic jurisdiction of the board. The board has full authority over the use, licensing and regulation of water in the whole Nunavut settlement area. However, Bill C-51 excludes national parks from the jurisdiction of the board. We fail to see where this reference comes from, except maybe from a desire to appease the minister responsible for national parks. Again, the agreement has precedence over any other legislation. Reference to national parks in clause 36 and others in the bill should completely be eliminated.
Another reference in Bill C-51 talks about the head office of the Nunavut Water Board. The agreement simply says that the head office of the water board will be located in the Nunavut settlement area. It is the prerogative of the board to decide where to locate its head office. Clause 25 of the bill, which states that the water board will locate its head office in Rankin Inlet, is simply not appropriate. In fact, Bill C-51 should simply echo the provision of the agreement and that's it.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Dipizzo: I am short one paragraph.
The Chairman: Please carry on.
Mr. Dipizzo: Another section of the bill that should be corrected - it's a minor correction - deals with the expenses of the members. Article 13.3.8 of the agreement provides that the members of the water board will receive a fair remuneration as determined by the government for the performance of their duties, in addition to living and travel expenses. Clause 23 of the bill should be modified to reflect the text of the agreement.
I'll pass the microphone to Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Alastair Lucas (Legal Counsel, Nunavut Water Board): Thank you, Philip.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Alastair Lucas and I'm the legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board. I'm going to speak to several substantive issues, continuing with the series of issues that Philip Dipizzo started on.
I want to make clear to the members of the committee that while, as Philip Dipizzo indicated, there's some concern about the lack of detail in the legislative framework with which the Nunavut Water Board operates right now, the Nunavut Water Board is an established, functioning and legally constituted regulatory agency of the Government of Canada. It does not operate in a legal vacuum.
The provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, particularly article 13, which deals with water resources and the Nunavut Water Board, have been confirmed and ratified by the implementing legislation, and that has the effect of making those provisions of article 13 and the other provisions of the agreement relevant to water resources and the water board - of giving them the force of law. So the water board is an established, functioning, legally constituted and legally mandated organization.
For that reason the bill is not of as great urgency as it might first appear. It's not a matter of filling a legal vacuum. As Thomas Kudloo has indicated, the board is up and running and has held its first public hearing. It has made its first decision in the Nanisivik mine application. It carries on actively administering licences in the Nunavut territory, carrying on work that was previously done by the Northwest Territories Water Board.
So I want to make it clear that we have an established, functioning, legally constituted board.
.1100
That being the case, what the bill amounts to from the point of view of the water board is a complete re-enactment of the constituting legislation of the water board. It's as though the National Energy Board Act, for example, were completely re-enacted.
That being the case, it would normally be appropriate to engage in very detailed and comprehensive consultations with the board. There has been some contact with DIAND officials and there has been some discussion. The very fact that the water board is here before this committee attempting to inform the committee about some very specific items affecting the operation and the ongoing administration of the board really underlines the point I'm making. These are things that should have been discussed in more detail with the board, and there is still time to do it and to incorporate in the bill some of the specific items that the board has raised in its brief.
I wanted to speak to a couple of additional items. One concerns the legal liability of the members and staff of the Nunavut Water Board. There is some concern about this as far as members of the board and members of the board staff are concerned. While there is a certain protection as far as the common law is concerned, as long as board members act honestly and in good faith in carrying out their responsibilities, the law is uncertain enough to raise concerns.
We are recommending in the brief that has been given to the committee that a provision be included in the bill to deal with the potential liability risk for members of the board and members of the board staff. It's our recommendation that this could be done in a way similar to what has been done for members of the Canada Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. We have attached to our brief a copy of section 16 of the Canada Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, which provides a very comprehensive system of indemnity and insurance protection for members of that board.
The concept is that the board purchases liability insurance, which is funded as part of the ongoing operations of the board. To the extent that this insurance may be unavailable, the Government of Canada agrees to indemnify the board members for any liabilities incurred, provided the board members act honestly and in good faith and with a view to the best interests of the board. That's what ought to be expected of members and staff of the board.
Further, to the extent that liability insurance is purchased by the board, if the coverage doesn't extend far enough, the Government of Canada agrees under this provision to provide an indemnity to cover any balance that might be owing as a result of liability resulting from legal action against members of the board.
If this kind of protection is appropriate for members of the Canada Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, for the Offshore Resources Board that's established under that legislation, and the concerns of that board were dealt with in that way, it seems to the Nunavut Water Board appropriate that the concerns of the board members and staff about potential liability should be addressed.
I want to underline that the protection should always be subject to the board members and staff acting honestly and in good faith and with a view to the best interests of the board.
.1105
With respect to the financing of the Nunavut Water Board, subclause 30(1) of Bill C-51 states that the board shall submit a budget to the federal minister for ``consideration''. The board suggests that this provision more appropriately reflect article 13.3.17 of the agreement, which stipulates that the federal government shall bear the costs of the Nunavut Water Board, and that clause 30 spell out that obligation of the federal government more completely than it does as it's presently drafted.
On a related matter, the board recommends that another source of funding for the board, particularly in the longer term, be the application and water use fees that are paid by water licensees. It's the board's recommendation that these fees be directed to a Nunavut Water Board administration fund that would be established under the act to be administered under the auspices of the board and that fund revenues be applied towards the ongoing water board licence administrative costs. This kind of user pay approach to water resources, in the board's view, is appropriate, and it's the kind of approach that's necessary in the long run if the water board is to serve the interests of the residents of Nunavut.
It's also a user pay approach that's been adopted by other Canadian boards. For example, the Energy and Utilities Board in the province of Alberta finances 50% of its operating costs through an annual levy on operators of oil and gas wells. It's our submission to the committee that this kind of Nunavut Water Board administration fund would be analogous and would give the board an ongoing source of revenue.
There's no provision for intervener funding in the act. This is a problem the board has already encountered in the first hearing it carried out, and it's a problem that will arise in other hearings. The rationale is to ensure that interveners, groups, and citizen organizations within the Nunavut territory - not necessarily organizations like NTI, but those who might be interveners on particular licence applications - have the funds to properly carry out their intervention and make a proper and effective submission. What is needed is a power in the water board to establish an intervener funding program. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was recently amended to insert such a power to ensure that an intervener funding program could be established for boards of review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It's the board's recommendation that a provision of that kind be included in Bill C-51.
Finally, members of the committee and Mr. Chairman, the board recommends that changes be made to clause 80 of Bill C-51, which lists regulation-making powers of the cabinet. I won't go into detail, except to echo the concerns that NTI has expressed in its brief on this point. It's spelled out in detail in the brief that has been submitted to the committee. The concern the water board has is that regulation-making powers are given to the Governor in Council, and that's appropriate, on the recommendation of the minister. The water board's concern is that on a number of these powers it's not specified that there should be concurrence of the water board, much less consultation, when regulations are made with regard, for example, to authorizing the deposit of waste without a licence in Nunavut territory.
.1110
On a regulation of that kind, it's the board's submission that it would be appropriate not only to consult the board but also to obtain the concurrence of the board to the structure and the final form of the regulation. It goes to the very decision-making power, the very essence of the decision-making power of the water board to approve deposit of waste in the Nunavut territory. So those are changes of a specific nature that the Nunavut Water Board recommends.
I want to add one more thing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I've been asked by Dr. William Tilleman, who is the legal counsel to the Nunavut Impact Review Board, which is the institution concerned with environmental impact assessment and review.... It's part of the integrated land use and management process that was referred to by NTI and is an organization with which the operations of the water board are integrally related. Dr. Tilleman has filed a letter that has been given to the committee. I'll only say that the Nunavut Impact Review Board supports and adopts the written submissions of the water board and additionally supports the submissions of NTI, which Dr. Tilleman reviewed in draft. It makes the point that the real issue here is the integrity of the land claims agreement.
The reason the Nunavut Impact Review Board is making a submission and taking this position is the fact that its operations and its mandate are very closely related and in fact integrally connected with that of the water board. So I want to draw the submission on behalf of the Nunavut Impact Review Board by Dr. Tilleman to the committee's attention.
Those are the remarks I have. Perhaps Thomas Kudloo has some final remarks.
Mr. Kudloo: Thank you. As much as we would like to operate within the legal framework of the Nunavut Waters Act, we would prefer to continue in the current circumstances rather than try to work with an incomplete and inconsistent piece of legislation like Bill C-51, especially when several of its sections could and probably will be challenged in court. Indeed, operating with Bill C-51 as drafted would not be very different from the present situation.
Bill C-51 requires a lot more work in close consultation with NTI. Proper legislation is crucial. The government should not try to rush Bill C-51 without the full consent of NTI. Meanwhile, we think the agreement provides alternatives that would make our work easier. For example, we propose the adoption of the regulation by the Governor in Council under article 13.7.3 of the agreement that would establish a list of classes of projects that would not be subject to the public hearing by the board.
.1115
This proposal for a regulation recommended by the board is the appropriate process. It recognizes the board's expertise and first-hand experience with the water management and approval process contemplated by article 13 of the agreement. We presented our proposal to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and we hope to get a prompt and favourable reply.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. Now, questions from members. Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Thank you for your presentation. If I have understood you correctly, contrary to the Nunavut Tungavik Federation, you are suggesting amendments to the bill. I have noted a dozen points. If these changes are made, would you then support Bill C-51?
Secondly, Mr. Lucas, you talked about an established legally-constituted board in your presentation. However, on page 4 of your presentation, you say:
[English]
- The absence of legislation to guide our daily actions is creating unnecessary risk and indecision
for the Board and for its staff.
Could you tell the committee what you are currently doing at the Nunavut Water Board? How do you proceed? I am under the impression that you are not sure.
A little farther on, you say that when you have a project before you, you do not really know how to proceed. Could you start by explaining how you operate and then tell us why you say, Mr. Lucas, that it is a legally-constituted board, but that there is risk and indecision? If it is a legally-constituted board, the members of this body should normally be protected.
Could you explain why you say in the text that they are not protected? Given that it is a legally-constituted board, they should be protected, in my mind. Could you also tell us if you would support Bill C-51 if we retained the amendments you have proposed?
[English]
Mr. Lucas: It's really a matter of detail. The board operates under the agreement and the authorizing legislation. It has developed rules of practice and procedure and it was under those rules that the public hearing on the Nanisivik mine application I mentioned was carried out.
On the other hand, the agreement does not deal with a number of specific items. An example is the matter of potential liability of members and staff of the board that I mentioned. The reason that specific provision is necessary really has to do with legal uncertainty more than anything else.
It's true that legally members of regulatory boards have a qualified privilege, which means essentially that they are not liable for actions that are carried out in the course of their responsibilities as long as they act honestly and in good faith and clearly in the interests of carrying out their responsibilities. But there's enough uncertainty about that to raise questions of liability.
That's the reason the provision I referred to was inserted in the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act designed to give that little bit of certainty and additional protection to members of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.
.1120
With respect to the question you raised initially, the board is not saying categorically that the bill should be withdrawn. The board is saying there are a number of concerns and difficulties with the bill that we've outlined in our brief.
However, some of those difficulties are fundamental difficulties - for example, the power of the minister to approve decisions of the board. It's the board's decision that the agreement governs on that matter and to insert a provision of that kind in Bill C-51 is fundamentally inconsistent with the land claims agreement. We agree with the position of NTI on that matter.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have no questions at this time.
The Chairman: Anyone on the government side? Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make the comment that I think there are some good suggestions here for improvement. I personally am very involved with intervener funding. As you may or may not know, I had a private member's bill pass the House and we're actively working on it now.
I think you make an excellent point when you comment on it that in order to make the best decisions you have to have input from experts who speak for other sections of the community besides the government or the proponent or the bureaucrat. However, I'm a little concerned with this point. On page 2 you say that:
- Their people agreed that this Agreement, although not perfect, would be the foundation of a
new relationship between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Government of Canada.
You say at the bottom of page 5 that
- It is not very convincing to say several years later that the absence of direct or indirect role for
the Minister is the result of an oversight...
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, a question, please.
Mr. Finlay: Why would we exempt water from such a consideration?
Mr. Lucas: Because that's what was agreed and that's what in the view of the board the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement says. If it had been intended to agree that ministerial approval should be required for Nunavut Water Board decisions, that would have been made clear. There are provisions for ministerial approvals in other parts of the agreement and this is a matter that was negotiated.
There are many examples of similar regulatory boards in provinces that make resource, including water resource, and environmental management decisions that are not subject to the direct approval of the minister. They're subject to oversight and policy review by the minister and potentially to amendments to the legislation. It's the board's assumption that's exactly what was intended here.
Mr. Finlay: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that what's just been said offers a way of solving this problem. All I would say is that it seems an error of omission not commission. It is the view of the board or your view, sir, that since these things for land and for the other boards that were talked about do make provision for that, there's some omission in that it wasn't stated for water. I guess that's a way of arguing it. I'm not sure, however, how much it convinces me. You see, sometimes water doesn't stay in one place for very long; it moves around. I wonder whether through common sense we might say that there is some responsibility. Now you said that if it's going to be under certain standards and so on, okay. But my point is that we can change an attitude or we can change a requirement for the good of everyone on the basis of new or additional information.
.1125
Mr. Lucas: The situation with regard to ministerial approval for the water board is ultimately a matter of interpretation, and there may very well be good reason for the way things are set up. It's more typical, in my experience as a natural resource and environmental lawyer, to find ministerial approval provisions for environmental assessment processes that are more planning and review sorts of processes and don't result in a formal licence or permit but in a series of recommendations - recommended terms, conditions, and so on.
The ultimate decision is more a blend of regulatory and political decisions rather than a licensing authority such as a water board, which receives an application, considers the application, considers the pros and cons, holds a hearing, and makes a final decision. In our view there may very well be good reason for that distinction. There wasn't a ministerial approval power under the Northern Inland Waters Act, which, as the NTI brief points out, was the reference point for the Nunavut agreement and for article 13.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak, you have four minutes.
Mr. Anawak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my comments will be more or less on the bill.
I think we had very good presentations by the Nunavut Water Board and the NTI, and I think it would be incumbent upon us to address some of those concerns. My suggestion would be that we ask departmental officials to come back to discuss the areas of concern, because I believe they're the ones who can -
The Chairman: That will be dealt with. After we are through with the witnesses today, the offer will be made.
Mr. Anawak: I just wanted to make sure. Without the substantive changes we might not have the will to go forward on this.
Second, I don't think the Nunavut Impact Review Board is here. Should we table the letter it sent, or has that already been done?
The Chairman: It has been offered to all members.
When we engage in the discussion on clause 2 of the bill, anyone can table any document.
Are there concluding remarks?
Mr. Lucas: Mr. Chairman, those are the submissions of the Nunavut Water Board, and the board thanks the committee for its attention.
The Chairman: We want to thank you very much for the valuable information you've produced for us. It will certainly assist us in our evaluation. Thank you.
I now invite Dick Spaulding, an adviser from the Nunavut Planning Commission, to come to the table.
.1131
Mr. Spaulding, welcome to our committee. Were you here at the beginning when I explained the procedure we normally use?
Mr. Dick Spaulding (Adviser, Nunavut Planning Commission): Yes, I was.
The Chairman: You have an hour, and if you use it all, we'll have no time for questions. You know the process. I welcome you, and I invite you to start your presentation.
Mr. Spaulding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I certainly won't take an hour for my submission; I would estimate about 15 minutes.
The Nunavut Planning Commission has provided the committee with a copy of its written brief. I won't be reading the brief. The brief speaks to two substantive issues that arise in the bill, and both of these issues concern the relationship between the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Water Board, as contemplated by the bill.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires that the water board reject an application by a water licence applicant if it does not conform to an approved land use plan, or hasn't received a variance from the Nunavut Planning Commission. That requirement of the agreement is not in this bill, and it's the Nunavut Planning Commission's submission that this is a very fundamental requirement of the agreement. It's very important to the integrity of the land and water management system set up by the agreement, and it ought to be in the bill.
The second submission is that the agreement again requires that a water licence application be submitted to the Nunavut Planning Commission before being disposed of by the Water Board. Again, the bill doesn't say this; in the Nunavut Planning Commission's submission, it ought to.
Those are the two substantive recommendations of the Nunavut Planning Commission. The way those recommendations could be adopted in the form of amendments is also something to which the commission has put its mind. The commission supports the amendments that have been drafted by NTI and are included in the draft written submission the commission has seen.
Just to be certain that this draft hasn't changed, I think it's probably wise that I read the amendments, as we understand them, into the record. They're at the bottom of page 4 of the commission's submission.
- (1) The Board shall forward all applications to the Nunavut Planning Commission for review
for conformity with an approved land use plan....
- That word ``conformity'' is our suggested modification to the wording by the NTI.
- (2) Subject to this section, the Board may not issue, review or amend a licence (a) where the
Nunavut Planning Commission has determined that the application does not conform to a land
use plan or a variance has not been approved by the Commission, unless the applicant has
obtained an exemption from planning conformity requirements from the Minister....
.1135
As I was listening to the submissions made earlier this morning, Mr. Chairman, I gathered that some of the omissions in the bill have been defended, shall I say, or supported on the part of the drafting persons on the basis that this would result in a simpler bill, a bill that only speaks to the water board's mandate in a system which we have to agree is an integrated system and could give rise to a much broader-based bill.
The planning commission's submission is that this problem, which is a real problem for the drafters of this bill, ought to be addressed with this principle in mind as a minimum requirement. A water bill of this nature, which is described in the legislative summary as a bill intended to implement the water management provisions of the agreement and to include the requirements of the agreement, should incorporate any requirement of the system that directly relates to the water board's mandate. The two omissions that the commission has spoken to both directly relate to the water board's mandate. The commission is here today because the commission also has a direct interest in those provisions. They affect the land use planning commission's operations as well, but they directly relate to the water board's mandate.
The written submission that the commission has provided also runs through several supporting reasons for our substantive position today. I'd like to highlight a few of those, first with respect to the submission that the bill should state clearly the terms under which a water licence application must be rejected for nonconformity.
The first is that article 10.2.1. of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement states that implementation legislation must contain the substantive duties of the institution that is governed by the legislation. In our respectful submission, the duty to reject a water licence application in the circumstance of nonconformity is a substantive duty of the water board and therefore belongs in this legislation.
Second, speaking to the same amendment, we ought to consider the consequence if this amendment were not included in the bill. What message does the bill send to water licence applicants, to Inuit, and to members of the public? In our submission, the bill would give rise to a very basic inconsistency. It would cause confusion on the part of the parties who ought to be the beneficiaries of the bill.
The inconsistency is this: clause 41 of the bill says that the water board can issue licences. The bill also sets out in some detail the basic conditions that a water licence application must meet before a licence can be issued. These include the objects of the bill, information guidelines that the water board can enact, and certain licence conditions stipulated in the bill. Without saying more, it would be an inconsistency between Bill C-51 and the agreement to say that the water board may issue a licence in a circumstance in which all of those requirements are met but the water use would be nonconforming according to the land use planning commission.
It might be thought that an inconsistency like this is addressed by subclause 3(1) of the bill, which basically says that in the event of inconsistency or conflict between this bill and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement shall prevail. Well, that's right, and that does mean that constitutionally speaking the Nunavut Planning Commission's nonconformity decision will ultimately bind the water board. But in our submission, inconsistencies and conflicts ought not to be drafted into a bill of this nature. This bill is specified to be one that implements the provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and therefore it should be drafted accordingly.
.1140
Our reasons for proposing that an amendment also say that a water licence application must go to the planning commission before being disposed of by the water board are similar. This is an implicit requirement of the agreement; it's not an explicit requirement. But it's just as clear, nonetheless, as the agreement does say that the planning commission must exercise certain functions, must review applications for conformity, before the water board disposes of them. It therefore logically follows that the planning commission must get those applications before water board disposition.
Again, without saying this, the bill stands the risk of creating confusion in the minds of the beneficiaries and users of the water licensing system.
Finally, the commission would argue that both of these amendments ought to be contained in this bill. This should happen by virtue of the fact that the drafters of the agreement, which is the parent of this bill, have thought it appropriate that they be in a section of the agreement that pertains to water management, and not planning.
The agreement itself says that although this is an integrated system, and although these provisions speak to operations of the planning commission as well as the water board, the agreement doesn't put these requirements in the planning section of the agreement; it puts them in the water section, article 13.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are relatively dry, specific and substantive points. I would suggest that they do exemplify some of the broader-based concerns that have been raised earlier this morning.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Before we go to questions, maybe others have understood, but could you clear up, at least for myself, the mandates of the planning commission in relation to land use, where the applicants have to acquire appropriate licences? For example, if the applicant applies for a water use licence, the criteria for that licence should be explained. If, upon applying for specific land use, the activity will go beyond the water licence for which it has been issued, then the planning committee - I tend to call them boards - would not issue the licence for land use. So are we in a position where both have equal jurisdiction, and unless they both agree, an applicant would not get a permit for land use?
My understanding of planning - and I sat on the planning boards for a number of years - is that the planning committee requires the applicant to conform. One of the criteria, of course, is environment, water use, and it's up to the applicant to go and obtain all the requirements to qualify for the use for which they are applying. Do you have a different system from that? Can you maybe speak a few seconds on that?
Mr. Spaulding: First of all, I should make it clear that land use planning under the agreement includes water, so we're not dealing with the separation of authority within the Nunavut Planning Commission. The Nunavut Planning Commission's plans govern the system pertaining to water as much as they govern the system pertaining to land.
If I understood the question correctly, I was asked whether it's not the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application conforms to the planning commission's requirement before going to the water board. Is that the question?
The Chairman: If the licence is not to the satisfaction of the planning committee, they would ask the applicant to go back. I'll give you an example. In my riding, Inco has started a mine. I spoke about this before. The site is 400 feet by 300 feet. They recycle all water. None of that water escapes. They've built a system where all water is reused, and nothing escapes.
.1145
Based on basic land use and site plan agreements we have in our region, they probably would not have qualified, but the planning board required that they.... I assume that Inco, knowing it wouldn't be approved, did it before they were asked to do it. But they have developed a system that satisfied the planning commission, upon perusal by the water commission. We would call it environment.
Who has control, the planning commission or the water board?
Mr. Spaulding: If the water licence application does not conform to a plan, the answer is yes, the planning commission makes its determination, and that's the end of the matter. The applicant has to start again, unless one of two things happens. First, if it's a minor departure from the requirements of the planning commission that are set out in land use plans, then the commission itself, exercising its own authority, can issue a variance.
If that doesn't happen, then separately - and I emphasize that this happens after the water board, under the agreement, must reject the application for nonconformity - that applicant can still go to the minister under a special procedure and attempt to seek an exemption from the requirements of the planning commission.
The Chairman: I have one very brief final question. Do you hold public hearings for these applications where the community, at least the neighbours, have an opportunity to have input?
Mr. Spaulding: The planning commission's hearing function is primarily at the point in the process when the commission is drafting and finalizing a land use plan prior to submission to government. Every time the commission makes a land use plan in Nunavut, there must be a public hearing held in the planning region. That's a requirement of the agreement.
The agreement doesn't require that a hearing be held on this issue of conformity for a specific project proposal. It's possible that a hearing might be held on some person's view, but that's an issue the commission hasn't faced yet.
The Chairman: So the difference between the Nunavut system and the system in Ontario is the appeal to the OMB, the Ontario Municipal Board. In Nunavut, the appeal is to the minister. Is that correct? If you're denied, and you wish to appeal...?
Mr. Spaulding: But it's not an appeal; it's a special exemption. I think it's fair to say that the agreement contemplates generally that the commission's determination of conformity, subject to variance, is final.
The Chairman: I apologize to my colleagues for taking so much time.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having stolen my question. I will rephrase it.
Mr. Spalding, render the heading appropriate revisions, you say:
[English]
- The Board shall forward all applications to the Nunavut Planning Commission for review for
conformity with an approved land use plan....
Then you add:
[English]
- Subject to this section, the Board may not issue, review or amend a licence where (a) the
Nunavut Planning Commission has determined that the application does not conform to a land
use plan....
I would just like this to be quite clear. I think you consider the Nunavut Planning Commission superior to the Nunavut Water Board. The Nunavut Water Board is dependent on the Nunavut Commission. You are above, you have the Nunavut Water Board under your control. It seems to me that all requests will have to go through you first and that you will have the final say as to whether the answer is yes or no. You even say that if the Nunavut Water Board wants to issue, review or amend a licence, it will have to go through the Nunavut Commission first. Am I mistaken, or is it really what I'm reading?
.1150
[English]
Mr. Spaulding: First of all, these are not the planning commission's wishes; these are the requirements of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. This is the system set up under the agreement.
It's not so much that the commission has a higher authority than the water board; it's that the commission has a more general authority than the water board, whose issuance of licences is specific to projects. The land use planning commission has the general mandate to make a plan relating to the use of water and land, and these very general requirements are set out in these plans.
When the planning commission determines that a water use licence application conforms to the plan - which is the authority we submit ought to be in the bill - then under the agreement and the act, the water board exercises its own independent authority to look at questions, such as specific licensing conditions related to waste disposal. So it's not that the commission has a higher authority; it's a more general authority.
Again, the second submission has to do with the sequence in which an application is dealt with. It's not that the planning commission has the final say over a water licence application; it's that it must see it first in order to review the application for the commission's purposes before the application then goes to the water board, so that the water board can review it for its purposes.
The Chairman: Does anyone else have any questions?
The discussion was on which of the two - the planning committee and the water board - has the higher authority. The planning committee has the authority on land use, so if the planning committee disagrees with the water board, they won't issue a land use permit. Is that correct?
Mr. Spaulding: The planning commission doesn't issue permits; it only makes conformity determinations. So the land use permitting system is still operating, subject to the commission's conformity determinations, but not within its machinery.
I emphasize again that the planning commission's conformity authority has as much to do with water as with land. It's just a more general form of review than the one the water board is then about to undertake.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. It opens another aspect of our puzzle.
Members, we have a few items to deal with. First of all, maybe I'll suggest.... Mr. Anawak, you demonstrated an intent, which seems to be shared, to invite....
Mr. Anawak: Well, I guess my point is that, considering the presentations we've had from the Nunavut Water Board and Nunavut Tunngavik, it seems that the direction the bill has been taking is from Indian Affairs to NTI and the Nunavut Water Board, when there really should be discussions from each side.
I must say that I've been remiss in maybe not pursuing this a little stronger than I have, because of other issues. But I would like to really say that we need to very seriously take a second look at this bill. If substantive changes are not made to address the concerns expressed by NTI and the Nunavut Water Board, then I cannot see how I would be able to move forward.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak, you had suggested that we invite the department; that's what I was getting to.
Mr. Anawak: Yes.
The Chairman: Is that still your wish?
Mr. Anawak: The next point is to invite back the officials from Indian Affairs, to ensure that if there are agreements to make amendments, the amendments have to be made, but suggested by the department.
The Chairman: At the same time, we could get the other position on the concerns that have been expressed. I would be prepared to accept a motion that we invite them Thursday at 11 a.m., if it counts.
Mr. Anawak: Then I would be prepared to move the motion, too.
.1155
The Chairman: It is moved that we invite the department officials to come back on Thursday of this week at 11 a.m. to address the concerns and whatever else the committee wishes to ask.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand: I have a comment on my colleague's proposal. I would simply remind him that the Royal Commission of Inquiry will table its report on aboriginal affairs on Thursday, and that we may be in complete turmoil then. I would not want to miss the next meeting with the officials from Indian Affairs. I would suggest that we postpone that meeting to next Tuesday, because we may well be very busy on Thursday.
The Chairman: Does anyone know at what time the study will be tabled?
[English]
Jack, do you know what time that takes place?
Mr. Anawak: Yes, that was my point, that Thursday might not be a good time at all because there's a series of events, I think, throughout part of the day, and even though I think this takes precedence over the royal commission....
The Chairman: Am I hearing you say that you move that we meet at 11 o'clock of Tuesday of next week?
Mr. Anawak: Yes.
Motion agreed to.
The Chairman: We have a budget we want to submit to you. I wish to advise you, my colleagues, that you are in arrears; you're not paying your bills, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
An hon. member: But when you're so unused to spending any money, you don't know when you should.
The Chairman: I'm still looking for money for coffee. I'm still embarrassed that we don't have coffee to offer our guests every time we meet. And as we said many times, we need a motion from one of the members. With 50% plus one vote, we'll have coffee every time, and I will vote in favour of it, if it ever comes.
An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, could you say a little bit about part A - $3,000 committed to the printing of the committee's report, issue number 2?
The Chairman: That was the education report, which is a very popular report. Everybody in the country wants a copy of it. I think we should be proud that people are asking for it. It's not on the shelf.
An hon. member: How many do we have left?
The Chairman: Not many.
I'm waiting for a motion to proceed with the request.
Mr. Murphy: I move that the budget as put forward be adopted.
The Chairman: Any debate? Clarifications? This does not spend the money. You've authorized the expenditures we haven't paid for, and any others would be authorized by you before. This is to transfer the moneys to an account so we can pay our bills.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.