AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 1521

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We'll resume proceedings on consideration of Bill C-33, clause-by-clause.

Before we proceed, my recollection is that we asked Mr. Finlay to withdraw, and he has. We had a vote on that, and the majority voted to withdraw that subamendment. Now we're asking Ms. Karetak-Lindell if she wishes to withdraw her previous amendment on a vote. That is withdrawn.

(On clause 56—Approval of issuance)

The Chair: We have a new amendment by Ms. Karetak-Lindell, which you all have a copy of. I ask others who have amendments on this clause to be aware of what we're doing now, so that the vote we're about to take doesn't negate the other amendments.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): For clarification on the new motion that's been put before us, I notice at the bottom of the page it says (5). Should that not be subclause (2.2)? It's all part of that same...

The Chair: Who will respond to that? Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy and Transfers Directorate, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada): We left the reference to the deeming to be the last part of clause 56, so that it comes at the end. Regardless of where the 45 days is, if the minister fails to make the decision, then in 45 days it's deemed to be approved.

Mr. Reed Elley: I would think that it should be put right in the part we're dealing with, all of this, this whole clause. I would move that it be subclause (2.2).

The Chair: Before you move it, would you allow us to have a debate—

Mr. Reed Elley: Sure.

The Chair: —so we don't get in the same position we were in before?

Before we go anywhere, we will let Ms. Karetak-Lindell speak to her motion. In the meantime our researcher is verifying your point, Mr. Elley, and we'll address that soon.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): You don't want to me to read the whole amendment, do you?

The Chair: No.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.

I think this has clarified what the intent of my motion was, and Mr. Finlay's amendment too, and polished it up so that it is coming across as what I tried to explain this morning, that within 45 days after receiving it he would make a decision. I don't have much more to add, other than just the rewording of the right intentions.

The Chair: Thank you. Our researcher has told me that in her opinion, it doesn't make a difference where it sits. So your suggestion was that it be included—

Mr. Reed Elley: That it be called subclause (2.2) and be part of that whole clause we were dealing with before.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Do I have to read my amendment again?

The Chair: We'll do it with you. If you have a problem with it, we're not going to.... Does it create a problem, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, that it be moved up? It does not. It's not in the amendment yet, but we are considering that.

Mr. Finlay, on that very issue.

• 1525

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Since subclause (5) was the amendment I was going to make, and since it was indicated to me that it should go up in there, that's where all the problem arose this morning. Obviously, it didn't fit very comfortably in certain people's minds, and I had a heck of time trying to sort it out. But I agree with Nancy, this motion makes it quite clear about three things. There are 45 days—

The Chair: It's just on where it's positioned.

Mr. John Finlay: As Mr. Dunlop said, finally, the minister is deemed to have approved the issuance of an amendment, renewal, or cancellation, as the case may be, whether he takes 45 days, 90 days, he doesn't answer, he doesn't give any reasons, or anything else. So it's quite clear that everything goes forward.

The Chair: No problem. What we're discussing is where it will be slotted. Mr. Dunlop, are there rules of drafting legislation that could guide us? And after you give your response, I will treat this, if Mr. Elley wants, as a subamendment, and we'll vote on it immediately.

Mr. Reed Elley: All right.

The Chair: So Mr. Dunlop, are there rules of drafting legislation that could clear this up for us?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I don't a drafting rule covers this. I don't think the location is as important as the words. I'd prefer it at the end, but I don't think it's a rule.

The Chair: Therefore, I treat Mr. Elley's amendment as a subamendment to Ms. Karetak-Lindell's amendment, and I will call for the vote immediately. Those who are in favour of moving what is seen in the written amendment as subclause (5) to become subclause (2.2) raise your hands.

(Subamendment agreed to)

The Chair: On the amendment, as amended.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: That means my (b) will have to be changed, then, after line.... It won't be line 41 now, right?

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): Yes, she's right. I think the removal of it obviates the need for paragraph (b) at all, because subclause (2.2) will follow directly from (2.1), and therefore you don't need a (b) any more.

The Chair: Everybody agrees that (b) is removed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. John Finlay: Can I, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Looking ahead, there is another housekeeping amendment that I have to put, which refers to subclause (5); now it will refer to subclause (2.2), which I understand. But I won't know after which line it's going to occur.

The Chair: Are you suggesting any addition?

Mr. John Finlay: No, it's a reference.

The Chair: Are you amending the proposed amendment before us, or are you talking about something different?

Mr. John Finlay: I'm talking about something that's coming up.

The Chair: Okay. So if you're talking about something different, we'll go back to the amendment.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay.

The Chair: Monsieur Serré?

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's a problem at all. Instead of referring to subclause (5), he refers to clause 56 at (2.2). That's it.

The Chair: That's right.

Everybody understands?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Are there other amendments to clause 56?

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that Bill C-33 in clause 56 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 23 the following:

The right of the Minister to approve the issuance of licences under this section shall expire five years after this Act comes into force, whereafter the issuances of licences shall rest with the Government of Nunavut through the Board.

The Chair: Okay, that's very straightforward.

Mr. Martin, do you have a subamendment of the amendment?

Mr. Reed Elley: Can I speak to it?

• 1530

The Chair: I'll accept the subamendment first, and then we'll deal with the amendment.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): In the interests of cooperating with the general tone of this motion, we have a motion that was to follow recommending that the powers of the minister should go away ten years after the anniversary date of the agreement, which would mean in about 18 months. Mr. Elley's motion says that the authority of the minister should expire after five years, ours that it should expire in 18 months. I'd like to move a subamendment to say that after three years the powers of the minister would cease.

The Chair: The amendment refers to the powers of the minister being withdrawn after five years, and the subamendment says after three years.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's right, after three years.

The Chair: We have to deal with the subamendment first.

Mr. Reed Elley: Do you need a seconder for that motion?

The Chair: I haven't been receiving the seconders. If you want me to—

Mr. Reed Elley: I second it. I agree with it.

The Chair: Do you wish to withdraw yours?

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, Mr. Martin and I collaborated on this ahead of time, and I certainly agree that a compromise could be reached here, and three years would be fine with me.

The Chair: If you request that we withdraw your amendment, I'm prepared to call the question on it. Are you prepared? Yes.

So I'm asking my colleagues if they agree that Mr. Elley's amendment be withdrawn. Those in favour of withdrawing the amendment. There's only one. You know, we can do anything with 50% plus one. We're taking an amendment....

Okay. We're bogging down. Never mind. We'll deal with the subamendment. I'm not getting in trouble like this morning's. I'm making a decision, we are dealing with the subamendment of—

You have a point of order?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I'm wondering, if the mover of the motion wants to withdraw it, whether we need to even vote on it.

The Chair: Yes, we do, because once the chair accepts a motion or an amendment, it no longer belongs to the mover, it belongs to the floor. That's why I asked the floor if they were prepared to remove it.

So we are dealing with Mr. Martin's subamendment.

An hon. member: Which is doing what?

The Chair: Mr. Martin, before you speak to your subamendment, would you repeat it, please?

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

The subamendment that we would move differs from the amendment we were going to move. It doesn't change any of the language in Mr. Elley's main motion, other than to reduce the five years to three years. In other words, three years after this act becomes law the powers of the minister within the act would disappear. That power would then revert to the Government of Nunavut.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it's just “three” instead of “five” inserted into Reed's motion?

The Chair: Mr. Elley's amendment speaks of removing it at five years. Mr. Martin's subamendment speaks of three years. If this carries, three years becomes the amendment to be dealt with before we deal with the main motion.

The Chair: Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: I certainly support this, as the original mover of the five-year period. We heard extensive testimony from our witnesses that this was a real problem for them. We're all very eager and concerned to give our native peoples the right of self-government and self-determination under the law. By doing this, we allow them to have had, in a sense, a grace period of some eight or nine years working under the Water Board. They've had a lot of experience, they know what they're doing, they don't need to be second-guessed by the minister, and he's got a lot of other important things to do. It would've saved us a whole bunch of time we wasted this morning if we'd had this as the only amendment. So quite frankly, I think we should move with this and be prepared to support it.

• 1535

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I'll defer to the officials on this, in case I get it wrong. The people who were complaining weren't complaining that the minister had the decision. It was the fact that the Water Board didn't have the decision. What will happen is that when the devolution—the agreement I tabled this morning, actually, for the Yukon—comes through for Nunavut, then this authority will automatically be transferred, with a whole bunch of other things that go along with it, the whole legal regime. It would make chaos to put in an artificial date of five years if it got transferred before the agreement. The Government of Nunavut, I think, understood that and made that point during their presentation. It's going to just be transferred automatically when all those powers of land and resources are transferred to the Government of Nunavut. To take this one thing out individually just would make legal chaos. I don't know if that's right or not.

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop, that's been addressed to you.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would make three points. First, there is a technical problem with the amendment, in that it refers to issuance of licences by the government. The government does not, the minister does not today issue licences, it's the Water Board. It's only approval that rests with the minister.

Mr. Reed Elley: That's why it says “to approve” the issuance of licences.

Mr. Will Dunlop: It says the issuance of licences shall rest with the government, and it doesn't.

Mr. Reed Elley: No, it says “approved”, sir.

The Chair: Just a moment, we'll ask our researcher what it says.

Ms. Mary Hurley: Line 4 of the amendment proposed by Mr. Elley says issuance of licences shall go to the Government of Nunavut, not the approval of the issuance of licences.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: My point was just going to be about devolution and how it might interfere with the dates, impossible dates that might conflict with the actual negotiations that are going on about devolution.

The Chair: Anyone else on the subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: We are now dealing with the amendment, which speaks of five years.

Mr. Elley, do you wish to speak on that?

Mr. Reed Elley: We're dealing with my motion now, are we?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, it seems there's no will in the committee to move with this, which I'm sorry about. I think we should be allowing our native people to have more say over their affairs. I'm not sure of the ramifications of the devolution at some point and how long that's going to take to come into force. We don't know about that. How long did it take the Yukon thing to devolve? I'm just wondering if we can afford to wait that long for our native people. I'd like to hear what Nancy has to say, as she represents those people, and the department officials.

The Chair: Do you want to direct that to Mr. Dunlop?

Mr. Reed Elley: Yes, if Nancy—

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I guess there are two things. The notion of sunsetting the minister's ability was raised by witnesses as an option. If the committee would not consider amending the bill to put a limit of time on the minister, then maybe they could put in sunsetting. The committee has just adopted a time limitation on the minister, and now I think we might not need sunsetting, with the notion of Nunavut and devolution. In my mind, the way I'm reading this, it looks as if the minister's ability would sunset after five years. He could not devolve it, because he would not have it, but once devolution occurred, the Government of Nunavut could reactivate it. I don't know how that would work. If he doesn't have it, he can't devolve it.

The Chair: Any other comments?

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

• 1540

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: In the last sentence, where the issuance of licence shall rest with the Government of Nunavut, I think that's also taking the power away from the Water Board anyway. But I still have the same concerns about devolution. I think it will just make it more difficult to negotiate devolution. That is something I feel the Government of Nunavut can work out on their own with the different boards. It's not just the Nunavut Water Board at the time of devolution.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Do we have other amendments on clause 56?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Without going through all the reasons that have already been outlined, I do have a motion to present that's similar, that Bill C-33 in clause 56 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 23 the following, a new subclause (5):

The powers of the minister under this section shall cease 10 years after the coming into force of the agreement.

The Chair: Do we need to go through the motions? Mr. Martin, would you accept that I go directly to the vote, or do want to debate it?

Mr. Pat Martin: I actually have a new argument I'd like to introduce, as it affects this motion more than the one we just dealt with.

It was the feeling of witnesses who came to the committee that nothing in this bill should in any way contradict the original agreement. Article 13 of the agreement says the NWB will approve applications for use of water etc.—not the minister, not even the Government of Nunavut, but the Water Board. Therefore, on the 10th anniversary—I think it was July 1993 that the agreement was signed— we would like to see the minister's authority disappear. In about 18 months, then, the powers of the minister under this section shall cease, ten years after the coming into force of the agreement, and then it is silent as to where those powers will reside. In fact, they will reside with the Nunavut Water Board, whereas Mr. Elley's motion, which we just voted down, said that whenever the minister loses the ability to veto these licences, the power will then reside with the Government of Nunavut. No. We're saying let's pass legislation that's in keeping with the original agreement signed in 1993.

The Chair: Is that it, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's it.

The Chair: Okay. Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Do we have other amendments on clause 56?

(Clause 56 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 76—Security)

The Chair: We have an amendment from the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The amendment simply is that clause 76 be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 30 with the following:

and maintain security with the Minister

(a) in a amount prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations; and

(b) in the form, of the nature and subject to such terms and conditions prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, or that are satisfactory to the minister.

I guess this just makes it clear, and you have some written argument or comment to this point as well, in respect to subclause (1), provision of security. The proposed amendment would make it clear that subject to the regulations, only the Water Board has the authority to fix the amount of security provided by an applicant, licensee, or prospective assignee. This amendment would confirm that the other characteristics of the security would be established in one of two ways: in accordance with the regulations, or in another manner that satisfies the minister. The amendment would also make it conform with the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Yukon Waters Act, make it consistent with the respective subsections 17(1) of those acts.

• 1545

We had some conversation before, and I think the concern from the department was with this proposal. I would appreciate it if Mr. Dunlop would respond to that. Does it seem to meet the kinds of tests we were talking about the other day, so that there is a deposit, and if there's a transfer over to somebody else, they get that guarantee or that security from the new owner or the person taking over?

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Thank you.

I could characterize the amendment suggestion as perfectly acceptable. I hope it accomplishes the same thing our clause 76 does. No one's contesting that it's the board that sets the amount of security, and no one's suggesting that it's other than the minister who deals with the form of the security, stocks, bonds, promissory notes, whatever form the security takes. Is someone suggesting that it doesn't read that way?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's bringing it into consistency with the others. Again, we talked about this one, we went through for hours on end this morning to try to keep it uniform in wording and intent, so that the department is not having a whole range of things—this applies here, and we have some other different notion over on this particular territory. So I think it basically puts it in conformity with those sections that pertain here in the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Yukon Waters Act.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I think the wording does the same thing as the bill. I defer to the members of the committee, but they're both the same, I hope. They look the same. The effect is the same.

The Chair: I won't get into the area of not accepting the motion because it says the same thing that is in there, so as not to go through what I went through this morning, but I'll leave it open to discussion.

Does anyone else wish to comment on this issue?

Mr. Vellacott, do you have a closing statement?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just simply, I think it makes it very clear that the Water Board is the one with the authority to fix that amount, and again, I think it is just synchronizing. It must be a bit of a headache for department officials to wonder if there are some slightly different nuances or things applying in different acts around the country. I would think that by making it conform to those other acts, we get some expeditious use of department time, as they know they're dealing with the same situation and they can cross-reference, and there's precedent or whatever in other contexts as well. So I would appeal on that basis.

As the department official indicated, it's not undermining anything there, it's certainly doing no worse, and it's as good. I would still maintain that it's probably a good and wise move and a prudent thing to do.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you ready for the question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Are there other amendments on clause 76?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have another one there, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It would be to replace lines 7 to 13 on page 31 with the following:

Where the Minister is satisfied that an appurtenant undertaking has been permanently closed or permanently abandoned or a licence has been assigned, any portion of the security that, in the Minister's opinion, will not be applied under subsection (2) shall without delay be returned to the licensee where paragraph (a) applies, or to the assignor where paragraph (b) applies.

With this particular one, I guess it's the concern of companies that they be able to, at a point, get their security back, as its being assigned, they've sold off to somebody else. There's also the provision that with the new person taking over their responsibilities or purchasing that particular operation, the Water Board would then require from them a security. It only makes sense that the original company should get theirs back, but obviously the department would not allow for the new one to go forward or proceed unless they had a security from this new mining company, or whoever the entity would be now. I think that makes perfect sense. The original company put that security down, and now they're stepping off the scene. They don't issue the new licence until they get another security, but from somebody else now, and the old company get theirs returned to them. That's the intent of that.

• 1550

Again I would invite Mr. Dunlop's comments, or Brian's, with respect to that. In your view, or the view of the legal people, is that what we're establishing?

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The amendment suggestion is again, hopefully, reflecting exactly what we're trying to accomplish with clause 76. When the original licensee assigns the licence, he will be the recipient of the refund. He is the licensee we're talking about.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So where do you find this already represented? I'm not quite clear on that. I'm not at all sure that's the case.

Mr. Will Dunlop: It has to be returned to the licensee without delay. That is the security we'll be holding and that is the security we have to return.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What line are you reading?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's the last line of subclause (5). That is exactly the way we want it to work. If a licence is assigned, the security is returned to the original licence-holder.

The Chair: Any other comments on the amendment?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was just going to ask if the researcher could comment on that.

The Chair: Any other comments on the amendment?

Mr. Vellacott, your closing remarks.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can I ask if the researcher has a comment on that with respect to the legal tightness of it.

Ms. Mary Hurley: I'm assuming that the licensee is the original licensee, and therefore I assume that the licensee is the same as the assignor, so the effect would be the same. In other words, the original licensee is both the licensee in your amendment and the assignor in your amendment. It would one and the same person.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you feel it's tight enough as it's stated now? When it's changing hands, going to somebody new, the person moving out of the scene wants to get the security back.

Ms. Mary Hurley: The only word that is missing there.... It's a matter of interpretation; the person who originally obtained the licence is the licensee. I'm assuming that it's clear it's the original licensee who is being referred to here.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just put it forward. I think it makes it absolutely clear that this individual would be receiving it back, and there would be no tangle.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 76 agreed to)

(On Clause 77—Permission to expropriate)

The Chair: We have an amendment on clause 77. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is with respect to replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 32 with the following:

that person, for a period not exceeding the number of hours determined by the arbitration board, having regard to the nature of the disagreement, unless the parties agree to....

As things stand, it seems you have a scenario where it's eight hours and that's the maximum. Those who deal with negotiations and so on say you wouldn't want it to fail for cramping them to that degree, especially up in the north. It appears the arbitration board can't authorize that negotiation to carry on for a period of more than eight hours. Sometimes these are complex kinds of things that have to be dealt with. If the limitation were to apply, it could well defeat the purpose of the legislation.

• 1555

So we're just making an appeal here for them to have some flexibility and greater discretion, rather than just having the pressure cooker, having to get it done and decided within the eight hours. The committee will have to decide if you want it in that pressure cooker and it's got to be all done in eight hours. But I would think that some discretion should be allowed, and that's the point of the amendment here.

The Chair: Any other comments or questions? Do you want closing remarks?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, Will had some comments the other day on this whole thing. I would appreciate it if he would make your remarks. It may sink my amendment again, but so be it. We need the wisdom out here. You seemed to understand Mr. Dunlop, the other day that somehow this eight hours may be a little different from the way I was interpreting it.

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Thank you.

I wonder if the wording wasn't so long that we lost track of what we originally were trying to accomplish. We're not trying to force two parties in a dispute to sit forever in front of a negotiator. Unless they have agreed otherwise, he only bills them for eight hours. They only have to sit there for eight hours. The negotiator is working beforehand to prepare for that eight hours, and he's working afterwards to do his report and arrive at a decision. The eight hours is just the maximum you sit there unless you agree to sit longer. I hope it's clear to people when they read subparagraph 77(4)(a)(ii) that they can agree to longer.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They can agree to longer? How do you say that?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It says, “unless the parties agree to an extension”. The parties can agree to an extension. If they don't, eight hours is the maximum.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You must have both of them?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Correct. They can agree to meet for weeks if they wish—it's unlikely, but they can agree to anything beyond eight hours, if they both agree.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question? Mr. Vellacott, is it fair to call the question?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I think so. In those cases I think you could go a little longer, and if they're both agreed that they are going to go longer, they're obviously as good as there already. But in some other instances I think it would take longer. I'm just appealing for that. Eight hours, I know, was suggested, the length of a normal work day, but I would think to give them the discretion to go longer in the words I have here would be a good idea.

The Chair: Ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 77 agreed to)

(On Clause 78—Public Register)

The Chair: On clause 78 we have an amendment. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is just trying to get us into the electronic age here, so that people don't always have to be right in attendance at the board office itself, but they can have access to this as they're doing an electronic search.

I guess as well, the board's office is supposedly remaining at Gjoa Haven. It's recommended that specific provision be made for electronic access to the water register, as well as public access by personal attendance. That access would be arranged through the Internet, and would expedite the preparation of applications by licensees and allow applicants, licensees, and interested members of the public to monitor water use applications and water licences on a continual basis, without undue expense or inconvenience.

So it's helpful to those businesses, companies, and others who may have an interest in making an issue of a possible situation, and they can have access by electronic means. I think in the north the great distances, the awkwardness, the difficulty of travel, and so on would be helped greatly by this. I can't see why we'd have a problem, personally. I don't know that the department people necessarily should or would have one. Is it hard to get technology and all that stuff up there?

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

• 1600

Mr. Will Dunlop: I don't think it's any more difficult to get the technology, and I'd personally be pleased if the Water Board were able to use the Internet. I just think the amendment is unnecessary. In other words, this does not prescribe that the board only has to use a ledger or a public register. It can be in the form of a book. It can be in the form of a notice board. It can be in the form of maps. It certainly can be in the form of an Internet page. They can do it in more forms than one. More importantly, because clause 78 says “shall”, the day you enact it they have to be on the Internet, or they can't meet the requirements of the law. Because it's a “shall” and it doesn't specify which way they have to do it, they can use the Internet tomorrow, if they can get it up and running.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I have a technical question. When you go a little further to subclause (3), it says:

The Board shall, on request and on payment of the fee fixed by the Board, make available copies of information contained in the register.

No one is going to pay the fee if they can get it on the Internet, so I don't know if that's conflicting with subclause (3). Am I reading it incorrectly?

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm not a web page designer, but if you had an Internet page that said, on a certain application we have these five supporting documents, so click on one, and the first thing you're to give is your Visa card number, then you could pay for it in that way. You might have to identify what the information is, but you don't have to give it. You just identify a file.

All I'm saying is that we're not telling the board they have to be on the Internet, and you don't tell the board they can't be on the Internet. They can be already, but if you enact it, the day it comes into force, they have to be. If you adopt the motion, they have to be on the Internet, and that's a little tough, I think.

The Chair: Any other questions or comments?

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I agree with your sentiment, but all it says now is that there has to be a register, it doesn't limit you to any way. It could be on the Internet electronically. Your amendment actually limits it to in-person and electronic. So I think what you want can be done now, and yours would actually limit it. They can create the register any way they want right now. It just says to create a register.

The Chair: Okay. Any other comments or questions?

Mr. Vellacott, closing remarks.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure this at all ties their hands if they want to post it around in some remote places, but if people, companies from Calgary, Edmonton, wherever in the country, are trying to get in there to do business, and they've got to make a trip up there costing several thousand dollars for an airplane every time, because there's some manual registry.... I agree that it's not saying you can't do these things, but it doesn't say you have to either. So five years down the road they could stay with the manual system, so that you've got to make a plane trip up there every time to check it out. If you're talking about getting business going up there, getting commercial interests moving into that area, I think it would make a lot of sense to allow it electronically.

If this bill passes, gets consent in both Houses, and some weeks later receives royal assent, it doesn't take forever to get a web page designer up and moving on this. If this is approved today, and they can assume it's going to get passed in the House, that the Liberal government majority is going to take it through, they can begin to work at that, and it's not going to take forever to get it together. Anything is possible, they can do anything they want, but I want to ensure that it's happening sooner, rather than later. As it stands, there's nothing that motivates or necessarily drives them that way. I want to suggest that in the act we should get at that. I want the opportunity for business and commercial interests, for the good of the people up in Nunavut, to move in there in a more expeditious manner. My intent is to help the jobs, the employment, the economic opportunity to be created in a more speedy manner by way of this kind of amendment.

The Chair: That closes debate on the amendment to clause 78.

(Amendment negatived).

• 1605

(Clause 78 agreed to)

(On clause 81—Appeal to Federal Court)

The Chair: We have an amendment.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: This one is just correcting the other amendment I made about 45 days, so that it's consistent with clause 56, where we changed it to 45 days.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We have another amendment on clause 81, but I think it becomes redundant.

(Clause 81 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 82—Regulations)

The Chair: We have an amendment from Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Clause 82 says the Governor in Council, under direction of the minister, has the right to regulate fees associated with the use of water or putting waste into water under licence. It doesn't exclude land owned by Inuit people. We believe that as the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 specifically makes reference to that, this clause would derogate the right under that act. If there is a non-derogation clause in the act, it should do just that, make sure that nothing in the work we're doing today in any way affects the rights currently enjoyed by the people in the area. So we recommend that Bill C-33 in clause 82 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 37 with the following:

waste in waters under a licence, except waters on, in, or flowing through Inuit-owned land.

We heard witnesses, Mr. Chair, who pointed out that Inuit people on their own land could in fact be levied a fee for producing bottled water as an economic development initiative and selling it to people in southern Canada, or making ice cubes, making the ice in their hockey rinks. If they take water out of a river, they can be charged a fee payable to the Government of Canada to use their own water. I think this, more than anything else, flies directly in the face of the whole purpose and stated intent of this bill, which is to transfer the land use water rights to the people of Nunavut. I feel very strongly that even though we haven't had a great batting average with the amendments we've been putting forward as the opposition members today, this clause should be adopted, to ensure that the people of Nunavut on Inuit-owned land do have use of their own water.

The Chair: Thank you. You will have the last word on this amendment.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chairman, as you'll see, I submitted an amendment similar to Mr. Martin's, basically for the very same reasons. We heard from witnesses that this was a concern in Nunavut. I think we should be as flexible as possible in offering people in Nunavut the opportunity to manage their own affairs, rather than be obstructionist in any way at all. So I would certainly support this motion, and I hope the committee would too.

• 1610

The Chair: For your information, Mr. Elley, I submitted an amendment that is identical. Therefore, the vote on this amendment will apply.

Does anyone else have questions or clarifications?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just in case there's any soft vote out there that might still be tottering either way, I did actually find the clause I was making reference to in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It was article 20.2.2, which gives “the exclusive right to the use of water on, in, or flowing through Inuit Owned Lands” to Inuit people. I think it's really quite clear that not only is the idea of the minister setting regulatory fees from Ottawa for people using water in Nunavut offensive—that's overstating things, and I'll try not to overstate things as much as I usually do—it's not in keeping with the spirit of this particular bill for the minister in Ottawa or the Governor in Council to be setting fees for simple water use on Inuit-owned land. So I would appeal to the members opposite to allow this particular amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 82 agreed to)

The Chair: Now we're going to clause 171. I'm sorry, that's been dealt with.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: You may well be right, but I wasn't allowed to say it then, so I guess I better make sure we do it right. On clause 171—

The Chair: It was pulled. Unless you have an amendment to it, I'll ask—

Mr. John Finlay: I have an amendment.

The Chair: You do. There we go.

Mr. John Finlay: It is that Bill C-33 in clause 171 be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page—

The Chair: Just a moment, did you give us a copy, a warning of this, or...?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

The Chair: Do we have that in front of us?

Mr. John Finlay: You should have.

The Chair: No, we don't have it.

Mr. John Finlay: I have it in English and French.

The Chair: Do you think you can explain it to the committee very clearly?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, let's make an attempt.

Mr. John Finlay: It's on subclause (3):

...to the extent that the approval would have been valid under this Act, to have been validly given under this Act, with the exception of subclause 56(2.2).

This involves consequential provisions and so on, and there's one outstanding item that we don't want to have dropped between the old bill and the new.

The Chair: We will start the informal discussion, and we'll ask someone to get us copies. It's in both official languages.

• 1615

Mr. Finlay, we'll have copies in three minutes, if you would turn over yours.

There's an indication to me that it should relate to the amendment in clause 56, and it doesn't seem to be clear that it does.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I was just going to ask you, Mr. Chair, if we could ask the department officials, because it's for the department to clarify the amendment and explain what it is all about.

The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Clause 171 is a clause where, upon enactment, the bill makes the previous decisions of the Water Board valid, so they aren't called into question. We have one decision upon enactment. If it's left the way it is, you end up having the enactment of the bill make valid the Iqaluit water licence issued by the board that hasn't been allowed by the minister. Because we've now put a time limit in clause 56 on amendment, we now have to put a reference in clause 171 to make sure all the decisions except that one are rendered valid upon enactment.

The numbering of clause 56 got changed. I wonder if I can ask the researcher whether we now have it right. Have we got the right reference to subclause 56(2.2), or do we just say clause 56? I'm sorry to throw it to you. I think we've got it right.

Ms. Mary Hurley: The intent, I assume, is to make sure that the deeming part is inapplicable to that decision, because the minister didn't make a decision within.... I guess it depends on the drafting, Mr. Dunlop. Did I hear Mr. Finlay say, except a decision under subsection (2.2)?

Mr. John Finlay: No, with the exception of subsection.... I've got subsection 56(2).... Because we broke that....

Mr. Will Dunlop: I think we want to capture subclause 56(2) as well, so that his failure to meet 45 days or another 45 days is also acknowledged in clause 171.

Ms. Mary Hurley: Acknowledged in what way?

Mr. Will Dunlop: In the amendment I think it's proper to say “with the exception of subsections 56(2), 56(2.1), and 56(2.2)”.

The Chair: It'll be easier for my colleagues when we have the amendment in front of us.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I apologize to the committee. When the motion for clause 56 went all over the room, so did this one.

The Chair: We're not going to let it loose.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chair, this is a very technical amendment. I don't think there's any opposition to it. You might call for the vote.

The Chair: Are you calling for the question?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 171 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Schedule 2 agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have another bill coming, and, I understand, possibly another one yet. Therefore, when we get to clause-by-clause, consider the work we could save if we start talking early on about our amendments, share with the opposition. Let's work together. You're an excellent committee, and I think by working together, we can do a lot more work.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

The meeting is adjourned.