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 16, 2001

• 1100

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Just as a formality, I'll call the meeting to order.

I will suspend proceedings until we have more members. This is my way of putting on record that I'm on time.

• 1101

• 1109

The Chair: We'll resume proceedings. The order of the day is Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We are here to hear from the Municipality of Iqaluit, Mayor John Matthews.

Mayor, we'll ask you at this point whether you wish your CAO, Mr. Rick Butler, to be part of your delegation in full participation or wish to do this alone. The choice is yours.

Mr. John Matthews (Mayor of Iqaluit): Thank you very much. I would prefer Mr. Butler to be part of the delegation.

The Chair: So be it.

I would like to thank you, before we start, for accepting our invitation on short notice. This committee is very conscious of taxpayers' dollars. You have accommodated the taxpayers by agreeing to be here today, because your input is very important. You were in town for other reasons, so we really appreciate your cooperation.

• 1110

This is the first meeting I am chairing with this committee. To my colleagues, I will try to be as fair as I can. I will verify with you the proceedings I will use. If any member feels he or she doesn't have the opportunity for input, please let me know.

When I say four minutes or five minutes or 25 minutes, I like to follow the watch. If we say four minutes—and I'd like to suggest that for the first round, but there will be more than one round—the four minutes includes questions and answers. I can tell you that in the past we have had occasions when we only heard the question, because there was not enough time for the answer. I nonetheless like to ask long questions.

To you, our guests, if I happen to do that—and I'll try not to today, I think we have enough time—the trick is, if you don't have time to give the answer on this question, sneak it in as an answer to the next question, no matter what it is. At the end you will have an opportunity to close.

I would ask you to make a presentation of around ten minutes, and a few minutes more if you need them.

Mr. John Matthews: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting us to participate and appear before you.

This issue is very real and very important to the residents of Iqaluit, and during the hearing I'll be able to demonstrate exactly how it is affecting us.

The city of Iqaluit is the capital of the Nunavut Territory. Our population has grown rapidly since the creation of Nunavut and now stands at over 6,000 citizens, approximately one quarter of the total population of Nunavut.

Our submissions today are concerned strictly with part I of Bill C-33, which establishes the legislative framework for protecting Nunavut waters.

Under clause 11 of the proposed act, the city will require a licence to use waters for the purposes of providing a municipal water supply. Under clause 12, the city may require a licence to deposit waste in waters or in any other place in which waste may enter waters. Until the creation of the Nunavut Territory, the city was subject to comparable licensing requirements in the Northwest Territories. The last licence to be granted by the Northwest Territories Water Board and approved by the minister was issued on January 1, 1996. Water licensing in Nunavut was transferred in 1996 to the Nunavut Water Board, in accordance with article 13 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

The Nunavut Water Board has issued two licences to the city, on December 31, 1999 and December 31, 2000. Neither licence was approved by the minister. The committee may be aware that this has now become a contentious issue between the board and the minister.

Before going any further, we would like the committee to appreciate that the city is subject to other environmental regulations in addition to the licences issued by the Nunavut Water Board. The activities of the city in areas of water supply and distribution, waste water collection and treatment, and waste management are also subject to territorial statutes and regulations administered by the Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development and the Nunavut Department of Health and Social services.

We wish to draw the committee's attention to our experiences over the last few years with the Nunavut Water Board. We do so with the greatest respect for the dedicated members of the board who have the best interests of our fragile Arctic environment at heart. Our primary concern is that the board needs a supervisory jurisdiction of the honourable Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We strongly support the inclusion in Bill C-33 of clause 56, which makes significant licences like ours subject to the approval of the minister.

We have two primary concerns with the board over the last few years. Our first concern is with the board's determination to impose onerous and expensive requirements on our municipality without any regard to the availability of resources to pay for those requirements. The second is the board's willingness to extend its jurisdiction over Nunavut waters to include matters that fall outside its mandate and expertise. The board seems to want to become the Nunavut Environmental Protection Agency.

• 1115

In 1999 we applied for a six-year extension of the licence previously issued by the Northwest Territories Water Board. The board granted us a one-year licence, which included the following conditions.

The first condition was the inspection by a qualified geotechnical engineer of the dam that creates our water-supplied lake and the dikes of our sewage lagoon. We have never received a satisfactory rationale for these requirements, other than that the board thought it would be a good idea. We know no evidence that would suggest a problem. These inspections are now costing us approximately $35,000, which we had not planned for in our budgets for either of the years 2000 or 2001.

The second condition was that there be a hydrological assessment of the watershed feeding our water supply. We understand the board's concern with planning for future water supplies to serve our growing population. We are also concerned with long-term supply issues and scheduled a broader study to look at these issues. That work is proceeding now. The board required that the work be done in 2000, but we didn't allocate any money in our 2000 year budget.

The third condition was that there be an investigative monitoring program to determine the relationship between burning at our landfill site and Nunavut waters. We understood the intent of the study to be the gathering of evidence to determine whether the board could exert jurisdiction over burning. We were advised that such a study would take several years to complete at a cost in excess of $100,000. Again this was an expenditure for which we had not budgeted in the year 2000.

There were many other conditions that caused us deep concern. We were advised that we could seek a judicial review of the board's decision in the Federal Court. We did not wish to do so at that time.

In the year 2000 we attempted to take a more proactive position with the board. We applied for a five-year licence. We retained legal counsel to represent the city before the board. We worked hard to address the board's concern in a manner that we could afford. At the end of the day we found ourselves with a three-year licence that contained a number of issues we could still not live with.

For example, the board prescribed specific conditions about how burning of waste at our landfill site may take place. As of June 1, 2001, open burning was to be limited to food waste, paper products, paper board packaging, and untreated wood.

While we share the board's desire to eliminate burning as a waste management practice, we are in no position to do so because we are rapidly running out of space to put garbage. The board's restriction would have required us to institute a system for separating or sorting waste that no other municipality in Canada has implemented.

We are at a loss as to how the board's jurisdiction over Nunavut waters can be used to justify conditions regulating the burning of waste. We are gratified that the minister agreed with this concern and refused to approve the licence.

We are very concerned that the board seems to be taking a stand that any new facility for the disposal of solid waste is subject to its approval. We are proposing to construct a modern waste incinerator if we can secure funding assistance. We do not believe that the approval of that incinerator should be subject to the approval of the Nunavut Water Board.

The City of Iqaluit has been willing to work cooperatively with the Nunavut Water Board to protect the water resources of our small part of Nunavut. It has become clear to us over the last few years that the board does not have the ability to balance its desire to do everything possible to protect the environment of Nunavut with the harsh economic realities we are faced with as a municipal government.

We believe it is essential that the legislation that will finally provide the board with a clear mandate and that will provide certainty in water licensing contain ministerial approval authority over the important board licence.

This is consistent with legislation governing the other water boards across northern Canada. We strongly support the inclusion of section 66 in Bill C-33.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

If my colleagues agree, we'll do a first round of four minutes. I think most questions will be technical, but we will do more than one round.

First Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Butler, for being here today.

I wanted first to ask the general question, what does the denial of a water licence mean for Iqaluit at this point, in practical terms? What position does that put you in?

• 1120

Mr. John Matthews: I think it's probably relevant for me to raise the fact that a resident of Iqaluit recently took the municipality to court to seek an injunction to prevent the city from burning garbage. It was his position that the municipality was breaking the law. The judge recently came down with her decision, in which she didn't approve the application for an injunction but she concluded in her decision that she would entertain an application from the applicant to revisit the issue as of December of this year if the city has not stopped burning by that point.

So in answer to your question, if we are not given the licence or if the licence is not amended to allow us to burn as we are burning now, we are breaking the law.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So as things stand you would be in a liable position from the point of view that your people in the city and others could be sued if you don't have a licence.

Mr. John Matthews: As it stands, if the Federal Court decides that the water board has the right to issue the licence—and this is the second court case that's going on at the time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let me go back to that sequence and let me see if I have it right here, and I'll do a little speculating as I go along too.

So the board tells Iqaluit that it gets a water licence only if it stops burning the garbage—that would be a a first point here. And to do that kind of testing they have the authority of Bill C-51 and Bill C-33. So Iqaluit can't do that. It doesn't have an incinerator, as you said.

And thirdly, Iqaluit asks the feds for money for an incinerator. The feds say no. DIAND tells the board that it has denied a licence to Iqaluit. As a reslut of this, they're not boxed in so much, not having paid for an incinerator. And then DIAND tells the board that it has no authority to regulate the open burning, which really seems to be the point of the real issue here, the underlying jurisdictional issue.

So the feds want to retain jurisdiction in order to retain power for its own sake and also to avoid being boxed in and forced to fund all manner of things like incinerators, etc.

Is that a fairly accurate tracing of the development of things?

Mr. John Matthews: I think that's correct. I think it's important to realize that we do have a water licence that was issued by the Nunavut Water Board. It hasn't been signed off by the minister. The water licence was given to it although we haven't met with some of their terms and conditions.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it's definitely a jurisdictional issue, and the water board is pushing it to see how far they can have additional powers in effect that they never got under Bill C-51 and they're hoping to get now. So we're really into that as we look at this bill before us now.

Mr. John Matthews: I think that's a very clear analysis, yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Vellacott. Do you have a built-in clock? You're just under the time. Great.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): That's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Grey. The documents are not signed, but this is an information session, and unless anyone objects, I invite you to participate fully.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, PC/DR): Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's interesting. It seems that the whole bureaucratic maze is making life difficult for everybody. Would we assume that?

Mr. John Matthews: Very much so.

Miss Deborah Grey: And you have a garbage dump that is getting beyond the pile.

Mr. John Matthews: We are burning at this point.

Miss Deborah Grey: And is that totally legal?

Mr. John Matthews: If the Federal Court decides that the water board does have the jurisdiction to issue the licence, then no, we are breaking the law.

Miss Deborah Grey: Who is sitting on the present Nunavut Water Board, and by whom are they appointed or elected?

Mr. John Matthews: They are appointed, and it's my understanding they're appointed by the minister of DIAND on the recommendation of the territorial government.

Is that correct, Mr. Butler?

Miss Deborah Grey: And the NTI.

Mr. John Matthews: And the NTI.

• 1125

Miss Deborah Grey: So the feds appoint a board who are looking after water licences, but you're in a squabble with them right now vis-à-vis licences, garbage burning, etc., and that's all subject to the minister. How then is Bill C-33 going to help it? Is that going off someplace else in the triangle now? How will it be different?

Mr. John Matthews: Bill C-33 would define that the minister has the right to issue the licence. At this point in time NTI is seeking a judicial review with the Federal Court to determine who really has the authority to issue the licence. NTI believes that under the land claims agreement it has the authority, that it, the water board, has the right to issue the licences. The minister doesn't feel that this is so. So it may well be that after the Federal Court renders its decision the case may be appealed to see who has the jurisdictional authority to regulate the water.

Miss Deborah Grey: So while that is all going on, now there are the 6,000 souls who live there who are paying the taxes. How will that affect the tax base? You said something was $35,000. A further study would be $100,000 plus. How much would that make your mill rate go up for the taxpayers there to say you're going to fund some of this stuff?

Mr. John Matthews: We have just increased the mill rate, and it's very probable that we will need to increase it again for next year. We've spent in the neighbourhood of $200,000 at various regulatory and court proceedings.

Miss Deborah Grey: You'll be on the hook for these other court cases if you lose?

Mr. John Matthews: We could very well be, yes. And as I mentioned previously, the applicant who was seeking an injunction to stop the burning has full intention of revisiting the issue in December.

Miss Deborah Grey: You also said that hopefully this Bill C-33 would be consistent with all other municipalities. Yours is the only one that's being singled out here somehow?

Mr. John Matthews: Yes, that's correct. As the capital, it is the biggest community and also it's the only community that has a tax base it can derive revenues from.

Mr. Butler.

Mr. Rick Butler (Chief Administrative Officer, Municipality of Iqaluit): The point is well made. We're one of 27 communities, and our project alone, Miss Grey, will be approximately $13 million, so you can imagine if this rule were to apply to all the other 26 communities, it would be a horrendous cost to the taxpayer.

Miss Deborah Grey: For sure.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm from your sister territory in the Yukon, and I worked for the municipality. I apologize, but may I ask a question that is going to help me personally?

We're in the process of devolving the remaining federal powers to the Yukon, which might happen in the next six months. As a result of that, the water board, which is now, as you explained—I think yours is anyway—federally constituted, will become territorially constituted and under their authority and control. And as you know, the territorial governments pay for municipalities by and large, so the organization that has to pay for the municipalities is then going to be regulating them. So they would be not so foolish as to put in untenable regulations, because they're ultimately going to have to pay for them. Do you think that will be good for us, and would it be a solution for your situation as well?

Mr. John Matthews: It would not be the territorial government that would be doing the regulating; it would be a creature of the land claims agreement, so it would be independent from the territorial government.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I see.

Mr. John Matthews: Do you want to continue, Mr. Butler?

Mr. Rick Butler: I think Mr. Bagnell makes a very good point, and this is what we are trying to suggest, that a board can make all the decisions and regulatory prescriptions it wishes, but if there's no accountability for who pays, it makes it very difficult. So with the minister signing a licence, we were hoping to hold him maybe to account and maybe help support the financing of that regulatory decision. To me, it makes sense to apply that same thing in the Yukon. A regulatory regime would make more sense if they could look at the bottom line and be responsible for the financing of it as well as the regulation of it.

• 1130

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Yes, I'm all on your side. It's just that in our situation it's a bit different, because soon the minister won't have any access to funds or responsibility for funding, so the problems we're having with the minister giving licences will be the same problem you're having for a different reason. But you've got a very good case.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I also wanted to point out that it's different from other jurisdictions because we have a land claims agreement that this water board was created under. That is probably not the case for some of the other water boards across the north. There are other players in this also, with the Government of Nunavut, through their health office. That would add support to the fact that we need this legislation.

The agreement was signed in 1993 and the boards have been operating since 1995, without any legislation. We also have a board that has really been operating in limbo because they have no legislation to base their decisions on. Then you have the Government of Nunavut, with their health office issuing an order to the city also. So you have all these other elements in the picture that I think you've left out because they add to the picture of how difficult it is to operate with no legislation.

This licence was issued in January of this year, I believe, and none of this came to a head until August. Do you think there's any way some system could be set up with a time line of maybe 30 days or 60 days for this procedure, to nip things in the bud before they become real problems?

Mr. John Matthews: I think that's an excellent idea. Open-ended requirements, vis-à-vis time constraints, are a recipe for confusion and difficulty. I would very much like to see some type of timeline included in the legislation.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: What is the procedure now? When the licence was issued to you in January, what was your recourse then, when you knew it had huge capital implications? It still does. That's my first question.

Second, is the territorial government or the federal government obligated to help you meet the demands of the licence, or does it fall strictly on the town of Iqaluit to meet those demands? I think you said in your presentation that they're impossible to meet, unless you tax your citizens to the hilt.

Mr. John Matthews: I think I'll answer your second point first, if I may, and then I'll refer the first point to Mr. Butler.

The territorial government is very strapped for money. It just doesn't have the money. Its capital budget is very insignificant, so we cannot rely on the territorial government to provide funding assistance to help us with this problem.

One of the reasons why we are here is to try to approach different members of the government to try to secure funding directly from the federal government. But in answer to your question, even if the Government of Nunavut wanted to help us, they just wouldn't have the financial resources.

The Chair: Mr. Butler.

Mr. Rick Butler: Further to the mayor's remarks, the Government of Nunavut has committed $3.5 million. We still require $7.5 million to complete the project.

But to go back to Nancy's question about what we did after the decision was made, we were to first get a facility built, for which we didn't have $7.5 million. Secondly, we were to institute a recycling program in a four- to five-month period, which any place in Canada has taken three or four years to implement, only at a 50% success rate. Again, that's the sort of lack of reality in the regulatory decision we faced.

• 1135

The Chair: Now for the second round, three minutes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In view of the question Nancy asked here, would you say the odds are pretty good—if I can cut to the chase—that the conditions imposed by the minister are going to be no more stringent than what they can ultimately fund, because that's where the funding will probably have to come from? I'm not trying to be facetious. That's what it comes down to, does it not?

If they're going to impose really stringent conditions, you would say “Hey, help us out here. We're not in a position to hike mill rates to no end. We don't have the resources or funding to do it. You've got these conditions set for us, so please help us out. Please provide the funding through whatever department, so we can meet the conditions.”

Mr. John Matthews: I think that's fair.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That being the case, I guess I'll go along a different line. I tend to agree with most.... I think we have some qualifications with respect to it, but does it not make a bit of a conflict of interest then too, potentially?

Mr. John Matthews: Insofar as the government won't want to apply stringent regulations—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If they don't have the money for it, as you know, the tail can wag the dog here. If they don't have the money for it and are unprepared to provide it, then would they be more lax, in terms of what the conditions would be, than maybe they ought to be—theoretically or potentially?

The Chair: Mr. Butler.

Mr. Rick Butler: That's a very good question. I think we believed this whole infrastructure was built to regulate some huge multinational, multi-billion-dollar corporation investing in a mine or something like that, not a lowly municipality with a small tax rate.

To me, you're asking whether there should be a lessening of sections like section 73, which talks about this high standard that all should meet. Maybe there should be a discussion about affordability. There's no question there would be a conflict, but in this case we would welcome the conflict because we would hope the minister would empathize and support the decision made.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

I'm not sure if I'm out of time.

The Chair: You have about 45 seconds. We'll do another round.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Maybe you'll end up answering this later.

So the board members want powers broader than those presently given or delegated to them, by way of the bill. The minister obviously doesn't want to put himself in a box here, by way of conditions he can't meet. But in the midst of this, we're getting good science. I said it was only a theoretical possibility.

From your point of view, compared to other territories and elsewhere across Canada, we're letting the science do the job, in terms of what's really required. I guess that's what your expectation or hope would be. You're not looking for lower standards than what might give you good safe water, and so on. You're just saying you need it to be reasonable, in view of jurisdictions elsewhere in the country. You want the good science to kind of dictate the conditions for the licence.

Mr. John Matthews: That's very true. We want the best we can get for our community. It's just very unfortunate that part of the community is seeking legal recourse with us because we can't provide what we feel would be the best service to our community.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you suggesting the water board members themselves have not received good professional advice? I guess you are inferring that, if you think they're going beyond what they should. They are maybe not informed, not knowledgeable enough, going well beyond what reasonably would be required. They don't have good evidence, good qualified people for that board.

Mr. John Matthews: I don't think that's fair. I think they're extending what we feel is their jurisdictional responsibility. They're going beyond it, and feel they have the right to go beyond the limit we placed on their powers.

The Chair: Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.

Let me just jump off that and ask, if these changes are made through Bill C-33, will the present water board feel that their wings have been clipped somewhat?

• 1140

Mr. John Matthews: Sure, I would think so. I would definitely think so.

Miss Deborah Grey: Ultimately, along with Nancy's concern, and bringing up the issues of the NTI and others involved with the regulations put in place because of this legislation, would the NTI, the present water board, and the taxpayers think this is a healthy balance and striking of all the interests? Someone's going to have hurt feelings. How are we going to deal with it?

Mr. John Matthews: I'm not sure how far NTI wants to pursue the issue if the Federal Court does rule in favour of the government. They may say it's fine and they can live with it. They may want to pursue it at a higher level because they feel the land claims agreement has more superiority than Bill C-33.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes.

When you mentioned earlier that it was the only place around there subject to this, and when you talked about the Nunavut land claim, are there other places in Nunavut besides Iqaluit? Is this because it's the major centre that you're the ones in a crunch?

Mr. John Matthews: We're the ones in a crunch, but it may well be that all other communities, as Mr. Butler pointed out, will be facing the same issue. If the water board does have the right to issue the licence in the way they feel they have, then it's only a matter of time, I would suggest, before the water board is issuing similar licences to all the communities within Nunavut.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

You have seen this legislation come and go. This is the third kick at the can. Are you saying this should be passed?

Mr. John Matthews: Yes. Thank you.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: It was a good question.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Does this legislation overrule, or is it contrary to, the land claim?

Mr. John Matthews: NTI would suggest it is.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I know our land claims are constitutionally protected. They take precedence over other legislation. It might make it hard to get this through. Is that not a possibility?

Mr. John Matthews: I don't think it would be difficult to have this passed. I think the court may have the ultimate say on which piece of legislation has superiority.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Okay.

I have one last question for clarification. As Nancy said, you're in a different system, which I don't totally understand. If you had to do this, and in theory be faced with a bill for millions of dollars that you didn't have, would you have the same recourse other municipalities in Canada have? Would you basically hand the keys back to the territorial government and say they should run it?

Mr. John Matthews: We're a creature of the territorial government. They are responsible for us. I guess, ultimately, we could do it. We don't want to.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Of course.

The Chair: Are there other questions on this round?

Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm going to ask Mr. Butler a question. You had a specific recommendation. Is it possible to get it to the committee or to me, individually? I'm sure the others would be interested.

You mentioned some different conditions that would apply to a municipality, as opposed to a big mine with all the dollars it would bring in. Do you have specific recommendations? Would you be able to provide us with them? Can you live with what's there? Are you saying a particular section could change, modify, and might be helpful? Is it workable at all now?

Mr. John Matthews: I think even Mr. Bagnell will appreciate this from way back in Dawson City days.

We want to focus on part I, as the mayor has said. Clause 73 does talk about a parallel system. Regulations to the Fisheries Act will be the standard. We're a bit concerned.

For example, we have a sewage treatment plant putting untreated effluent into the water. We put in a new sewage treatment plant that meets the regulations of clause 73, but we may not be able to afford the regulation of it. We may need to come back to the water board and ask for some kind of a compromise to the standards.

It would be hard for me to bring in some sort of a two-level or two-tier regime of regulation. I think it would be something the committee should consider. We would love to help with it or talk further to the issue. We really weren't coming with that issue in mind, but it is an issue, I think, that faces every small community in the north.

• 1145

This committee, I understand, talks about consequential amendments to other legislation, and I'm not sure if the Fisheries Act was one the committee wanted to consider, but it would sure be helpful, I think, in some cases.

That's a very long answer to a very simple question, Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So if we pass it as is, you're going to live with that?

Mr. Rick Butler: We're probably going to have a hard time meeting the standard, affording the standard that's set in the Fisheries Act. We haven't worked through all the engineering and all the design to get to that conclusion, but we are fearful of the standards that are being set here.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Now you've gone into fisheries. Regardless of what happens related to all this, you still have to follow fishery regulations, which are probably far more stringent than these problems. You're right, in Dawson City we had Environment Canada and the RCMP come in and lay charges under the Fisheries Act. They're very stringent qualities. It's not the purpose of this hearing, but I definitely empathize with you and support you in any work you do in that direction.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Rick Butler: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a naive question? Is it the mandate of this committee to consider standards with respect to the Fisheries Act, consequential amendments therein, in terms of the standards of enforcement and regulation?

The Chair: There's a clause in the bill, and our job is to peruse the bill and return it to the House, with or without recommendations or suggested amendments.

In follow-up to this, it's been suggested that my colleagues make sure that question is asked of the officials on Thursday.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's why I was saying, if you had specific stuff, it's necessary for us.

Mr. Rick Butler: Well, I'd love to, and it's sounding somewhat facetious, Mr. Chairman, but I would almost like clause 73 of the bill to apply where reasonable, except for Iqaluit, or smaller municipalities or whatever. I'm just not sure where we could go there, but perhaps we'll consider that and get back to the committee in some form.

The Chair: If you have notions such as you've just shared with us, this is the time to get them on record. This is what we're doing now, we're getting things on record. So the last ten minutes belong to you, and you can use them in whatever way you want to get on record whatever you want.

Mr. John Matthews: Thank you. If we could just confer for a minute, then we'll address the committee.

The Chair: That's fine.

[Translation]

While our witnesses discuss this matter, I would just like to point out that they have brought a brief with them. The Translation Bureau has had the document in its possession for the past 36 hours, but the translation is not yet available. Therefore, we will not circulate the document. If there are no objections, however, I'd like the English version to be made available following the meeting to anyone who would like a copy. Does anyone have any objections?

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): That's fine, but what is the exact nature of this submission?

The Chair: It's a companion piece to the presentation.

Mr. John Godfrey: Fine then, thank you.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I find it amusing to see people attempt to use whatever means they can to overturn a decision.

The Chair: That's not true. If we wanted to pull one over on you, then we would. If you are not amenable to this, then we won't make the document available. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Richard Marceau: When the meeting is over, I'm out of here.

The Chair: Therefore, the document will not be distributed until both versions are available. I don't want to be accused of pulling one over on my committee. Alright then?

[English]

We will suspend until our guests have returned to the table.

• 1150

• 1152

The Chair: You now have eight minutes.

Mr. John Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will defer to Mr. Butler for a few minutes, and then I'll make the final closing comments.

Mr. Rick Butler: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for indulging us in this. We did get short notice, and some of these things just sort of jumped out at us very recently.

What we would propose is a striking of clause 73, allowing the Nunavut Water Board and the minister within their administrative regulatory expertise to set the standard. We don't believe the risks should be tied to a regime that may be impractical for smaller municipalities like ourselves. So we would move that clause 73 be struck, and allow the water board to rule in terms of the standard to be applied in each licence.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. John Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That would provide the water board with more control over the licence and allow the water board to interpret the financial needs of the community and recommend some type of procedure that is compatible with the financial resources of the community.

As a city, we've had a great deal of difficulty over the past several months. We seem to be a target for many different groups and organizations taking potshots at us. It's very difficult for the staff to comply with all these different attacks that are coming from many different angles. It's very time-consuming, very costly, and very demoralizing, because we as a council want the best for the community.

I want to close by thanking the committee. I would like to recognize Ms. Grey's comment that the sooner it gets passed, the better. It will certainly make us much more comfortable as a community, as a capital city, if Bill C-33 does becomes the law of the land.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation. Again, I thank you for having accepted our invitation on such short notice. We want to thank your member of Parliament for bringing it to our attention.

We will suspend proceedings until 12 noon, when we go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]