Bill C-33 (Historical)

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Species at Risk Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 that make up the third group. The House will recall that Bill C-5 replaces Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

This leads me to comment more specifically on the amendment introduced by my colleague, the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who is the Bloc Quebecois critic for the environment. He proposes amending clause 56 of the bill, which reads as follows, “the competent minister may...establish...national...guidelines with respect to the protection of” species.

Yet the second statement of the accord signed in 1996 stated that the minister will establish “a Council of Ministers that will provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes”.

It seems to me as though this government is obsessed with establishing national standards from one end of the country to the other, imposing them in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. The species at risk act is yet another example.

Clause 56 would allow the government, as I said earlier, to establish codes of practice and impose national standards or guidelines, yet the federal government is not responsible for most of the lands involved and has no power over the resource management in these areas.

Therefore, this clause not only violates the division of powers set out in the constitution and interpreted as such over the years, but it also grants broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment.

This bill interferes directly in provincial areas of responsibility and excludes the provinces from making real and direct contributions to the process. Existing laws are ignored. It is an outrage.

Of course, the protection of certain species is only effective if their habitat is also protected. But it is up the provinces to manage this in co-operation with the various stakeholders involved.

Despite the fact that the minister theoretically supports shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces for the protection of species at risk, first, he is disregarding the division of powers and the provinces' responsibilities in managing habitat and protecting species; second, he is ignoring laws that already exist; and third, he is assuming extremely broad powers to protect species. The federal government is therefore going against real environmental harmonization between the different levels of government.

I would also like to mention the position of environmental groups and industry which are opposed to this bill. The bill scares them. The main problem, which seems to have been raised by all these environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists themselves.

Will somebody tell me what sort of decision the minister, who does not have the qualifications and has not studied this area, will take? They will truly be informed. He is excluding the scientists who have been studying these endangered species for years. The minister will tell them what to do simply because he is the minister. It is scandalous too.

Quebec's position on this bill has been expressed by Quebec's minister of the environment. When his federal counterpart first introduced the bill he said that it was just another useless development for Quebec. Quebec's minister said that not only was the bill introduced by the federal government designed to put in place a safety net for endangered species and their habitats on sites under federal jurisdiction but also throughout the territory of Quebec.

While the federal government may be responsible for protecting migratory species, it has no Constitutional authority—this government interprets the constitution when it suits its purposes—with respect to the management of habitats located in provincially owned lands. There can obviously be no question of the government of Quebec sitting by while the federal government invades areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it and tells Quebec how to go about protecting its ecosystems, when Quebec already has legislation to protect endangered species and their habitats.

Quebec's minister said:

Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in this matter. We will never accept umbrella legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.

In fact, the government of Quebec believes that legislation such as that proposed in the bill could be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under provincial jurisdiction and if it were applied to provincial lands if, and only if, the province or territory specifically so requested.

The Quebec government would not need to use such a provision, since it passed its own act in the late eighties. Indeed, the Quebec government passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989. It also passed an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. These three legal supports provide Quebec with the tools required to identify species at risk, to legally designate them as threatened or at risk, to protect their habitat and to develop implementation plans that provide sufficient protection for species and habitat that are in a precarious situation.

The situation is clear. The province of Quebec and its government do not need a federal act to encroach on its jurisdictions.

With the increasing rate with which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. It is true that effective action is necessary, but does this bill really make a contribution to improving the protection of our ecosystems and of the endangered species in it? In our view, the answer to the two questions asked at the beginning is negative.

The Bloc Quebecois completely supports the principle of providing additional protection for species. However we do not think the bill would improve the protection of threatened species. In fact, we are opposed to it because it constitutes a direct intrusion into many jurisdictions of Quebec that I just listed.

This bill is liable to create more red tape, rather than to make it possible for the limited resources to be properly channeled where they can do the most good. The government of Quebec is already legislating in the areas addressed by the bill. While acknowledging the urgency of improving the implementation of these statutes, we do not believe the bill will make it possible to achieve results.

We will not let this bill intrude in our jurisdictions. We already have an excellent act and we want to keep it.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once more at the report stage of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Today, the debate is on amendment motions in Group No. 2.

The amendments are rather substantial. One hundred and thirty-eight amendments have been moved at the report stage by members of all opposition parties in the House, members of the Bloc Quebecois, well as other political parties.

This being said, I want Quebecers to understand that it was not easy to bring this bill back to the House where it will be voted on. The legislation introduced in the previous parliament was Bill C-33. We have to wonder: when opposition parties move 138 amendments to a bill, there has to be a problem somewhere.

For Quebecers and especially for stakeholders in Quebec whom we are representing, and for the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the very principle of Bill C-5 has been in question. Why? Because Quebec, in the area of species protection, passed the appropriate legislation at the right time. I would like to provide a brief historical overview.

In 1990, the Quebec government passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. These three legislative measures are designed to protect, among others, wildlife species at risk. So, the Quebec government had already made the effort to create a whole structure to protect wildlife. In this regard, I congratulate wildlife conservation officers who, for decades, have been responsible for implementing these regulations.

So, a protective structure was put in place in Quebec. Why? The question we must ask ourselves as Quebecers is why the federal government is proposing independent or different regulations or legislation. We must ask ourselves this important question, particularly in Quebec, because we took our responsibilities in 1990.

In 1996, there was even a federal-provincial accord, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. This accord between provincial ministers of the environment and the federal government meant that now, we will have an accord on the protection of species at risk. In 1996, we did not need an act, but that never stopped the federal government.

Since 1996, it has been trying to impose an act that would supersede all provincial legislation. This is where the problem lies. The federal government is once again telling us “We will create a double safety net. In Quebec, you have your own provincial laws, your safety net, but we will have a federal act that will create a second safety net”. I am sorry, but back home it is not a double safety net: it is overlapping in jurisdictions.

If the federal government felt that certain species transiting in Quebec on their international journeys are lesser known in our province and are thus at risk, it would have been so simple to ask the Quebec government to include them in its regulations on the protection of species at risk. Quebec has never refused to amend its list of protected species. It would have been so simple to ask the Quebec government to make changes to its regulations to include certain species.

This is not what the federal government chose to do. It decided to enact legislation that even provides for the creation of federal officers. In Quebec, we already have wildlife conservation officers who do some wonderful work, given their limited resources and the financial resources of the Quebec government.

Instead of negotiating an accord with the province and investing funds to upgrade the network for wildlife protection, instead of granting certain sums and new budgets to wildlife conservation officers in Quebec, the federal government chose to create positions for federal officers.

I repeat for all Quebecers who are listening that this is a double safety net; we call that duplication, we call that spending twice for the same thing. In order to improve the wildlife protection network, it would have been much simpler to give some additional amounts to the existing wildlife protection officers. That would have increased their effectiveness, they might have worked less overtime in high activity periods and might have recruited more help. No; instead, the federal government chose to create an independent network.

It is hard for Bloc Quebecois representatives not to propose a series of amendments to this bill. Naturally, we know these amendments will be rejected systematically by the Liberal majority, but it is good to have the opportunity to discuss this legislation once again. We think the issue was clearly defined in the federal-provincial accord, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada.

Today, the government is proposing a bill on the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. The difference with the accord are probably the words wildlife and Canada. The government could very well have changed the accord by saying that it was the Accord for the protection of Species at Risk in Canada. All the provincial ministers of environment would have signed the new accord with the federal government.

The government could have had an accord on new budgets to be allocated to monitoring, instead of creating an independent network of federal officers. The government would have helped Quebec's conservation officers by increasing their salary, which would have allowed them to do a better job. Once again, I want to say that they are doing a great job. At some periods of the year, they have to work many extra hours because of limited budgets. However, the federal government has decided to create an independent network of federal officers. This is what we will have in the near future.

Moreover, we will have a duplication of legislation and new regulations that will force users once again to respect not only the Loi sur la conservation or the Loi sur la mise en valeur de la faune, which are in effect in Quebec, but also to abide by the new federal regulations.

We are being told that this is a double safety net, but it is not a double safety net for users. This is another instance of overlap and duplication. We already have wildlife conservation officers, and Quebec already enforces its own legislation.

As concerns the accord signed by the Quebec government in 1996, it could have been improved, and joint action by both governments was possible. It could also have been a good opportunity to set up a real compensation plan—even though it did not happen and it was even criticized by the Liberal majority—for crucial habitats of endangered species. If a property is affected, the owner would be entitled to decent compensation thanks to a sizable fund. This bill does not provide for any compensation fund.

The only interesting thing for landowners in Quebec and Canada would have been compensation for their land, if it contained a crucial habitat for the protection of an endangered species. We needed a real compensation plan to compensate any loss to landowners. If an owner is prohibited from using his land, he should get adequate compensation.

But it was not to be. In this case, just like in health care and education, the federal government will not pay. It passes legislation and sets standards, and it wants all Quebecers and Canadians to abide by them, but it never gives any money to improve wildlife protection or compensate landowners who could incur losses.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. In the last parliament it was Bill C-33, the species at risk act. Did the government pass it? No it did not. We have come full circle to Bill C-5. The public should know the government fully intends not to make it work. This is a bill the government understands is clearly unworkable.

That is why my party and all of the opposition parties have introduced 136 amendments. Why? We want to make sure the bill is workable and that we have a bill that will protect endangered species.

The public would also be interested to know that the government has violated its own members. Many members on the committee from all sides, including the government side, proffered good, constructive solutions that if listened to would make the bill strong, workable and ensure that endangered species are protected. However the government has not done that. I read that the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office have chosen to introduce amendments and changes that would emasculate the bill, so we will have a bill that cannot work.

I was appalled when I went up to the environment committee once and took a look at the bill which is about 3 cm thick. This is a 3 cm thick bill that is so unworkable that it begs for legal problems that will only tie up the courts and will not in the end protect endangered species. There are three areas that we want to focus on in the bill: mandatory compensation, penalties for the intentional destruction of habitats and jurisdiction.

On the issue of mandatory compensation many of us have been proffering that this is the way to go and yet the government has not done that. It has left it up to the jurisdiction of the minister. We cannot save species without enabling mandatory compensation. What has worked in many other parts of the world is they have sat down with the different stakeholders. In fact in Saskatchewan, with respect to the black footed ferret, the provincial government has done an outstanding job by working with farmers and ranchers to set up methods of compensation to ensure farmers would not be done hard by and that critical habitat would be protected. That is a model the federal government should be looking at because it works.

The second issue is one of jurisdiction. We have a bill here that would deal with federal lands which is a small percentage of our total landmass. Endangered species do not know jurisdictions. A bird, a plant, or an animal will go where it wants to with no care of jurisdictions. We have a bill that will not protect endangered species at all.

Why is this important? We have 198 species that are at risk. Those numbers are not going down they are going up. If we rolled back time 50 years we would see the variety of species, the biodiversity of animals and plants that we had then. We are in the worst possible time in the history of the planet. Species are going extinct at a rate that is astronomical. The species we have today will be very different from what we will have in our children's or grandchildren's lives. They will be far more restricted and constricted.

How do we deal with this? First we must list species and habitat on the basis of scientific evidence not on the basis of political expediency. The way to do that is to deal with COSEWIC, committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. This is a group of esteemed scientists who have put forth an articulate, scientifically based analysis of the species that are at risk. That is what the species at risk should be based on.

There is the issue of protection. The government should work with the provinces and municipalities to protect critical habitat. In that way we protect all of the habitat not a small sliver, which the bill attempts to do but fails in doing. As I explained earlier we should look at the example of Saskatchewan in regard to compensation.

I wish to talk about CITES, the convention on the international trade in endangered species. The public would be shocked to know that the trafficking of endangered species is the second largest trafficking product in the world behind drugs. It is a multibillion dollar industry. Canada is one of the top three centres for trafficking in endangered species in the world. This has been known for years, yet in my eight years of being here I have not once heard from the government any effort to make sure that our obligations as a signatory to CITES would be upheld. In fact, we are known as a country that is completely violating our obligations under this important convention.

The last part deals penalties. A person recently was found trafficking in one of the largest consignments of ivory ever found and received a $10,000 fine. That is absolutely pathetic. We need penalties that are strong, tough and apply to those individuals who wilfully cut the gallbladders out of black bears, destroy herds of endangered ungulates and damage, destroy and pick plants of medicinal value that are threatened or becoming extinct. Heavy penalties must be applied because the profits from the trafficking of these species is huge.

I have two private member's bills that deal with all of these issues. The government needs to look at them and I hope adopt those bills. They would enable us to accomplish good, strong endangered species legislation.

There are two last points on which I wish to speak. First is our international obligation. We have to ensure that Canadian companies working abroad are not wilfully destroying the environment.

There is a situation right now in Belize where a Canadian company, Fortis, is involved in building the Chalillo dam on the Macal River. This dam would destroy the largest area of pristine habitat in Central America. This is being done by a Canadian company through environmental studies that were sponsored by CIDA. When we try to get an answer from CIDA, it twists every which way like a pretzel to not allow the House to have information as to where taxpayers' money was or will be spent regarding environmental studies on this particular project.

The public would be appalled to think that the government is wilfully ignoring evidence that this dam would destroy critical habitat for jaguars, tapirs and numerous tropical birds in Central America. Why should taxpayers fund studies that would not be released but may show evidence that a Canadian company is destroying the largest undisturbed habitat in Central America? Canadians would be shocked if they knew that. Yet the government obfuscates and obstructs any kind of effort to find out that information.

The last area deals with balancing off the interests of the public in terms of endangered species. During my time working in Africa I spent a lot of time in the African bush looking at ways in which the environment could be protected. After my 17 trips there and hundreds of hours in the bush, the best evidence that I have ever seen comes from a place in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Officials married up private interests with habitat protection. They came to the conclusion that animals, plants and habitat must pay for themselves if they are to survive. Wanting these things to survive will not work because these areas need value, and indeed this can be done. Funds can be generated from habitat through culling for protein, hunting for game, and charging large amounts of money as a certain number of game is actually taken out. This can also be done for medicinal plants which can be grown to generate money.

The money generated from this as well as from ecotourism and other opportunities must be shared by two areas. First, some of that money has to go back into the environment, to the game wardens and the parks people that are there to protect the environment. Second, it has to be shared by the people in the surrounding areas. If the people in the surrounding areas do not see value in a particular reserve or park, that reserve or park will be destroyed.

There is a model that I would like to see the government use when it is at the G-8 summit. It is part of the new plan for African development that it is working on. By linking up the Johannesburg summit, the Rio summit and the G-8 summit, and by triangulating those three things we would be able to involve poverty reduction, primary education along with the protection of endangered species and critical habitat.

If we are able to do that we will accomplish the objective of the bill which is to protect endangered species in Canada.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I will say that the grouping of these motions defies logic.

Group No. 1, which is supposed to deal with compensation, does not include clause 64, the main clause dealing with compensation. This clause is included in Group No. 5, in Motion No. 109. It makes absolutely no sense. How is it possible to talk about compensation without talking about the provision in the bill dealing specifically with compensation?

Group No. 2 deals with federal-provincial relations. It is about deadlines and federal-provincial agreements.

It is a misleading title because Group No. 2 refers to the critical part of the bill regarding listing and habitat. I do not know why we should not call it listing and habitat. I think it is a delusion to call it deadlines and federal-provincial relations to imply that if we encroach on federal-provincial relations in the bill the amendments produced by the committee are not valid.

I remember the beginning of endangered species legislation. I am very sorry I was not able to take part in the workings of the committee this time, but I was there when the minister of the environment at the time proposed endangered species legislation for the federal government. I was a parliamentary secretary. It was the first time ever the federal government was going to move to this area of legislation, backed by a huge majority of Canadians. Since then we have had Bill C-65 under the succeeding minister, then Bill C-33, and now the present one, Bill C-5. Every time, it seems to me, we have slipped down the slippery slope.

If we want to talk about compensation, let us talk about compensation. The whole issue is whether we will be firm and mandate from the government that the bill means to be implemented with obligation on the part of the government or whether it will be discretionary. If there is a thread running right throughout the bill it is the tremendous discretion given to the government on every section, whether it be listing, whether it be habitat, whether it be compensation, whereas the committee had suggested that the government shall produce regulations to set out the criteria for compensation and that it should be fair and reasonable.

I look at the arguments produced for saying that the committee was not valid in its conclusions. The argument states that the standing committee amendments remove governor in council discretion. I would suggest that there are stacks of pieces of legislation where governor in council discretion has been removed, because this is the intent of laws: to bind the government to certain things. Do we not remove governor in council discretion when we mandate as a House that legislation will be or shall be reviewed every five years, as is the case with several pieces of legislation here? There is no discretion there. Is there not discretion, for instance, in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act where we mandated that certain listings be carried out within fixed timetables, that regulations be issued within fixed timetables? There was no discretion there.

I see that regarding compensation the committee also required the mandatory development of detailed compensation regulations. What is wrong with that? This is what Canadians want. They do not want it to be left to the discretion of this government or that government according to the will of the day or the discretion of the day. This is why there are mandatory provisions in legislation binding government to certain specific acts. I see nothing wrong or untoward with the provisions that the committee set out to bind the government to an obligation that regulations must be produced and that compensation must be fair and reasonable. What is more, we are talking about compensation in Group No. 1 without examining the key item of legislation, clause 64, which deals with compensation. This is something completely illogical if ever there was.

Besides, the section on compensation refers to clauses 58, 60 and 61, and it happens to be that clause 58 has been completely gutted by the government in this bill. We are talking about compensation referring to a certain set of criteria under clause 58 as amended by the committee, but now clause 58 is a completely different animal.

How can we talk about compensation on one side and have another grouping for listing and habitat when all of these things are holistic and interdependent? I would suggest, first, that the way we have grouped these things is completely illogical. I do not know how it was done in the first place, whether it was produced at the request and instigation of the minister or the ministry, but it does not make any sense at all.

If we discuss compensation we should be in the main section of the bill and deal with it within Group No. 1. Also, if we are to deal with the subject of compensation, which is of course a big issue for a lot of members here, as we have witnessed by all the speeches made in this regard, then obviously we have to tie it into the key sections of the bill regarding habitat and listing, because all of it is together. We cannot just separate one from the other.

I would suggest that we give a lot of time to having the bill debated, that we do not bring forward any closure which would prevent discussion on Groups Nos. 2 and 3 and the others. There is no way we can deal with the bill in a piecemeal fashion, looking at compensation completely separately from the other key items of the bill. If we are to abide by the rules of the House, then we have to talk about the groupings one by one.

I hope we will have a lot of time to speak about Groups Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, but especially Group No. 2 about the critical subject of listing and habitat, where the committee recommendations, worthwhile and completely constructive and objective, have been gutted. If members look at clause 58 they will find that the whole page has been gutted and replaced.

I am very sad. On the eve of Rio Plus 10 we will have a bill that will look like a great bill. It will have a wonderful title. It will be very thick. Then around the world we will be able to produce the fact that we have an endangered species bill, but I suggest that really it is a hollow little book. There is not much in it except for discretion and it is discretion from a to z . It is sad.

The whole question of compensation is a good example of what I am saying, because we have replaced some obligation on the part of the government, completely legitimate, by total discretion, and we know what discretion leads to.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of the Surrey Central constituency regarding the report stage debate on amendments proposed to the government's species at risk act, Bill C-5, which used to be Bill C-33 and Bill C-65 in previous parliaments.

I make absolutely clear that Canadian Alliance members are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. Therefore the argument is not about whether or not we should have endangered species legislation but rather that we have effective legislation.

I commend the chief critic for the official opposition on the environment, the hon. member for Red Deer, who has done extensive work in putting forward reasonable amendments at committee stage. Of 13 motions in Group No. 1 which we are debating today coincidentally all the motions are moved by Canadian Alliance members. Eleven motions deal with the issue of compensation. Therefore I will focus my remarks on the compensation component of the bill.

We are opposed to this piece of legislation that punishes landowners and farmers for accidental harm done to species at risk or their habitat. The incentives this would put in place are totally perverse. They would punish the very groups that the government should be trying to bring alongside.

As it currently stands Bill C-5 proposes to allow for some discretionary compensation to landowners and resource users from extraordinary impact losses as a result of regulatory restrictions. Specifically this may mean forcing farmers to adapt their farming practices to accommodate nesting birds, selectively logging certain areas instead of clear cutting, forgoing logging in certain areas during migration season or not farming sections of land for a number of years.

I have many problems with this approach to dealing with compensation. The first deals with the basic issue in good policy making which deals with ensuring the costs imposed on society are distributed in a fair and even way. On the other side of the equation the benefits should ideally be distributed equitably within and across stakeholder groups. Then all Canadians including our future generations benefit when our natural heritage is protected. This deals with the benefit side of the policy equation.

On the costs side of the equation however the picture is less favourable. This is because the government has set a compensation scheme in place that imposes all the costs of protecting these valuable species at risk on to one particular group, that is farmers and landowners. In fact one could say this is yet another form of hidden taxation.

The government's current approach assumes that landowners and resource users need to be coerced into complying with such a law. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Resources companies and farmers realize that their profits and livelihoods cannot come at the expense of the protection of species at risk.

Therefore the confrontational approach taken by the government shows that in spite of what it says has been exhaustive consultation with all stakeholder groups, the government is still ignorant of this.

One way of showing good faith in dealing with all stakeholders is to ensure that proper stewardship incentives are in place, including fair and reasonable compensation for economic losses.

One way to build relationships with landowners and resource users would be to establish stewardship agreements based on fair and reasonable support for forgone revenues. The basic economic logic suggests that the costs should be borne by all Canadians.

The government's consultation process seems to favour certain interest groups over others. The riding of Surrey Central, one of the largest in Canada, is largely urban. However a small proportion of my constituents derive their livelihoods from farming and resource related activities. They have already felt the heavy hand of the government as it mismanaged the softwood lumber industry.

The minister indicated on October 3 at committee that compensation provisions would be assessed on a discretionary case by case basis. As per this bill it is not mandatory for the government either to develop a more detailed policy or regulations on compensation. This attitude of just trust us is not acceptable.

This promise has never been put in black and white on a piece of paper. Provisions for full compensation must be outlined in legislation set by elected members, not by bureaucrats. The formula must be clearly spelled out before the bill is passed by the House. If the government is willing to do it, there should be no problem with putting its promise in writing in the bill. Our motions are listed in Group No. 1. Members should just vote for them.

The government may come back with the argument that an amendment passed at committee stage inserted a clause regarding fair and reasonable compensation into the legislation. This is somewhat misleading, however, since the compensation paid out under this provision is not compulsory. It is just case by case. Instead it is still up to the government to determine when compensation is to be paid.

Opinions can differ over what is to be considered fair and reasonable compensation. Also the government has yet to indicate the criteria it will use to decide who gets compensation and who does not. This is a problem that needs to be resolved before the legislation is passed.

While agreeing to pay compensation under certain circumstances is a baby step maybe in the right direction, it is far from clearly articulating and developing a system for calculating and selecting how the compensation will be paid to a given landowner or a farmer. Instead the government seems intent on punishing them in whatever way possible, whether this means not giving agriculture any new money in the budget or paying them for revenues lost due to the presence of endangered species on their lands.

Not only the opposition party is saying this. A well known economist from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Peter Pearse, proposed a compensation scheme whereby landowners would be compensated at a rate of 50% for losses that affected 10% or more of their income. I understand the government is using this report only as a discussion paper.

However I fear that the government is not interested in more discussion. There is every indication that it may impose closure on the debate just to snub what we are trying to say in the House. I believe this is just another example of irresponsible use of delegated regulation making power by the government and its departments.

Many times regulations do not depict the intent of legislation. This legislation is very vague. It has less meat on the bone. However through the back door the government is in the habit of pushing through the regulations which are not debated in the House. Through the regulations the government is coming up with all kinds of misdirections which are sometimes contradictory to the intent of the legislation.

It will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

The bottom line is that unless the bill provides for mandatory compensation and stops criminalizing unintentional behaviour, it will not provide effective protection for endangered species and we cannot support it as such.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am ready to deal with the point of order raised this morning by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough concerning 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), passed by this House on November 2, and specifically concerning the message received from the Senate yesterday, November 21.

The message received yesterday from the Senate reads:

ORDERED: That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, an Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter for it gives the Chair an opportunity to correct certain misinformation about this case.

The hon. member is correct when he says that deficiencies were identified in the parchments and reprints of the bill sent to the other place.

These errors were first identified by House of Commons officials, who immediately informed their counterparts in the other place of their findings. It is important to note that these errors were strictly administrative in nature and occurred after third reading was given to Bill C-33 in the House, so that at no time were the actual records of the House compromised.

It in no way affects any proceedings that took place on the bill in this Chamber or in committee and I can assure all hon. members that there is no defect in the records of the House regarding Bill C-33. These remain in the words of the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough “pristine, concise and accurate”.

The documents relating to Bill C-33 sent to the Senate were not accurate and the fact that they were not is the most unfortunate result of compounded human errors. When my officials discovered these regrettable errors, no substantive proceedings on the bill had yet occurred in the other place. On being briefed on the matter, I directed the clerk to communicate with his counterpart in the other place. I asked the Clerk of the House to take the necessary action to rectify the error and to ensure that the other House would have a correct and complete copy of Bill C-33. That was done yesterday. Such communication is part of the usual administrative procedures of parliament and in no way constitutes a message to the other place which requires an explicit decision of the House.

I understand that Bill C-33 has, earlier this afternoon, received first reading in the other place.

I once again thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his assiduous concern about the accuracy of House records. I trust this will allay his anxieties in this regard. I therefore consider this matter closed.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the Journals of the House of Commons published this morning. Yesterday's Journals record that “A message was received from the Senate as follows”, which ordered:

--That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on 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, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

The Senate has drawn our attention to a serious defect in our records and the probity of the message that goes from this House to the other house of parliament. I draw your attention and the attention of other members to an excerpt from the Senate Hansard dated Wednesday, November 21, wherein the Hon. Fernand Robichaud, deputy leader of the government, states:

Honourable senators, with respect to the first item on the Order Paper under Government Business, the copy of the bill currently before us does not faithfully represent the bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact, the amendments passed in the House were omitted. As this is not a true copy, we cannot continue debate on this item as it appears before us.

This is a fairly serious matter, I would respectfully submit. Twice the bill was corrected and twice it was found to be deficient. If this was a rarity one could look the other way, but it is clear from the Senate message that there is now considerable concern about our records, and records, as the Chair would agree, must be pristine, concise and always accurate.

This must be seen in the context of the work facing the House with respect to 100 amendments presented in the justice committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill that was just tabled in the House. When people are legislating in marathon sessions at three o'clock in the morning, we have a duty to know that the records will be accurate. If the government takes a decision to pursue such an action, we must ensure and be equally diligent in determining and ensuring that the resulting work is accurate and a reflection of the effort.

The Senate message is a serious warning. First, may I ask for assurances from the Speaker that no corrective action was taken or will be taken by officials to send a corrective message to the Senate until the House has clearly authorized such a message? Second, I want to reserve my ability to raise any question of privilege that may flow from this matter.

Finally, I would ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion, which would be seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester:

That the Message from the Senate concerning 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, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Carriage By Air Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-33.

I would like to help all the Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us to understand how Parliament works with regard to the way legislation is implemented.

I will read the summary of Bill S-33:

This enactment implements in Canada the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air signed at Montreal in 1999 (the “Montreal Convention”). The Montreal Convention consolidates and modernizes the rules of the Warsaw Convention and associated documents. It provides for unlimited liability for damages in the case of death or injury to passengers arising out of accidents during international air carriage, simplifies ticketing requirements, provides for electronic documentation and establishes a new jurisdiction that will allow most passengers to bring actions in the place of their domicile.

To be perfectly clear, this bill that is submitted to the House today, in November 2001, implements a convention written and signed in Montreal in 1999.

The main stakeholders in the air transport industry from all over the world met in Montreal. Most major airlines were present. There were representatives from Air Canada, from Canadian Airlines, which no longer exists, from Air Transat and from the Air Transport Association of Canada. A fairly large Canadian delegation attended the meeting since it took place in Montreal.

That meeting led to a very important convention to change the way things were done in the area of liability so that air carriers would be liable for larger amounts than the ones agreed upon in the outdated 1929 Warsaw convention. The decision was made to increase the liability of air carriers.

That convention was negotiated in Montreal in 1999 and ratified by Canada on September 25, 2001, after the events of September 11. No matter what could have happened in Canada, the Montreal convention would not have been ratified by Canada at that time. We waited until after the events of September 11 to ratify a convention that was negotiated in our country, Canada, and in my country, Quebec, more precisely in Montreal. This convention was negotiated with all industry stakeholders, and Canada did not ratify it until September 25 of this year. This is how things work in Canada. It always takes the government a few years to react.

My colleague from the Alliance mentioned that this is the fourth bill introduced by the Minister of Transport since the beginning of the session. With such a pompous title, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act, we could have expected, especially after the events of September 11, more important changes than a mere increase in the liability of air carriers in case of accident.

Such is the harsh reality facing those Quebecers who are watching us and airline employees who no longer have jobs, the 9,000 Air Canada employees, the 1,400 Air Transat employees and the 4,800 Canada 3000 employees, who took the hardest hit. These people lost their jobs because their employer went bankrupt. Over 2,000 jobs were lost at Bombardier and about 1,000 at Pratt & Whitney.

So for a major industry that has suffered phenomenal job losses since September 11, the minister moves the second reading of a bill to amend the Carriage by Air Act, but all it deals with is the issue of air carrier liability in case of accident.

I repeat that Canada did not ratify this convention until September 25. Had something happened in Canada on September 11, this convention negotiated and signed in Montreal in 1999 would not have been ratified at that time.

This is how the Liberal government operates. It is always a few years late. This is the harsh reality for airline industry workers who are listening today and who have lost their jobs since September 11. It is the harsh reality for all citizens of Canada and of Quebec who are trying to understand how we can hope that this Parliament will produce legislative amendments that address real problems.

There is nothing in this bill for the travellers who lost the price of their airfare when Canada 3000 went bankrupt for instance. There is nothing that would guarantee that those who lose what they paid for an airline ticket because of a bankruptcy such as that of Canada 3000 would be reimbursed in future.

A few years from now, there will probably be another legislative amendment. The men and women of Quebec and of Canada who buy airline tickets in times as difficult as those we are now experiencing and in which there could well be other companies that close their doors, as Canada 3000 did, will not be reimbursed because the federal Liberal government has decided not to invest in getting the airline industry back on its feet in Canada. That is the reality.

Other airlines may well go bankrupt in the years to come. It is not something we want to see, but it is the harsh reality. Again today, in response to questions I asked him, the minister said that the market must be allowed to operate freely in times as difficult as these, when a disaster such as that of September 11 has put families, employees, the human capital of the airline industry, which was highly competitive internationally, in the street.

I raise my hat to the workers in Canada's airline industry, who made it one of the most competitive in the world. Our government has decided to let the market operate freely. It has not followed the example of the Americans, who invested over $15 billion right away. Just days after the sad events, they announced a massive investment to revive the airline industry throughout the United States. Of this $15 billion, $5 billion is in the form of a direct investment and $10 billion in the form of loan guarantees. That is what the Americans did.

Meanwhile back home, all the minister announced is a $160 million investment to help pay the outrageous insurance bills that all the airlines in Canada had to pay. The minister decided to compensate them for losses that they incurred following the six days of restricted airspace. Canada decided to reimburse the companies and set up a system of loan guarantees, in which it announced a loan guarantee of $75 million for Canada 3000, knowing very well that this company was going to close its doors. This is the harsh reality.

The transport minister announced a loan guarantee of $75 million to Canada 3000, with such demanding conditions that he knew at the outset that Canada 3000 would close its doors. The proof is that one week earlier, the directors of Canada 3000 refused a job sharing proposal that was to be covered by employment insurance and that would not have cost the company a penny. They refused the proposal to have their employees share their work knowing full well that the company was being forced into bankruptcy and that such a program would be of no use to them.

This is the harsh reality. The government, with its day by day management, has allowed us to witness airlines shut down, losing jobs in a highly competitive sector; men and women who are very competitive and skilled have lost their jobs in recent weeks because of events that had nothing to do with them.

It is not the fault of workers in the airline industry that the events of September 11 took place. Today, they are paying the price, and we are telling them “Listen, the free market is going to take care of you”. Obviously, the market is going to kick employees out into the street and shut down businesses.

It will continue to get worse as long as the government maintains its policy of telling airlines “you have to sell off your assets”. That is what the government did. It said to Air Canada, which had asked for assistance, “you have assets, sell them off”. It did the same thing with Canada 3000: they were forced to sell off their assets before the government would intervene. But we saw the sad results: they sold off so much that they had to declare bankruptcy. That is the reality.

There is nothing today in Bill S-33 to help the people who bought tickets from Canada 3000 and lost their money. Why? Because this bill follows up on a convention signed in Montreal in 1999, which was drafted by the airline industry the world over, including the major Canadian carriers. Canada ratified the convention only on September 25, 2001, or after the tragic events of September 11. Today, it is still being discussed and will shortly be voted on.

I wish to assure the House that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Bill C-33. One cannot oppose virtue, since it will cost the government nothing.

This bill requires airlines to have insurance. Their responsibility will be enhanced, because the 1927 Warsaw convention had the unfortunate effect of limiting carrier responsibility to $35,000. In the event of a major catastrophe resulting in death, the maximum was $35,000. Obviously, it was high time these amounts were changed, since they were no longer realistic, since more than 70 years had passed since the Warsaw Convention was signed.

Now the level of liability is limitless. Airlines are required to have loss compensation insurance, which is totally reasonable. Once again, however, there is nothing in Bill S-33 to help the men and women who invested in the air industry, who booked flights on Canada 3000, were not reimbursed and will therefore lose their money.

In two years there will likely be a new act guaranteeing, via independent insurance, that anyone purchasing a ticket from an airline that goes bankrupt will be reimbursed.

This then is day-to-day management: the inability to react rapidly when there is a problem. In Canada it always takes a few years to do so, something that never fails to amaze me.

It is important that the people listening to us, the Canadians and the Quebecers, understand that this convention was negotiated by stakeholders in the world industry, including Canadians, in 1999 in Canada, in Montreal, and that Canada finally signed it on September 25, after the events of September 11.

It probably signed the convention for this very reason, in case there were an accident in Canada and we got a mere $35,000 per passenger in the event of passenger deaths.

This is hard to imagine for those watching, for airline industry employees who have lost their jobs—the 9,000 who lost them at Air Canada, the 1,400 at Air Transat and the 4,800 who lost them so brutally with the bankruptcy of Canada 3000, not to mention the jobs at Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney.

What is needed is a policy of massive intervention in the aviation industry. The Bloc has been calling for such a thing since the start of this crisis. It contends that the Americans, who do not have a reputation for being the most liberal, whose society is very conservative, especially in matters of free trade and who tend to leave the free market to its own devices, decided to invest a massive $15 billion to protect the aviation industry. Canada invested only $160 million.

We can look at this proportionally, per capita. The Americans invested $15 billion for 300 million inhabitants, Canada invested $160 million for 30 million inhabitants—ten times less what the Americans invested.

This is the harsh reality and it is difficult to accept for workers who have lost their jobs in the airline and aviation industries, both highly competitive sectors in which Canadian companies are among the world's top performers.

Canada has decided that it would not support its airline industry, that it would let the free market dictate things. By contrast, the United States is going to support that industry, as did Switzerland. The Swiss and American companies that are going to get help from their governments will surely buy equipment which, hopefully, will have been made in Canada and in Quebec.

It is difficult to explain to those who will buy this equipment, to the countries that will provide subsidies or assistance to their industry, why they should buy equipment made in Canada, considering that our country has decided not to support the airline industry. If we do not support the airline industry, it is not Canada 3000 that will buy aircraft tomorrow, because that company is bankrupt. This is the harsh reality.

Canada is not supporting a highly competitive sector, but it expects countries that will have helped their industries to buy equipment in Canada, through their industries.

The Liberal government made a mistake. It is never too late to realize that one has made a mistake and this is an obvious mistake as we can see with Canada 3000 going bankrupt.

Despite investments of $160 million—which is proportionally ten times less than what the Americans invested—which were supposed to help the airline industry make it through the crisis, we lost one company, the second largest airline carrier in Canada. Indeed, Canada 3000 has shut down its operations.

There are also other regional businesses that will be forced to shut down. Canada has five so-called major carriers, but there are others, like Air Alma. Regarding these other regional carriers, the Liberal government policy, delivered by the Minister of Transport who has decided to favour the free market, is to say: “We will not support them, but when we do, we will support only the five largest carriers”. The government's rationale is that if these large carriers are doing well, it will boost business for all the other regional carriers in Canada.

I hope we do not see other airlines shut down their operations. It would be catastrophic for service to cities located in the regions, and not small communities as the minister and others on the Standing Committee on Transport like to call them. Cities located in the regions have as much right as large urban centres to enjoy 21st century air transport. They are entitled to have access to air transport, which is the fastest means of transportation, at reasonable rates so people can get on with their business.

I will repeat again that it is important that Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us realize that the government is submitting to the House today Bill S-33 which ratifies the Montreal convention negotiated in 1999.

It took two years for this bill, which the Bloc Quebecois will support, to be submitted to the House. But, once again, I must say that this is how it works in Canada. It takes forever for a bill to be finally introduced and passed.

The 1999 convention, which increased the liability of air carriers in case of accident or death, was not signed by Canada until September 25 of this year, after the events of September 11. It does not even contain a reimbursement clause for those who bought airline tickets from companies that may be bankrupt at the time when the tickets are supposed to be used.

That is the harsh reality. Once again, this bill comes too late.

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.

The Nunavut land claims agreement and the creation of this new territory have resulted in more opportunities for employment, new business and social development and for protecting the ways of the past in the eastern Arctic for the Inuit community.

Frankly, however, for us to fully realize this potential the people of Nunavut as well as others who might invest there do need to have a greater level of certainty than currently exists. The bill would provide that level of certainty and in fact would go a long way toward establishing that certainty by providing an important mechanism in the legislative and regulatory framework that is very much needed in the territories.

The bill would establish in statute the powers, duties and functions of the Nunavut water board and Nunavut surface rights tribunal. These institutions of public administration arise out of the Nunavut land claims agreement, but their powers and authorities will extend across the territory to ensure uniformity and certainty throughout Nunavut on issues related to resource management.

Therefore I can say that certainty is the single most important outcome of Bill C-33. I say that because by providing the legislative underpinning for the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal, Bill C-33 would in fact provide certainty that decisions made by these institutions have a solid basis in law. This is not currently the case and has been the cause of some concern among members of these bodies and those who are subject to their decisions.

The bill would provide certainty for the industry by setting out clear ground rules for the issuing of water licences and the enforcement of licence conditions and by ensuring that resource developers have access to land for the purpose of exercising their subsurface rights.

Certainty and consistency are absolutely essential to support the economic development in Nunavut. In the case of the resource industry in particular, projects simply do not go forward unless developers are certain about their rights and obligations. This message was heard loud and clear when Bill C-33 was before the committee for review. Witnesses made it very clear that they find it unsettling to work with licensing boards whose legislative underpinnings are unstable.

By establishing the legislative framework for water management and surface rights in Nunavut, Bill C-33 would provide certainty that will pave the way for the new territory to take advantage of its resource development potential.

To that extent, I believe the bill is very much needed and it is my hope that the House will pass it as quickly as possible so the Nunavut people can get on with their lives and do the necessary things to create jobs, to respond to the needs of their communities and to live the quality of life that they so very much deserve.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for South Shore. He did not have the opportunity to be the representative for his coalition at the committee when it dealt with the clause by clause amendments, but he did hear the speech I made in which I pointed out some of the amendments that the NDP sought to achieve.

The hockey analogy that I used in my speech was the fact that under Bill C-33 the federal government still would retain the ability to charge a fee, a user fee, a licence fee or a permit fee, to any user of water in the territory of Nunavut. We sought to have an exemption to that rule which would state that the federal government could charge a user fee or licence fee to any user of water except in regard to waters that flow through Inuit owned land. In other words, the actual indigenous people of the territory should not be charged a fee for using their own water.

The witness who appeared before the committee used the example of wanting to pump water out of the river to flood the ice rink so his kids could play hockey. Under the bill, the government could charge him a fee for using his own water. We did not feel that was right.

Does the hon. member agree that is an amendment that should have been allowed at committee to give them true self-determination over their own water resources?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

That is a good question and obviously it is one of the problems with this piece of legislation.

The point of the legislation is to give the local territorial government and the people who live in Nunavut control over their water and their subsurface and surface rights. Yet they would be constantly coming back to a minister of the crown in Ottawa, which quite frankly is a long way from the people who live in the north not only in geographical distance but in thought process.

A great example of that, to which I always refer when I speak about Nunavut, is that it takes as long to fly from Ottawa to Vancouver as it takes to fly from Ottawa to Iqaluit. That is a huge geographical distance. The people who live in the area should be the ones who set their own governance.

The pros of the legislation are that it would allow more self-government and more input from the people who live in the area. Bill C-33 would improve on previous legislation and allow for further governance by local people and Inuit groups who live in Nunavut. It would give them control, although not complete control, over one of the earth's most precious resources which is of course water.

Both boards would be subject to an annual audit although it would be a directive of the minister and the auditor general.

The legislation has cons as well. A negative point of Bill C-33 which I have already touched on is that it would allow for too much ministerial power. I cannot say it any simpler than that. The minister would appoint the boards and could dismiss members. I should preface my comments by noting that the minister would have to consult with local Inuit organizations. However he could still dismiss members.

The issuance, amendment, renewal and cancellation of licences would all be subject to approval of the minister. I hope the minister would see fit to follow the advice of legislative people and Inuit groups in Nunavut when taking these assessments into account.

Under the legislation the minister would have the right to override the direction of water board inspectors and the recommendations they may make for dealing with licence infractions.

The aboriginal affairs committee passed an amendment that would place a time limit within which the minister would have to respond regarding licences. The amendment stipulates that the minister must either return a decision to the Nunavut water board within 45 days or request an extension up to a maximum of another 45 days. If the minister has not returned a decision to the water board by that time the licence would be deemed approved.

We in our party supported the amendment. A similar amendment had been proposed by our PC/DR coalition member and aboriginal affairs critic from Edmonton North. Her amendment would have proposed a timeframe of 60 days. We were more than happy to support a timeframe of 45 days.

Certainly the recommendation of the coalition is that we would support this type of legislation. It would provide the necessary mechanisms to flesh out the obligations to the Nunavut land claims agreement and would be beneficial in the long run for the economic development of the north.

In conclusion, this is the type of legislation that the coalition has tended to support. It goes that extra step in bringing self-government and legislative powers to the north. It still has a bit too much federal government interference on the behalf of the minister and we hope that the minister would show a fair amount of discretion with that power and would tend to go along with recommendations made by the people who actually live in Nunavut.

Of course it is also our hope and sincere wish that this would be another step on the way to complete self-government for the people of Canada's Arctic. Not only Nunavut but also the Northwest Territories and Yukon should be constantly on their way to becoming provinces and full partners in the Canadian federation even though they have huge geographic land masses and low numbers of people. That is certainly the direction in which we would expect the legislation to evolve.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33. I appreciate having the opportunity to present my thoughts and the thoughts of the PC/DRC coalition to parliament.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-33 at third reading and to speak on behalf of my coalition colleague from Edmonton North who is our aboriginal affairs critic.

This issue has been a long time coming. The bill would put legislation into place to allow institutions to be set up in Nunavut to continue it on the road to proper self-government.

All along we have seen similar legislation being put in place in Yukon and NWT. Even though it is not perfect and other amendments should perhaps have been made, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, Bill C-33 is better than no legislation at all. It would benefit the people who live in the territory it is meant to apply to.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the obligations of the Nunavut land claims agreement which was passed in 1993. Specifically it outlines regulations for the operation of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal including the Nunavut water board's inspection and enforcement powers. It would also clarify the jurisdictions of both the water board and the surface rights tribunal.

The bill is set up in two parts. The first part controls the Nunavut water board. The second part controls the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. The Nunavut water board has been operational since 1995. Seeing as this is 2001 it is absolutely time we caught up to the board. The legislation would allow the board to operate legally.

Under Bill C-33 the Nunavut water board would consist of nine members appointed by the minister. Half the members would be nominated by designated local Inuit organizations. A quarter of the members would be nominated by the territorial minister responsible for renewable resources or by other designated territorial ministers.

The issue is that the minister would still clearly appoint a quarter of the members with perhaps no consultation at all with the people who live in the area. The local Inuit group would get to put up only half the members. It would have been a more effective bill if all the people could have been appointed by local governing agencies in Nunavut and by the people who live in the area who are affected by the legislation.

The Nunavut water board would issue licences to individuals and organizations whose operations would impact on Nunavut's water resources including water use and waste deposit. However the board could not issue licences for applicants whose operations may have an adverse effect on the local environment until the applicant and affected parties agreed to a compensation package. This would involve accountability, adequate public knowledge and all the basic things we would find in similar legislation. The minister would have final approval for the licences.

The issue is that we are attempting to provide legislation for increased self-government in Nunavut. We have done the same thing in Yukon and NWT. Yet we are still allowing the minister of the crown in the federal government to have final say.

The second part of the legislation deals with the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. This has been in operation since 1996, but the legislation would establish the tribunal as required and promised by the Nunavut land claims agreement.

The tribunal would resolve disputes regarding subsurface rights, sand and gravel on Inuit owned land and loss to Inuit from damage to wildlife, oil spills, et cetera. It would establish the terms and conditions of right of access to Inuit owned lands and determine liability and compensation due to the Inuit in case of damage.

Another board would be set up consisting of a chairperson plus two to ten other members approved by the minister, two of whom must be resident in Nunavut. It seems there would constantly be an odd number of members on the tribunal, which raises some questions. Again the minister would have the final say.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-33, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques Cartier, who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.

This bill quite simply implements certain elements of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, reached between the territory of Nunavut and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.

The bill before us today therefore completes the final aspects of this historic agreement. The treaty was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993, through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.

The Bloc Quebecois' support for this bill is consistent with our party's long held attitude regarding self-government and the responsibilities of aboriginal communities.

It would be impossible for us to oppose the quick passage of this bill, since it corresponds to the expectations and objectives of the nations and communities involved.

However, I deplore the Liberal government's usual attitude, its systematic refusal to consider proposals for amendments from opposition parties.

Indeed, once again, at committee stage, the government rejected all requests from opposition members to amend this bill so as to improve it.

This shows the general contempt the government has for the House, since it even gags its own members. This pattern is unacceptable, particularly when the bill being reviewed seeks to improve the living conditions of aboriginal communities. This ill-suited and excessive partisanship is reflective of the narrow-mindedness and lack of vision of government members.

We could go on and on about this government's typical attitude and trickery, but we already know that nothing can change the deplorable way it has been using the legislative process for many years.

So, let us go back to the central issue. In 1996, a similar version of this bill was introduced, but was strongly condemned by Inuit of Nunavut-Tungavik, because it respected neither the letter nor the spirit of the treaty.

It seems that the current version of the bill is a more accurate reflection of the aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

However, I do have some reservations that could not be thoroughly examined at committee stage regarding some provisions of the bill that do not, at first glance, seem to meet the true aspirations of the Inuit.

Also, I hope that this act will be implemented with some flexibility and a great deal of tact, as regards the power of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appoint the members of the Nunavut Water Board.

Knowing the government's tendency to appoint to key positions people who, shall we say, are close to it, it will be important for the minister to keep in mind the fundamental objective of this legislation, which is first and foremost to protect the interests of the Inuit of Nunavut.

In this context, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to support this bill at third reading, and we reiterate our desire to co-operate with the government to quickly meet the very legitimate governance aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-33. The NDP caucus has been quite supportive of the bill from its onset. We welcome the opportunity to lend our support to the very important issue of helping the newly formed territory of Nunavut take its independence and control over water management, land use and other associated issues.

Members of the New Democratic Party have followed the debate with great interest. We have followed it much farther back than when it was introduced in the House as Bill C-33. We note with interest that as long ago as 1996, in the 35th parliament, a similar bill was introduced, Bill C-51, which, unfortunately, died on the order paper. In the 36th parliament, Bill C-62 was introduced, which was largely the same in scope and content and sought to achieve the same goals, but it too died on the order paper. In other words, the people of Nunavut have been waiting patiently for a long time to see this bill finally come through all the stages of the House of Commons.

It is worth noting that the Nunavut land claims agreement called for land use, water and environmental assessment boards to be established as institutions of public government within two years of the ratification of the agreement. That was in June 1993. It is scandalous that nothing has happened.

The surface rights issues were to have a similar institution within six months of the June 1993 ratification. We are almost a decade late in implementing this important enabling legislation which essentially hands over to the Nunavut water board the jurisdiction to make important determinations as to the use of water and putting waste into water in the territory of Nunavut.

This is an issue that most people are able to relate to. In fact, ever since we have been putting codes of conduct on paper or codes of practice into writing, we have dealt with water rights. The Magna Carta in 1215 referred specifically to water rights and water use issues. It is something that every democracy and every free society has to wrestle with and has to establish because it is so critical. People downstream deserve the courtesy of fair treatment from those living upstream, and water being an essential commodity.

After working with the people of Nunavut, members of the NDP did try to move amendments at the committee stage. The people of Nunavut actually came to the committee and made compelling arguments for things they sought to achieve in the bill. The one improvement in the bill that I will point out, and which I readily concede is actually an improvement over Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, is that at least Bill C-33 contains a non-derogation clause. This is important. In anything dealing with aboriginal rights, a non-derogation clause has become standard practice, in that nothing in this newly signed agreement will derogate or in any way diminish rights that are inherent within the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution. The inherent rights that aboriginal people enjoy cannot be signed away by any document.

However, we were critical, and it was one of our amendments, that the non-derogation clause that was chosen for Bill C-33 differs from other non-derogation clauses in recent aboriginal legislation. We were suspect, as were the people of Nunavut, as to why it varied. It was only natural for the Nunavut people to assume that this clause was deliberately changed for a specific purpose.

A person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions but, by the same token, the government can be presumed to have intended something of the literal meaning of what they have put forward and chose to deviate.

We recommended that the non-derogation clause in Bill C-33 should state as follows:

Nothing in the bill should derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The amendment was simple and straightforward but unfortunately it did not succeed at committee.

We went further than a non-derogation clause. At committee stage, members of the NDP recommended that we go farther and put in a positive interpretation clause, not just a non-derogation clause but a positive interpretation clause so in the event of some ambiguity in the bill it would always be interpreted in the best possible light for aboriginal people. We felt that was important. It was a safety fallback position that would give some comfort to the people of Nunavut in the event the bill was challenged in the courts or in the event there were two points of view over a particular clause. The interpretation clause would give some guidance to arbitrators down the road to view the people of Nunavut in a more positive light. That too failed at committee stage and we were disappointed and critical of that.

We also point out that Bill C-33 is essentially a step toward self-government for Nunavut, for control and jurisdiction over its own land and water use. However, within the bill, the minister still has the right or the ultimate sign-off to any licences or permits that are granted within Nunavut. In other words, the Nunavut water board can issue a licence to Echo Bay Mines, or whatever the institution is that seeks a water licence, but it has to be signed off by the minister. In other words, Ottawa, the central federal government, still has the ultimate control, the right to veto anything the people of Nunavut do.

We suggested in an amendment that the powers of the minister under that section should sunset on the 10 year anniversary of the signing of the agreement, not the signing of this bill but the signing of the Nunavut land use agreement in June 1993. In other words, in June 2003 the powers of the minister would no longer exist and the people of Nunavut would make their own determination about their own land and water use in that territory. I thought that was a very reasonable amendment and I expected the support of my colleagues even on the other side, especially the member from Nunavut who sits on that committee. I thought she would have had a very real interest in seeing that step toward true self-government and true self-determination take place. That also failed as an amendment. We were trying to be reasonable and we did not succeed in any of these.

The last thing we sought to achieve in Bill C-33 we again failed to achieve. The Government of Canada can still levy a fee or a charge to any user of water in Nunavut. There are no exemptions to this. We moved an amendment that would have allowed the government to charge a permit or licence fee to Echo Bay Mines or any other user group, but we wanted to make sure it did not intend to charge the people of Nunavut for using water that flows through their own land. That is exactly what is contemplated in this agreement. If the people of Nunavut wanted to start a water bottling company as an economic development agency, they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to use their own water. Is that self-government? Is that self-determination? Is that control over one's own resources and territory? That struck me as absurd.

You, Mr. Speaker, with a hockey background, would understand the analogy that was used at the committee. The people who came to the committee said that if they wanted to flood the hockey rink in their community they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to pump the water out of their river to flood the ice so their kids could play hockey in a place where there is a great deal of ice and water. It struck us as absurd. On their behalf we moved what we thought was a very reasonable amendment to say that the Government of Canada could charge user fees, service fees or licence fees, except in water on, in, or flowing through Inuit owned land.

In other words, on crown property the government could absolutely charge whomever it wanted whatever it wanted. It could charge whatever the market would bear and ding people for all it could. However it should not charge the people who live there for the right to make a tray of ice cubes in their own fridge. That struck us as ridiculous. It did not succeed either.

We were frustrated at committee. As much as we wanted to support Bill C-33 and agreed with the tone, content and sentiments inherent in the bill, we were terribly frustrated that reason could not have prevailed in those few areas.

Having said that, we must now either move forward with a bill that is not everything the people wanted or delay and deny the people of Nunavut what they have been seeking for many years. Given that choice the NDP caucus will be voting in favour of Bill C-33 at this stage.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin to participate in the debate on Bill C-33, entitled the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.

The bill is intended to implement provisions of the 1993 Nunavut land claims agreement relating to the management of waters and to the creation of a surface rights tribunal for the territory of Nunavut.

As a party, the Canadian Alliance has in the past clearly identified problems, mainly financial, with the creation of the territory of Nunavut. However, with Nunavut now underway, this is legislation that is overdue and it provides the legal framework for the Nunavut water board that has already been in existence for six years.

It is interesting that we often have policy being implemented well in advance of the legislation being provided by the House of Commons, not only with regard to Nunavut but I have heard tax lawyers complaining about the same thing with regard to tax policy.

At this point in time the bill is at third reading and will be passed shortly, almost six years late, but I suppose it is better late than never.

The Nunavut water board is to have similar powers as those vested in the Northwest Territories water board. The purpose of the board is to promote the conservation and utilization of water through a licensing system, as well as waste disposal. The board is prohibited from issuing, renewing or amending licences if there may be a substantial and detrimental effect on the quality, quantity or flow rate of water through Inuit owned land unless the applicant has struck a compensation agreement with the Inuit for loss or damage.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development still maintains the right to appoint and release board members and issue and rescind licences, as well as expropriate land. This is a scary thought. The power to appoint board members is a hallmark of the Liberals. They love this sort of thing. When in government, the Liberals always try to legislate for themselves the privilege of political pork-barrelling. Hopefully the good people of Nunavut will not stand for this power of the minister to be turned into a patronage appointment system.

It is my understanding that as a result of committee hearings recently completed on the bill, the legislation has been so amended that the minister has 45 days to approve or deny approval for the licences that I mentioned concerning the flow of water. The minister can also postpone a decision for 45 days. I hope the Liberal minister does not take advantage of this generous allotment of time to make decisions and have local communities suffer while waiting for a decision from Ottawa.

The Canadian Alliance, like its predecessor, the Reform Party, has always believed in smaller, leaner government. The bill transfers to the local government responsibilities which otherwise would be the purview of the federal bureaucracy. On this side of the House we support policy allowing local governments to make decisions on issues that are of a local nature.

We will continue to honour existing treaties and, since the legislation is necessary to provide a framework for an agreement already passed by parliament, we support it.

The Canadian Alliance has expressed concern over the financial cost and, in some cases, duplication of services that are involved in the establishment of Nunavut. Nunavut, which receives $580 million in annual transfer payments, was projecting a $12 million deficit for the fiscal year 2001-02 and was asking the federal government for more money. Federal transfer payments make up approximately 90% of the territorial budget. That amounts to about $25,000 per person living there.

There are many problems with the creation of Nunavut and the official opposition is concerned about these problems. We want to ensure that these matters are dealt with in a responsible manner. However we will be supporting Bill C-33.