Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Stephanie Autut]

Quorum for us is a mandatory five people. That's under the land claim agreement. I would have to check the draft that's in place to see if this is still standing.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Right. I'm thinking of before any changes come into place.

In those terms, then, you've still been able to operate, though, even with a partial board?

[Stephanie Autut]

Yes.

Now, to qualify that, technically it's yes, but the environment in Nunavut being what it is, with a lot of the members being very traditional, spending time on the land, where they don't have access to the phones and the fax machines and the computers, those members who would be participating in their cultural activities often are not available to be part of the decision-making throughout certain times of the year. Specifically, I would say that in the spring and summer season it's often difficult to find quorum.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay.

For the water board, what is the number of board members?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

Thank you for your question.

Our membership is the same; it's eight members of the board and the chairman. All of our appointments are made through the Minister of Indian Affairs. We have no direct appointments from the Government of Nunavut.

We at present are sitting at seven members. We have as recently as last year lost quorum. Our enabling legislation allows us to create panels. We're the only institution of the government that has that ability to create sub-panels, and we've created panels of three members. That has worked well. It was a contingency measure that we implemented two years ago.

We've actually seen brought to bear on that initiative situations in which we've almost not had quorum of a panel, have had difficulty even getting a panel together. So our short-term contingency has now turned into a long-term regular operating practice.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Were the sub-panels able to continue working, then, and making recommendations?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

Yes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay.

You were talking earlier a little bit about the process of your being at the bottom of the pile, so to speak, and the Nunavut Impact Review Board at the front end of this process. In the initial comments, I can't recall whether it was Stephanie or you who talked about having a project approved—I know it was a question from one of the other members across the table—and once that was done, then the water board gave the approval. I almost had the impression that once the water board gave the approval, it was a case of “yes, it's done”.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

No, with the water board you never want to presume the evidence that would be presented and the requirements that we require in the water licensing process. Each decision is made based on the merits of each application.

I would say that just because it gets through the Nunavut impact review process, it's not an automatic given that you actually are going to get a water licence.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay. Let's just make a little assumption that in fact there is a bit of a conflict there. What happens then?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

That would be very difficult to speculate. Each project is assessed on its own merits. The mandate of the board and the object of the board is to ensure that fresh water is protected for the benefit of Nunavummiut and of all Canadians in general. That's the goal of any decision that the board makes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Lévesque, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a member of this committee, I understand that differences of opinion can arise about land and water use decisions for development purposes and about unsatisfactory agreements. To what extent have different areas of your region had different views about planning land and water use? Then, are there regulatory mechanisms that allow you to resolve those differences of opinion when they arise? I am going to ask another question now that I have the floor because I only have it for a short time. Can you give the committee some examples of differences of opinion that have been resolved and describe how that was done?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer that.

As far as the uses of the land and any differences are concerned, there is a mechanism established. In Nunavut, there is one component of the land, federal crown land, that is administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. But there are also Inuit-owned lands that are administered by the regional Inuit associations, and there are sub-surface lands that are administered through Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

Generally a proponent will determine—

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Do not go too fast.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

When a proponent submits an application, it's within their ability to determine where their interests lie and where the best land to use for their project is. To date, I can't think of any conflicts that have been realized.

If there is a conflict that cannot be resolved that has been brought to the table by an applicant who wants to use the land and it's an issue of compensation for that project, and if the Inuit-owned land body under article 20 and the company cannot agree, the water board then becomes the mediator between those companies to try to resolve any conflicts on those land issues.

To date, that provision of the land claim has never required to be implemented.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Perhaps Ms. Ford would like to answer the next question.

The 2007 Inuit Action Plan, which was drawn up by the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami asked for increased access to economic development and a sensitivity to Inuit priorities so that Inuit can participate directly in the development and implementation of Inuit policies and programs.

If you had to decide on the main priorities today, what would they be? In your opinion, has the federal government solved the problems partially or entirely? What would you recommend?

[Violet Ford]

Could you repeat the first part of the question? I didn't understand the first part of your question or comments.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

The first part of my comment was that, in 2007, the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami asked for increased access to economic development and a sensitivity to Inuit priorities so that Inuit can participate in the development and implementation of Inuit programs. Do you remember the question?

[Violet Ford]

You're asking about the priorities. I think this is more of a national action plan that you have access to, in front of you. It's not the international—

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Do you not feel that, before developing an international plan, you should first develop a national plan? Then, as an international organization, you could harmonize it with other already-existing national plans.

[Violet Ford]

First of all, you have to understand our mandate. We represent, as I said in my presentation, Inuit at the international level, not at the national level. We have a different mandate compared to the national Inuit body that is taking on national action plans. We don't interfere with their plans and they don't interfere with ours. They are separate. So in terms of what the national action plan is, I'm not mandated to comment on the national Inuit bodies' action plans on economic development initiatives.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Todd Russell]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I want to go to the issue of implementation of funding and the recommendation in your brief.

I believe it was you, Stephanie, who was talking about completing negotiations for the ten-year funding program, including “streamlining and clarifying core and public hearing activities eligible for funding”. The part I'm asking about is the streamlining. Could you give us perhaps an example or two of what you actually mean by that?

[Stephanie Autut]

That is Dionne's recommendation.