Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

And I'm sure at some point you'll be back here dealing with the legislation, once we have the legislation before the committee.

On the funding, there are a couple of points. With the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, there were commitments made in terms of the percentage of residents who would be employed. I think you're probably well aware of the Berger report that came out, I think it was in 2005, that made some very strong recommendations around what needed to happen in order to have people develop the capacity to take employment.

There are two things that it seems you're speaking about. One is the resources, the funding resources you need in order to hire and retain people. But the other piece seems to be a capacity issue around making sure that people have the skills you need in order to take those positions. Is that accurate?

[Stephanie Autut]

Yes, that's a fair statement.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I know we haven't seen any formal response to the Berger report. I believe there was $20 million recommended for K to 12 education so that people had the basics so they could go on and do technical or post-secondary education that would provide them with the skills. I don't believe there has been that kind of response, the $20 million over 20 years that I think was required.

You're saying right now roughly 50% of the employees are from Nunavut. I believe it is supposed to be 85% in terms of the land claims agreement.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

For the most part, in my office we have a staff of eleven, and there are only four non-Inuit beneficiary staff members.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So that's roughly 75%.

[Stephanie Autut]

Currently, 50% of NIRB's staff is beneficiary at this point in time.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So you have some room to gain there.

On the water regulations, I just want to back up to what you were saying about fresh water versus marine water. My understanding of what you were saying is that, for the marine water, the body can only make recommendations. Recommendations to whom?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

I'd have to go back and check to be 100% positive, but I believe it's to anybody who is dealing with marine issues.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So it could be DFO.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

It could be DFO, but it could be Environment Canada under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It could be any party that is responsible or has legislation in place that governs marine waters.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So it's quite different from the freshwater process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I know time goes rather quickly. Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Over to you, Mr. Duncan, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much. That went quickly for me too, if that's any consolation.

Here we are, this was all scheduled for economic development in the north, and now, of course, we have the backdrop of the NUPPA legislation being tabled yesterday, which has led us on a slightly different path here.

I'm going to go back to where others have gone—Larry and Jean—and just talk about these board appointments again. So, Stephanie, my question will probably be directed to you.

I think I comprehend the recommendations that you have made to the committee. Those were recommendations made in the context of an economic development study. Your words were very precise. You said that it was a recommendation to amend the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. At least that's what I heard in your submission.

My understanding is that the NUPPA legislation and the way the board appointment process has been changed goes as far towards your recommendations as it can possibly go, save and except that we would have to amend the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and the only way we could do that is if we had agreement from NTI. You may not have had time to study the legislation enough, but does that seem a reasonable proposition, that yes, there are some things that can't be accomplished without amending the land claims agreement in the NUPPA legislation?

[Stephanie Autut]

Yes, that's my understanding.

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

Okay.

Just for your benefit, Jean, I didn't want to put a train on the track that was going to go nowhere. So I wanted to clarify that. The government has some sympathy with what you're indicating. The legislation as proposed will help, but we recognize that if it weren't for that complexity, we could do more.

Violet, you had a presentation about east-west and west-east thinking and some real examples. This committee travelled to the north in November or December and we ran right into this. Basically, we would have loved to have gone across, and we kept having to go south in order to go north again. I think it's very clear that it's a problem. It's a problem south of 60 degrees as well. We don't have a transmission grid across the country. Our pipelines run that way, and so on.

We have the Trans-Canada, which we're all proud of, but it's actually pretty basic infrastructure compared to all the other things that we don't have. So I think that manner of thinking is good for us to reflect in our report.

Even in the last 24 to 48 hours, I've had people say “Why do we need to connect NWT to the rest of NWT when they're already connected through the Yukon?” Well, just a minute here. There are other ways to think about this.

I was interested in your paragraph where you talked about megaprojects in reference to Greenland, but you made no reference to megaprojects in Nunavut. Actually, there are some very significant proposals out there that are world-scale and can really change the dynamics of the economy in Nunavut. How up to speed are you on all of that, and how will that affect our relationships with Greenland and other Inuit on your council?

I almost took your statement to read as a criticism of the lack of sophistication of the environmental assessment process in Greenland. That's not something I've heard before, but I don't pretend to know a lot either. I do know they have perhaps in the order of double the population of Nunavut in Greenland, so I'm a little surprised by that. Maybe you'd care to comment.

[Violet Ford]

Thank you for your comments, your interest, and your question.

I would like to add to that paragraph in the presentation. The reason we put that in there was to build on the theme of the east-west and west-east so that we in Canada can provide the opportunity, based on our experiences dealing with megaprojects. That's one of the reasons we didn't mention Nunavut.

We know those megaprojects are there, but the point we were trying to make is that we in Canada, as Inuit, have a lot of experience dealing and negotiating with companies that carry out megaprojects on our lands. Yes, I agree, you did see the hidden concern of the lack of environmental impact assessments up to the level that Canada has and is lacking in Greenland. We just thought we'd put that in there in a very subtle way so as to find ways to communicate with our fellow Greenlanders and try to help them out on these types of issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. We're actually over time by a certain amount.

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to our second round of questions. These are five-minute turns of questions and answers, a little bit shorter still.

We'll go with Mr. Russell first for five minutes. He'll be followed by Mr. Payne and Monsieur Lévesque.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to each of you. It's good to have you with us, particularly on this study, which has taken us some time, but hopefully we'll hear the full range of views and make the recommendations that are appropriate.

To the NIRB and the NWB, one of your conclusions or recommendations was that you be fully engaged in the implementation planning for new land-use planning, impact assessment legislation, and water regulations.

It almost gives me a sense that there's been some difficulty in the past with your two boards being fully engaged in the process. Is there some fear that under a new regulatory regime you won't be fully engaged? Or is it only a resourcing issue and an implementation issue that you're talking about? Has there been more...let's just say, some creative tension?

[Stephanie Autut]

There's always tension.

Maybe I'll speak to NIRB and I'll allow Dionne to then speak to the water regulations.

NIRB saw an initial draft about ten years ago of a piece of legislation that they were going to put out for negotiation, which never went anywhere. It was before my time with the board. This is now my first formal draft legislation that we have to work with.

The board wants to ensure that it has the adequate resources in place to come to the table and be able to properly implement it, paying attention to the fact that it's being put out there to make the whole process more efficient, more user-friendly, and more appropriate to enable industry to get through it. With that in mind, we want to carry it out right from the beginning, which means we need the resources in place to fully be engaged to have those discussions on how best to implement and to have the resources available to us to ensure that the proper mechanisms, the proper management systems, the proper personnel and appointment processes—all of those things—are in place to adequately make sure that the bill is meeting its full expectations.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I think this raises a question. We need to ask the government while we're studying this bill what their implementation plan is around this particular piece of legislation. We can create a framework that might improve it by looking at it like a picture on the wall, but we need a bit more than that. We need some wheels on this thing, if it's going to work—or yes, probably skis.

To Ms. Filiatrault, are you guaranteed that your existing mandate is going to be preserved under the new legislation? I know it came under the NLCA and all of that type of thing, but is it going to be preserved under this new legislation, do you know? Again, is it just an implementation thing that we're talking about?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

Thank you for your question.

Mr. Chairman, I think it needs to be clarified that there's one very clear difference between the Nunavut Water Board and NIRB as it relates to legislation. We actually have the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act in place, which goes beyond the NLCA as it relates to the management of waters in Nunavut. So we have enabling legislation that has helped us move forward.

To speak a little to the past concerning why it's important and why the recommendation that was put in our brief is there, it's that if you look at the regulatory process in Nunavut, we are the bottom. We're the last gatekeeper before a project can get the final authorization and then go ahead. So everything that happens before us, we keep track of. The enabling legislation speaks to it a little bit, but for the most part, the Nunavut Waters Act is very specific to the requirements for the water board.

The difference, and the reason that the bringing in place of the NUPPA Act is important—the enabling legislation for NPC and the Impact Review Board—is that where the Nunavut Water Board is concerned, much coordination and many steps have to happen in the system at the front end of the process. The people who are interpreting that legislation need to understand what the implications are of the way they're interpreting it and how it's going to affect the people down the road.

We were already at the back end, so we could interpret our legislation—and we still are doing so, even today. Our legislation has been in place for years, and we still are trying to learn what our legislation means and how it's to be interpreted. That's an ongoing thing for us, because we did not have that benefit early on.

What we're saying is, you have the new NUPPA Act—our sister boards, the planning commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board—and it would be helpful for all of the parties to make sure that it's implemented better than our legislation was implemented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Russell.

Now we'll go to Mr. Payne for five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to all of you here this afternoon.

I was wanting to touch a little bit on the appointments. It sounds as though there are some good things moving forward in terms of your appointments.

Now, Stephanie, I think you said that you had ten members and that this is the first time in ten years that you've had a full board.

[Stephanie Autut]

Our board is made up of eight members plus a chairperson. For many years we operated with six or seven. It was only, I believe, in May or June of last year that we received full membership, and it only lasted for about six months.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

What would be the quorum, then?