Debates of Oct. 21st, 1996

Nunavut Waters Act

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-51, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-51, the Nunavut Waters Act. I am pleased to bring this legislation before the House so that we can establish a modern water management regime in the eastern Arctic that has a solid legislative and regulatory basis.

Bill C-51 is important for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it represents a major step forward in fulfilling the government's obligation under the Nunavut land claims agreement. As my hon. colleagues are aware, our commitment to fully implement land claims agreements was clearly stated in the red book. This is an ongoing process that will require the continued attention and support of the House.

Section 13 of the Nunavut land claims agreement requires that a special board be established with powers over the regulation, management and use of waters in the settlement area. The agreement also requires that this board be established through a statute. This is the primary purpose of Bill C-51.

However this proposed legislation does more than fulfil a lawful commitment under the Nunavut land claims agreement. It also advances the government's policy of fostering the political development of northern Canada by supporting the decision making in the north by northerners.

As the Nunavut water board begins to plays its role, local participation in the decision making process will increase. The new regime will result in a significant decrease in the number of applications for water use licences requiring ministerial approval as compared to that under the former Northern Inland Waters Act.

By establishing a viable, affordable and efficient form of government in Nunavut, the bill will allow the Inuit to effectively practise self-government in the eastern Arctic. Without passing any new law, under powers given in the land claim agreement, the Nunavut water board was established on July 9, 1996, on the third anniversary of the coming into force of the agreement.

As it stands now, the Nunavut water board has all the powers described in section 13 of the land claims agreement, but the latter did not give any details regarding the board's responsibilities. In view of the regulatory nature of the board, its role and jurisdiction were to be laid out in the bill before us today.

In order to ensure that the regulation and licensing of water use in Nunavut has a clear basis in law, we must proceed with this legislation. Bill C-51 will establish a fair, efficient and comprehensive water licensing system. In so doing, it will enhance the prospects for economic development and job creation in Nunavut while respecting the rights and benefits flowing from the Nunavut land claims agreement with the Inuit.

In the interests of good and efficient government the proposed legislation extends the jurisdiction of the Nunavut water board beyond the settlement area to encompass the entire Nunavut region, except for national parks. In this regard Bill C-51 exceeds the requirements of the Nunavut land claims agreement but creates a uniform management regime.

It is critical that we have a uniform water management regime throughout Nunavut. A single regime will be more cost effective, consistent and easier to manage, and will meet the government's commitment to industry to streamline the licensing process. I want to assure my hon. colleagues that we are not establishing a completely new system of water management with this legislation. Bill C-51 is modelled on the Northwest Territories Waters Act and its predecessor, the Northern Inland Waters Act, with a few modifications to reflect the requirements of the Nunavut land claims agreement.

The Nunavut water board will have responsibilities and powers equivalent to those currently held by the Northwest Territories water board, which are essentially the authority to license the use of water and the deposit of waste. Licences will not be required to use water for domestic purposes, for emergency purposes such as fighting fires or controlling floods, or in national parks.

Bill C-51 sets clear rules for issuing, renewing, amending or cancelling water use licences. These rules give the industry added certainty and will protect the environment in the eastern Arctic. Also, they will ensure that the licensing process takes into account the interests of all the water users.

The Nunavut water board will have a wide range of powers to carry out its mandate, including holding public consultations with regard to licence applications. In some cases, such as applications

for permission to expropriate, the board will be obliged to hold public hearings.

In such a case, the board will have to form a panel made up of some of its members and will have to give advance notice of the hearing. It will also have to publish notice of its decisions.

The board will have the power to impose strict conditions for the issuance of licences. The maximum proposed penalty for offences is a $100,000 fine, one year imprisonment or both. Similar provisions exist in other similar water management systems elsewhere in Canada.

Furthermore, I am happy to inform the House that the board will have the authority to order the compensation of consumers adversely affected by licensees' activities. It will also have the power to order a licensee to deposit a security with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Bill C-51 will clearly place a great deal of decision making authority into the hands northerners and in particular the Inuit of Nunavut. At the same time, in a fashion similar to the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act, the governor in council will retain the authority to make water management regulations. However, in certain instances, as specified in Bill C-51, the recommendation of the federal minister will be subject to the concurrence of the board.

In the interests of effective planning, the water board will be expected to work closely with the Nunavut planning commission and the Nunavut impact review board. Legislation covering these two boards will be introduced in the near future.

As mentioned earlier, there are important provisions in the legislation that reflect the letter and spirit of the Nunavut land claims agreement. Specifically, the Nunavut water board will not be allowed to issue, renew or amend a water use or waste deposit licence that may substantially affect waters that are on or flow through Inuit owned land unless a compensation package is in place.

To ensure a smooth transition from the current water licensing regime, all licences issued under the Northwest Territories Waters Act will continue to be valid after promulgation of Bill C-51. Hearings that had begun under the Northwest Territories Waters Act before the Nunavut board was established will continue until a decision is reached. If hearings for an application had not commenced when the Nunavut water board was established the application will be addressed by the Nunavut water board under the provisions of the new legislation.

This legislation also contains a clause that will validate decisions made by the Nunavut water board before Bill C-51 comes into effect, as long as those decisions would have been valid under the Nunavut Waters Act.

As the members of the House know, in the eastern Arctic, we are concerned about the impact of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement on the other Inuit who have traditionally occupied and used the land in the region affected by the settlement of land claims.

I am happy to say that Bill C-51 does take these concerns into account, with respect to water. The proposed Nunavut Waters Act includes provisions allowing the representatives of the Makivik Corporation to sit on the board whenever it studies activities affecting areas, in Nunavut, which the Inuit of Quebec use in equal proportion.

The Inuit of Northern Quebec will also be fully represented before the board when it will examines issues concerning the islands and the maritime regions traditionally used by these aboriginal people. Some First Nations will also be represented before the board when the issues at hand affect the regions they have traditionally occupied and used and are still using.

Negotiations with the Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated to establish this board have proven to be extremely complex. We have fundamentally different views on how the new water management regime should be implemented. Essentially, NTI is of the opinion that the Nunavut water board should be the final authority on the issuance and enforcement of all water licences in Nunavut and that there should be no ongoing role for the responsible minister or for the governor in council.

We believe it is the responsibility of elected governments, not appointed boards, to establish an appropriate balance between economic development and environmental protection. This principle of accountability is at the very heart of our system of democratic government.

There is concern that NTI's position would give the Nunavut water board more authority on water matters than a future elected Nunavut government when the responsibility for water management is transferred to the territories. This is clearly not the situation in any other jurisdiction in Canada and it would not be an acceptable situation in Nunavut. Unfortunately, it has become evident that we cannot reach a consensus with NTI on this matter. In the interests of good government and to eliminate regulatory uncertainty in Nunavut, we have decided to proceed with Bill C-51 which fulfils our legal obligation and is fully consistent with the Nunavut land claims agreement.

Let me reiterate that the regime we are establishing in Nunavut is very similar to the regime already in place and working well in the Northwest Territories. This regime has recently been strengthened, modernized and streamlined based on extensive and positive consultations with key stakeholders in the north and in particular with the aboriginal peoples.

Bill C-51 ensures that more decisions that affect the people, waters and environment of Nunavut will be made in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay and other eastern Arctic communities as opposed to in Yellowknife or Ottawa.

I believe this is a logical step forward in the political development of the north. I believe that it is an important step toward the creation of a new territorial government in Nunavut. I am therefore seeking the support of hon. members from both sides of the House in referring this bill to committee for review.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the bill before us respecting the water resources of Nunavut. As usual, I will briefly put things in perspective for my colleagues and also for the people who are presently watching us.

When I took on the role of Indian affairs critic and when I read words such as "Nunavut, Nunavik", I was all confused. I think people wonder where Nunavut and Nunavik are. It is important to put these things in perspective before dealing with the content and provisions of the bill as such.

Finally, it may now be said that Nunavut is a territory where Inuit people are everywhere. It is a huge territory north of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, almost 4,000 kilometres long. It is inhabited mostly by Inuit people, although there are also Dene and Metis people in the western part.

If we look at the whole of the territory north of the 60th parallel, starting with the west, we see a new division of the Canadian map. We know there are already Canadian provinces. We know there are also two territories that are the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We have a tendency to divide them according to the Inuit influences and traditions.

If I start with the far west, this territory is called Inuvialuit. An initial agreement on self-government was signed here at the time with the Inuit people from the northwestern part of the country.

Immediately after that comes Nunavut. Here too, within a few months of our last federal election an agreement on self-government was signed. This is probably the first Inuit territory in Canada. Inuvialuit is a small territory, while Nunavut starts immediately north of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and stretches on across almost all of the rest of Canada.

Discussions are being held on self-government for Nunavik, the same as for Inuvialuit and Nunavut. It is the northern part of Quebec, which was transferred like the other territories in 1912. These territories are under discussion now. I know the Inuit and Cree people are discussing these territories. Quebec may be partitioned. But I will not get into this. Today we are dealing with the water resources of Nunavut.

I simply want to tell you that northern Quebec will always remain in Quebec, unless Quebec itself decides to let it go, which I doubt very much. I wanted mostly to locate Nunavut in relation to Nunavik and Inuvialuit. There is also a small Inuit section of Labrador, where discussions on self-government are bogged down.

I have had the pleasure of visiting these four regions. There are land claims involved. There are demands for self-government in Labrador. Newfoundland seems to have a hard time negotiating with the Inuit who live there.

So Nunavut represents most of the land occupied by the Inuit. This territory will be formally established on April 1, 1999. What does Nunavut mean in Inuktitut? It means "Notre monde" in French and "Our Land" in English. It means that these people have lived in this part of the continent for over 10,000 years. Traces of a presence dating back 10,000 years have been found in the Nunavut territory.

The Inuit world is extremely interesting. As I said, I had the pleasure to travel there several times. There is an example I often use when making speeches, as I did last week in my riding, when people in a classroom asked me about the Inuit, their territory and traditions. A part of their culture that is especially rich is the Inuktitut language. I do not know much about Inuktitut, but I know they have 50 words to describe snow. When we talk about snow, whether it is melting, wet, solid or icy, we only have one word for it: snow. But they have 50 words for it. The region has a very rich Inuit culture, and the language itself is very interesting.

These people signed a self-government agreement in 1993, as I said just a few months before the federal election. The Inuit had been working toward self-government for 20 years. I will give you a little historical overview in a moment.

People wonder why the Inuit did not start earlier. Since they have occupied the land for over 10,000 years, 20 years seems like a very short time. I think everyone will agree that 20 years is a rather short period of time.

But native people and Inuit people do not share our concept of property. Our culture finds its roots in Great Britain and France and with it comes a need to mark boundaries, to insist that the property we plan to buy be properly surveyed, be given a proper legal

description. We white people have one way of seeing the ownership of property that is completely different from the way the Inuit and native communities see it.

In fact, when they first came here, the Europeans were surprised to see that these people had almost no conception of what property was. For them, the land was there and it was to be shared by everyone, and not divided up into individual pieces of property.

The Inuit-and I can vouch for this having visited them-are a family-based people. They are often on the move, leading a nomadic life. With a population density of one person per 1,000 square kilometres, the likelihood of encountering another human being is quite slim. The concept of property is therefore foreign to them. All that land, this whole area of the continent belongs to their peoples and to whoever decides to live there.

When the self-government agreement was finally signed in 1993 after 20 years of negotiations, it was described at the time as an agreement under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which, as you know, recognizes treaties entered into with the Inuit, Métis and Indians, as defined in the Indian Act.

Of course, this self-government agreement being covered by section 35 of the Constitution, any disagreement on the interpretation of the agreement may eventually end up before the appropriate courts.

The Nunavut planning commission was established to oversee a transition period of six years, from 1993 to 1999, when the transfer of powers will be complete.

These people are already at work and they have set their priorities. Not surprisingly, water is listed as a priority. And so are impact assessments because there have been some mishaps in Nunavut and in the Yukon as well. Just the other day, we debated Bill C-6, consideration of which was concluded this morning and whose purpose is to regulate to some extent, through environmental standards, land use.

There have been cases of abuse in that respect in Nunavut. That is why their number one priority is to try to clean up mining operations. There are mines that have caused considerable pollution and the committee was concerned about that. It was also concerned about waters because ridiculous ideas about water use come up every now and then. Some can be quite surprising. Take for instance the Americans who were keen to build pipelines to carry, no, not gas, but water.

Indeed, water does have a real value there, because, even if some traces of pollution have been noted for some time now, it is still purer than our ground water supply here.

So we are sometimes tempted to misuse these waters, and I think the bill before us today is quite consistent with the work of the board watching over the list of priorities, that is water cleanup and impact studies.

The bill is also interesting in this regard, because it provides that impact studies will not be limited to the environment, but will extend to caribou sanctuaries and Inuit communities. We will thus have a board with slightly broader powers which, before granting any operating licences, will be in a position to say: "We want to know the impact this will have on our caribou". It is important, because caribou is a traditional source of food for the Inuit, and everybody knows that this animal is very sensitive to environmental changes.

We will have an act to respect Inuit traditions and to examine carefully the impact of water use not only on the Inuit, but also on animal populations.

Finally, the Nunavut planning commission, the very same commission, will also be in charge of zoning and urban planning, because there is some urban development. Everybody thinks of Iqaluit, the capital. It must be remembered that the Inuit decided that the capital of Nunavut would be Iqaluit, while the present capital of the Northwest Territories is Yellowknife. So, the Inuit said: "The government functions that you agreed to hand over to us will be carried out in our capital", and there was a discussion to determine whether it would be Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit. Through a referendum, the people finally chose Iqaluit as their capital.

These are more like villages. The capital, Iqaluit, with 3,600 inhabitants, it is not a major urban centre. I went there and found that it takes maybe an hour to cover all the streets. Nevertheless, people are concerned about zoning and urbanization and they want to make sure their community develops adequately while respecting the environment.

Earlier, I said a few words about the location. Nunavut covers 1.9 million square kilometres, or one-tenth of Canada. It is larger than three quarters of Greenland and it is six times the size of Germany.

Nunavut extends from the 60th to the 85th parallel. It is bordered by Arviat in the south, Coppermine in the west, Alert Bay, which is known because it is a military base in Canada's far north, is the northern border, and Iqaluit, on Baffin Island, in the east. The small island of Sanikiluaq, in the Hudson Bay, is also part of the territory. This is interesting, given that mining operations were once conducted on this island.

We often wonder why the Indian affairs department deals with this issue. The explanation is the same as for Bill C-6, which dealt with quartz and gold mining in the Yukon. The department for which I am the official opposition critic is called the Department of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This means it is responsible for everything north of the 60th parallel. This also explains why bills such as this one often come under the jurisdiction of the Indian affairs department.

Nunavut has a population of about 22,000, including an overwhelming majority of 17,500 Inuit. Earlier, I mentioned some figures about the number of people in relation to the size of the territory. A quick calculation shows that 1,900,000 square kilometres for 22,000 inhabitants represents a little less than one inhabitant per 1,000 square kilometres. This is probably one of the least populous parts of the planet, which does not mean however that just anything should be allowed to go on in that region. The legislation we have before us is to develop a very important resource of Nunavut, its waters. Even though its population is small, the time has come now for Nunavut to have a little more control over its waters.

Nunavut has 22,000 inhabitants, including 17,000 Inuit. In the four large regions I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Inuit population totals 25,000 people. Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, is a city of 3,600 people, some 2,000 kilometres away from Ottawa. Iqaluit has 20 kilometres of roads. These figures show how isolated it is. I will tell you more about this later.

I was elected as the member for Saint-Jean in October of 1993. Since there were 205 new members, the Prime Minister decided at that time that the new Parliament would not start sitting before the following February. My leader at the time having confirmed me in my role of official critic, the first trip I made in that capacity was to Iqaluit.

I spent two days in Iqaluit. Since I knew nothing about Iqaluit, I spent the first day walking around and talking with people. I met some interesting people. Since Iqaluit is a small town of 3,600 people, it does not take long to see it all, to walk down every street. As it was quite cold, I had to walk fast. During my first trip, the temperature was 30 degrees below zero, and during my second trip, it was even colder.

The first time, I walked around and talked to people. The native issue is fascinating, because one has to see the living conditions of the people firsthand. Things are quite different in native communities. They are also different in Metis communities, in Inuit communities and even from one Inuit community to another. Just like I said a while ago, there are four regions, and each one of them is different.

One realizes that subsistance hunting and fishing are extremely important to them. The first matter I had to discuss with the Inuit concerned their economy, and how they can make a living in an economy where they have no choice but to hunt and fish to provide half of their food. Among other things, I noticed that a loaf of bread costs $3 in Iqaluit, and the price of two litres of milk is $7. These people's wages are half the national average, and groceries cost twice what we pay here.

These people have a hard time making ends meet, and their only option is to turn to nature by hunting and fishing in their traditional way. Naturally, water is important in that regard. During part of the year, the water flows freely, and the thawing of streams is a wonderful thing to see, but they have harsh winters, and they need snowmobiles to go hunting and fishing. Snowmobiles are a necessity.

I made my second trip to Iqaluit for hearings on social program reform, and many people told us how important water is to them. That is why this bill comes as no surprise to me today. They are concerned about water quality. However, there was not much flowing water when I was there. As I was saying, the temperature was 30 below during my first trip and 40 below during the second one. When we tried to leave, we could not. The plan's engine froze. We had to go back to the hotel and wait for another plane from Montreal to pick us up. It took a whole day.

When the second plane landed, they left the engine running to avoid any further problem, since the engine on the first plane froze in the bitter cold, as I was saying.

There are also some interesting issues in terms of economic development. I talked earlier about the progress being made in commercial hunting and fishing. They have stores up there that specialize in the marketing of caribou, seal and whale meat, for instance. The industry exists, but is not allowed to ship outside Nunavut. I think discussions are under way to find ways to allow Canadians and Quebecers to have the opportunity to enjoy these delicacies. People up there would like to export caribou or seal meat, as these species are not threatened with extinction. It would be very profitable for them to be able to sell these products.

Then there is the transportation industry. Air Cri provides passenger air service to several communities. Actually, almost every community is accessible only by air. Air Cri is crucial to the economy. They are also taking control of several hotel facilities.

There is also the federal contribution pursuant to the Nunavut agreement. The federal government has agreed to pay them $1.1 billion over 14 years, a very attractive contribution indeed.

They will be able to use this money for economic development. In fact, Nunavut and Nunavik encourage economic development programs especially in the business sectors I mentioned earlier.

There is a profusion of new public and professional agencies. Since the agreement was signed in 1993, people are beginning to

receive money and to ensure sustainable development. And I think that this legislation is in keeping with sustainable development.

Moreover, three new national parks will be established. Also, there will be a mining resources evaluation program. I must point out that mining requires a lot of water. This legislation will correct certain oversights.

Before speaking about the bill, I want to explain the background of the Nunavut agreement, which was signed in 1993 and which led directly to this legislation. As I said, the Northwest Territories were established in 1912 out of the northern parts of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. After 1950, the Northwest Territories were governed by an appointed commissioner and an elected territorial council, which was not really very representative. It was only around 1975 that the council began to be representative.

In 1966, the federal government set up the Carrothers commission, which advised it on a greater distinct representation in the centre and in the east. Before that, these subdivisions did not exist and there was only one vast Northwest territory. People asked that the territory be subdivided so that it could be more representative.

In 1967, the federal government transferred the management of nearly all programs to the Government of the Northwest Territories, the legislative assembly of which is in Yellowknife. I visited the Northwest Territories legislature, and it is obvious that this institution was inspired by Inuit tradition.

It a fairly recent structure, having been built about ten years ago, I would say, and it is quite nice. Part of the structure looks like igloos, it is difficult to describe. In Inuit tradition, the circle is omnipresent, whereas our Parliament is laid out to show the difference between the government benches and the opposition benches. We face each other. Over there, everybody sits in a circle. I find that very interesting.

We can see that the Northwest Territories have been heavily influenced by Inuit culture, as well as Dene and Métis culture. There are many Dene and Métis in the western part of the Nunavut. The circle is very important for these people.

In 1976, a Inuit group, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, of which Mrs. Kuptana is president-this organization still exists and it is quite dynamic-suggested the federal cabinet establish a territory separating the west, the center and the east of the Territories.

In 1981, a new approach was suggested, that is the creation of a new government composed principally of Dene and Métis, but this plan never was adopted. In 1982, a referendum was conducted on the idea of dividing the territory. The question was: "Do you think Northwest Territories should be divided?" The participation rate was 53 per cent, and 56 per cent of those who voted said yes. I must say that organizing an election or a referendum in the Nunavut is almost a miracle. To begin with, even before the election or the referendum, informing the people of every village takes weeks. It is absolutely extraordinary to see a 53 per cent participation rate. People from Nunavut often have to travel 200 to 300 kilometres by snowmobile to vote in a referendum or an election. Under those circumstances, people who exercise the vote are real heroes of democracy. I think that people who travel 300 kilometres by snowmobile to vote deserve our appreciation.

The government recognized the referendum on certain conditions. Of course, there are several political parties in Northwest Territories. One of the conditions was that all parties accept the division, and they did. Second, all parties had to accept the division of powers between the territories and local governments.

Some specific fields like education and health were transferred to Inuit people even though the government of the Northwest Territories had jurisdiction over them. So, there were agreements to effectively divide powers and to ensure viability of all of the Northwest Territories after the separation. I think that, by now, we can consider that it has been proven that all the territories are viable.

In 1992, there were a second referendum on separation into four regions and 54 percent of the voters said yes. As I said earlier, the Nunavut agreement was signed in May of 1993, just a few months before the last federal elections, in October.

The bill is on water resources of Nunavut. It was read the first time on June 14 1996. It implements the water management provisions of the Nunavut agreement. Pursuant to chapter 13 of the land claims agreement between the Inuit and the federal government, a commission or a board was to be formed to settle the issues concerning waters. This is why we are studying legislation, which, in some ways, is very similar to many others, whose aim is to implement clauses of the Nunavut agreement.

Some of us have a few minor concerns regarding the members appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have here a breakdown of the members of the Nunavut Water Board. Four members are appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the recommendation of an independent development organization; two members are appointed directly by the minister; two members are also appointed by the minister but on the recommendation of a minister from the Northwest Territories; and the chairperson is appointed by the Indian affairs department on the recommendation of the other members.

I think the Indian affairs department and minister have too much control over this process. At this stage, we have not yet completed our consultations and we do not yet know if we will ask for amendments to these provisions. We obviously agree with the substance of the legislation, but on the issue of the establishment of the board, I think the government should have given more

autonomy to local groups instead of leaving it all up to the Indian affairs department.

This new legislation is similar to the one that already exists in the Northwest Territories-because there is one-under the jurisdiction of the territorial legislative assembly. Its primary function is to license uses of water and deposits of waste.

Interestingly, this bill provides for public hearings and, in line with the Nunavut agreement, shows great respect for the Inuit. This is important to us because I think that, when we talk about water in Nunavut, we have to talk about Inuit traditions and culture.

I just want to mention four paragraphs that have attracted my attention. Public hearings are allowed and their conduct is governed by certain administrative rules which recognize the importance of the culture, customs and knowledge of the Inuit. For instance, the testimony and contribution of some experts is acknowledged during public hearings on issues such as the use of waters in Nunavut but the role of the Inuit, who are probably the best experts on water quality, will also be recognized. This provision will truly allow them to influence proceedings.

Before holding public hearings on a request concerning water the NWB must take whatever steps are necessary to inform the public that hearings will be held, namely by giving notice, circulating information and setting the day, hour and place of the hearings.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier because these people live in such vast areas that if they decide, for instance, to come to a public hearing, they must be notified weeks ahead because travelling 200 or 300 kilometres on a snowmobile is not an easy thing. It requires some planning and this is why I was saying earlier that these people are the heroes of democracy, because they travel hundreds of kilometres for a hearing, an election or a referendum. This is why it is important, and the bill makes adequate provision for it.

If the public receives, within a reasonable time frame before the beginning of hearings, the information transmitted to the NWB on requests about water, the Nunavut water board will hear testimony and advice from experts and will spread this information on the largest possible scale.

The interesting aspect of public hearings is that the NWB holds such hearings in the communities that are the most directly affected. No matter the community, no matter how isolated it is, if there are problems in a far northern community, the NWB will have to hold public hearings locally so that people do not have to travel long distances. In that respect, this bill is quite consistent with the Nunavut agreement as such, and, this is, I think, worth mentioning.

Requirements will be prescribed by law for such purposes as issuing, renewing or amending a license in respect of a use of waters or a deposit of waste that may substantially alter the quality, quantity or rate of flow of waters through Inuit-owned land, unless an agreement has been reached between the parties concerned.

From now on, people who worked in mines or elsewhere will have to comply with the regulations, and a public hearing will be held as soon as it is felt that their activity may substantially alter the quality, quantity or rate of flow of waters. Through the Board, the Inuit will have more control over development projects and the environmental impact of those economic development projects.

The Board will also perform those other functions described earlier by my colleague. It will be required to work closely with the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board. These Commissions come directly under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement signed in 1993. They will ensure compliance with environmental standards and will oversee social and economic impact. This is also interesting, because it broadens the mandate somewhat further.

There is something about the bill that has been said many times before: it does not apply to shipping. I know it is hard to include the whole area of sea and air traffic in the North. I was an environmentalist before I got into politics and I believe everybody remembers the mess of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. That is why I wonder if the bill could not have had a larger scope and include shipping.

I do not understand why we are told that shipping is not affected. That means that ships, oil tankers and others, may carry on. Of course, ships are governed by other laws, but not necessarily ones that come under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories' legislative assembly or of the capital, Iqaluit, which is Nunavut's capital, where the Inuit are. We will examine the possibility of adding some clarification.

I spoke a moment ago about the Board's membership. We lament the extent of the Department's control over appointments. Even though, for instance, several organizations are invited to submit recommendations, the minister has the final say on appointments.

The bill suggests that public hearings be held for some big projects. Not only will there be hearings for existing projects, which could involve stricter water management rules, but from now on, anything that could affect water quality, quantity or flow-rate will have to be submitted to the Board. That is important for us.

As for possible recourse, the independent developer is naturally entitled to ask the competent jurisdiction to decide if someone has

a right to use Nunavut's water. They will make regulations, and if these regulations are contravened, recourse will naturally be had to the courts.

Therefore, the bill, as such, is completely consistent with the agreement, where this took 20 years. I told you earlier that there were 20 years of negotiations, although they were preceded by several hundreds of years of joint occupation of the area by Inuit and whites. It is therefore in line with the Nunavut agreement.

The management provisions, as I said, are being implemented with the greatest respect for the Inuit, with compensation, recourse as an option, and the real possibility for them to hold hearings, to examine fully any development projects. It merely gives official expression to the act, the Nunavut provisions.

We will naturally vote in favour of the bill, although the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to which this bill will be referred later on, will be looking at the possibility of perhaps going a little bit further with respect to navigation or to control by the Inuit of their board.

We feel that the Nunavut Inuit government has the competence and abilities required to make appointments and also to be responsible for this board. I think that it will demonstrate confidence in the Inuit. I have confidence in the international experts on the quality, quantity and flow of water, but the Inuit, who have been living there for 10,000 years, perhaps can be trusted when it comes to controlling the waters.

Therefore, with respect to Bill C-51, we will be looking at the possibility of making small changes. As for the merits of this bill, the Bloc Quebecois is completely in favour of this legislation, and when it has been passed, we will be wishing the Inuit the best of luck with the management of the quality, quantity and flow of their waters in Nunavut.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to oppose Bill C-51 for three reasons. The first is that I support good government, namely, government which provides a necessary service, is cost effective and is accountable to the people who pay for it. The second is that the government's process has been faulty.

The third and most serious reason is that the original legislation creating Nunavut ought to be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it creates what amounts to another province without meeting the 1982 constitutional requirement that at least seven provincial legislatures representing 50 per cent of Canada's population have to consent to Nunavut's creation. The provinces have never been asked.

With regard to the need for good government, this new illegal province of Nunavut, which of course is not a province officially but will have the administrative and governmental trappings of a province, has a land mass about twice as big as the legal province of Ontario. Its population at 22,000 is less than the area population of Cranbrook, B.C. where I have my constituency office.

Canadians often complain about the fact that the Atlantic provinces are so small, but even the beautiful but tiny province of Prince Edward Island has a population of 130,000, about six times the population of the new illegal province of Nunavut. My hon. colleagues will therefore understand if I state my firm belief that having so much government for Nunavut is over governing at its worst.

Specifically the Nunavut Water Board's eight appointed members plus a chair for a population of 22,000 is part of the excessive bureaucracy of an additional 930 civil service jobs cited by a Coopers & Lybrand report of December 1992 on establishing Nunavut, plus 705 public service jobs to be transferred from Yellowknife. The entire Northwest Territories Water Board currently consists of from four to nine members and Nunavut has half the land and less than half the population. However, the various groups of northern peoples apparently said they wanted additional board members in order to guarantee representation for different population groups, including the Inuit of Nunavut and the Inuit of northern Quebec.

I can understand somebody wanting something. There are things I would like myself, for example, a big ranch on prime land maybe with a herd of fallow deer, or all of the waterfront of a small lake in central British Columbia. There are two things that keep me from having that big ranch or lake. First, nobody is going to give it to me just because I want it. No, if I am going to have the ranch or lake, I am going to have to pay for them. The second thing that stops me is that I would have to look after them because nobody is going to look after them for me just because it is something I would like.

Neither of those conditions applies to the Nunavut Water Board. Somebody else is going to pay for it and somebody else is going to have to look after it. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the somebody is you and me and all the other taxpayers of Canada.

With such a small population and such a huge land mass, it is perhaps not surprising that the Northwest Territories is at the bottom of the heap compared with all other provinces and the Yukon in so far as paying their own way is concerned. I make mention of that not that it is the fault of the people who are in the Northwest Territories, I simply mention it as a fact.

According to research supplied by the Library of Parliament, for the 1995-96 budget year it is estimated that the Northwest Territories received 72.2 per cent of its income from general purpose federal government transfers of funds plus 10.7 per cent from specific purpose federal government transfer of funds for a total of 82.9 per cent of the income of the Government of the Northwest Territories coming from federal transfers. Let me repeat that astounding number: 82.9 per cent of the income of the Government of the Northwest Territories for the fiscal year 1995-96 came from federal government transfers.

If this were to provide the necessities of life, many Canadians would probably go along with such a staggering figure, but when a lot of those funds go to employ bureaucrats who seem to be thicker on the ground than the caribou, Canadian taxpayers lose patience. Maybe the Ottawa mandarins have led such sheltered lives that they do not realize that civil servants are not a necessity of life. Taxpayers want the number of civil servants kept to a minimum, just the minimum required to provide essential services. Instead, all too often taxpayers find themselves funding such ridiculous bureaucracies as the water board consisting of eight members plus a chairperson to serve the 22,000 people of Nunavut.

Good government has to do with having the people elect some leaders who are responsible to ensure that public services are provided at a cost the people can afford, by the level closest to the people and best able to perform the service efficiently. Instead, the Nunavut Water Board is appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who in turn was appointed-surprise-by the Prime Minister after being elected by the people of Sault Ste. Marie, which the last time I looked on the map was a long way from Nunavut.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, you still have quite a bit of time left in your discourse.

It being nearly 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by members.

National Aids Strategy

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, AIDS is a scourge that has affected the lives of families all across this country.

One of my former students has contracted this terrible disease from a heterosexual partner who has already died because of AIDS. Recently she was awarded the Ovation Award for Activism by the Toronto People with AIDS Foundation.

Like many Canadians, my constituents appreciate the effort the government has made through the National AIDS Strategy to combat the disease through research, treatment and education.

Canada has made a substantial and recognized contribution in fighting AIDS. I was pleased to see the response to the petition I presented on the AIDS strategy. It states that the Minister of Health is participating in active discussions in various sectors concerning the federal role with regard to HIV-AIDS.

I urge the Minister of Health and the entire government to secure continuing funding for the AIDS strategy before the program runs out in March 1998.

The Travels Of Alain Bourbeau And Jean-Philippe Bourgeois

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honour the courage and determination of two young men from my riding, who made the 6,000-kilometre journey from Calgary to Drummondville by canoe.

Alain Bourbeau and Jean-Philippe Bourgeois made a trip that has not been made since the 18th century. These two coureurs des bois set off from Calgary this past May 7 for a five-month trip along the route of the fur trade.

This was an adventure which brought them both closer to nature and to the essentials of life. As one of them so aptly put it: a life that is not lived in search of a dream is not worth living. This phrase describes not only their present day exploit, but the exploits of all Quebecers involved in past exploration and discovery in the vast reaches of North America.

I would like to send this message to Alain and Jean-Philippe: thank you for this example of perseverance and courage. Your accomplishment is worthy of our total admiration.

Reform Party Of Canada

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal 747 has hit turbulence. The seatbelt signs are flashing and the Prime Minister has called for an emergency landing.

The GST engine has backfired. The engine of accountability is sputtering and black smoke clouds the Prime Minister's vision. The gauges show that engine three is overheating with political rhetoric. Canadians fear the fourth engine will not be strong enough to

save them from a crash landing as experienced by the Tories in 1993.

It is therefore encouraging to see Canadians clamouring to board the Reform jumbo jet into the 21st century. It offers full service, prosperity and a clear vision of a new and better Canada. Reform's message of political accountability will ensure that all the engines on its jumbo jet operate at maximum efficiency and power.

Canadians who want to venture securely into the 21st century can now board with Reform at gate 97.

Youth Internship

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to attend the recent open house reception and information night hosted by the Youth Internship Canada program in school district 17 in Oromocto, New Brunswick. The federal government is providing more than $100,000 for this important initiative.

The youth internship program provides students and employers with opportunities to work together by developing skills and knowledge that can lead to employment. Students participate in on the job and in class training which will be applied directly to specific jobs.

In preparing the students for work readiness, they will be taught basic employability skills along with anger management and social skills training. The program is designed to include special needs students, youth at risk, learning disabled and native students.

I applaud the federal government for funding this innovative program and I congratulate all the students, teachers and businesses involved.

Small Business

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Small Business Week in Canada. Canadians know that small business is the engine of our nation, the place where job creation has been phenomenal.

I am particularly pleased to be able to highlight four Burlington business leaders who made the Ontario top 100 entrepreneurs list. Ray Simmons is CEO of CRS Robotics, a leading developer of human scale robots and robot systems. Ian Hopkins heads up Magic Wand Carpet Cleaning, a company he plans to franchise across North America. Archie Bennett is president of Zeton Inc. which designs and manufactures small computer controlled pilot plants. Kevin Milne's company is Mars Metal, a specialty casting and keel company.

Each of these individuals credits their team of employees and good customer relations as the keys for their success in the marketplace. This government salutes their success and the success of the entire small business sector in Canada.

We commit to ensuring that more individuals get the chance to be entrepreneurs and to Canada becoming an evermore successful trading nation.

Women's History Month

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month, this year's opportunity to celebrate the contributions of the women who laboured to shape our nation.

This very special month affords us the opportunity to celebrate past and present contributions by the women who have helped shape our country and to encourage future generations of women to continue to contribute to the enrichment of our country.

Too often the achievements of Canadian women have been denied the prominence they deserve in our recorded history. Women's History Month unearths the roots of Canadian accomplishment and identifies the fingerprints of women who toiled to make the difference.

This year's celebration coincides with the annual commemoration of the Persons Case of 1929, a legal and political battle to have all Canadian women considered as persons under the British North America Act.

I call most strongly upon all of my colleagues in the House of Commons to celebrate the contributions women have made to Canada and to take part during October in the activities of Women's History Month.

THE CONGRèS INTERNATIONAL FRANCOPHONE SUR La PME

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, 24 and 25, Trois-Rivières will host the 3rd international francophone symposium on small and medium businesses. This year, the theme will be strategy and growth for small and medium businesses.

Over 120 researchers from 11 countries will discuss issues such as strategic direction, growth, financing, industrial policy and the role of small and medium businesses in regional development.

The fact that this international event will take place in Trois-Rivières confirms the reputation of the Groupe de recherche en économie et gestion de la PME, at the Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières, as a major stakeholder, not only in the field of

research, but also in the development of various small and medium business strategies.

I want to thank and to congratulate Jocelyn Perreault and André Joyal, both professors with the department of management and economic sciences, for their remarkable work, as well as Pierre-André Julien, holder of the Bombardier chair at the Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières, for his outstanding role.

Lighthouses

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last month on Canada's west coast, just out of Bella Bella, a light keeper reported a downed float plane and initiated an immediate response which allowed the pilot to be saved by a search and rescue team.

And, last week's storm is being called the worst to hit the west coast in 35 years.

In fact, the media reported: "Coast guard officials were breathing a sigh of relief that no sailors were killed during a powerful storm that hit the west coast".

Their relief, I am sure, stems from the 100 per cent failure of four newly automated light stations in B.C.

Speaking to our lighthouse experts, besides lacking crucial up to date local conditions, critical pieces of information appear to be missing from the automated data. One is visibility, another is sea state and a third is alerting the coast guard. None of these can be judged adequately by a machine.

And further, as the destaffing program is completed, Canadians will have to purchase their navigational information from a U.S. satellite at whatever price the U.S. government wishes to charge.

Women's History Month

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October marks the 67th anniversary of the Persons Case.

It was in 1929 that the British judicial committee of the privy council declared that women are persons under the terms of what was then called the British North America Act. The decision was delivered in response to a dispute over whether section 24 of the BNA act permitted women to be appointed to the other House.

In striking down an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the privy council called the exclusion of women from public office "a relic of days more barbarous than ours".

This decision went a long way in combating the sentiment expressed by a British court in 1876 that "women are persons in matters of pains and penalties but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges".

Members from all parties should note that there are more women in this Parliament than in any other previous Canadian Parliament. I would ask all members to join me in commemorating the Persons Case and to recognize it as a watershed event-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for York North.

Toronto

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer congratulations to the 4.5 million residents of the greater Toronto area whose city was today chosen by Fortune magazine as the number one international best city for work and family. Fortune has recognized that the greater Toronto area has expanded tremendously while retaining its high quality of life.

The survey evaluated factors such as incidence of crime, quality of schooling and cleanliness. Overall commuting times, access to health care and the rate of taxation were all considered in creating the list. Building on past strengths in areas such as financial services and the automotive industry, and exploring growth sectors like telecommunications and biotechnology and the entertainment industry all contribute to our strengths.

The federal government intends to continue to work with other levels of government and industry in our area to promote growth and opportunity for our citizens. Programs such as technology partnerships Canada, the Canadian television and cable production fund and the program for export market development, not to mention lower real borrowing costs, all contribute to the future health of the local and national economy.

Once again, congratulations to the residents of the greater Toronto area on their designation as the number one international city for work and family.

East Timor

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Nobel committee focused attention on the villainous situation in East Timor when it awarded the Nobel peace prize to Bishop Belo and José Ramos-Horta, brave fighters for human rights and freedom in that small forgotten country.

Prior to 1974 East Timor was a Portuguese colony but became independent at that time when Portugal withdrew. Immediately afterwards in 1975 Indonesia invaded its neighbour and annexed its territory. Since this invasion one-third of this country's population has been killed, resulting in the worst genocide on a per capita basis since the Holocaust. At the Dili massacre in 1991, 200 people,

peaceful demonstrators, were killed by Indonesian soldiers. Despite two UN resolutions condemning this invasion and requesting the withdrawal of Indonesian troops, 20 years have passed and nothing has happened.

I urge Canada and other governments to make a greater effort to support the Nobel winners and the-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Wild Rose.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the dangerous offender status is reserved for Canada's worst criminals, those who are deemed likely to continue repeating their pattern of violent crimes.

Why is it that we have yet another case of a repeat dangerous offender out on parole?

As revealed this past weekend, George Harvey Miln was classified a dangerous offender in 1980 after being convicted of sexually assaulting three teenage boys in Kelowna, B.C. the previous year.

In the early 1970s he was convicted of similar crimes in Toronto.

Subsequently, Miln was allowed to apply for parole every year. In 1993 he was deemed rehabilitated and released.

Lo and behold, Miln decided to revert to his old ways by seducing two teenagers this past August with beer, drugs and pornographic magazines before sexually assaulting them.

Are these not the same crimes for which he was sent to prison indefinitely in 1980? Here we go again, a special parole board deciding who it feels is rehabilitated.

Miln committed crimes in the 1970s, 1980s and now in the 1990s. If that is not repeating a pattern of violent crime, I do not know what is.

Job Creation In Quebec

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a poll showed last week that, in the opinion of managers of small and medium businesses, the constitutional issue is the major obstacle to job creation in Quebec.

Quebec entrepreneurs are prepared to create jobs and to promote the province's economic recovery, as requested last year by our Prime Minister, and more recently by Quebec's premier Lucien Bouchard. However, the efforts made will not be truly successful as long as the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois continue to threaten sovereignty.

The 310 leaders of small and medium businesses who took part in the poll are right, and it is time the PQ and the Bloc realize it. If we are to create good, lasting jobs in sufficient numbers to truly promote Quebec's economic recovery, we must put an end to the political uncertainty generated by separatist threats.

Jennifer Hale

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and inform the House of a great accomplishment by a young promising dancer named Jennifer Hale.

Jennifer has been accepted to the Royal Academy of Dancing in London, England. This academy accepts only 15 students per year worldwide.

Jennifer is 18 years old and is from Lindsay, Ontario. She has been studying ballet, highland, modern and jazz dancing at the Lindsay Dance Studio for 10 years.

I would like members to join with me in congratulating Jennifer for her fine accomplishments and wishing her all the best with her future studies and endeavours.

Poverty

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, community and social groups across the country, including Montreal, marked the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. They demonstrated against increased poverty.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops took this opportunity to remind the federal government that its cuts to social programs are making the living conditions of the Canadian people, especially women and children, significantly worse.

They also condemned the government's failure to introduce a real action plan to eliminate poverty in this country. The figures speak for themselves: one in five Canadian children lives in poverty.

I hope the government will take immediate action to stop the growing impoverishment of Canadians and Quebecers.

Liberal Government

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here are the top 10 contradictions of the Liberal government.

1. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs advertises a Liberal fundraiser on privy council office letterhead, says he was wrong, then takes it all back again.

2. It takes secret ethical guidelines to hold cabinet ministers publicly accountable.

3. The term distinct society means nothing in the west but everything in Quebec.

4. The term red book promise and the ever present GST.

5. Democracy and the Liberal constituency nomination process.

6. The head of the standing committee on defence is a peacenik.

7. We will not lower taxes, Canadians, because the Liberal government feels it knows better than you do how to spend your own money.

8. Fourteen Senate appointments after promising in 1990 that after two years a Liberal government will elect the Senate.

9. Our millionaire Prime Minister imagines that he is hanging out with the homeless.

And the top contradiction of the Liberal government:

1. The Minister of Health apparently smokes cigars.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, in a small departure from our usual procedure, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the 1996 Governor General's Awards in commemoration of the Persons Case. I will introduce the five women who are here and we will then receive them as we usually do in the House of Commons: Gladys Cook, Dr. Katie Cooke, Mary Eberts, Dr. Margaret Gillett, Jeannette Marcoux.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.