Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2001

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, this is a bill that corrects largely translation differences between French and English and English and French, as well as other technicalities. The amendments proposed by the committee have all been incorporated in the bill. Therefore I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following order. I move:

That Bill C-40 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole and reported without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motion agreed to, bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill at third reading because it is of very great importance to the people of Nunavut. It establishes the water board and land surface rights tribunal as institutions of public government. This is another step along the way from where the land agreements at Nunavut ended and where full territorial public government is envisaged.

The legislation is not new in that the bill contains provisions that mirror provisions of the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Yukon Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and other acts that have gradually devolved the ownership and responsibility for governance in the territories to the people of the territories.

The bill recognizes special rights for the Inuit concerning water in, on or flowing through their land as outlined in the agreement. It also prohibits the board from issuing, amending or renewing a water licence or a licence for the deposit of waste that may substantially affect the quality, quantity or flow of waters through Inuit owned land unless appropriate compensation for any adverse effects has been determined in advance.

The proposed bill complies with the other terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It authorizes the board to approve all water use and deposits of waste in Nunavut. It provides that the Inuit nominate four members of the water board, which is half.

It requires that the Inuktitut language be used by the board when requested. It requires the board to give due regard to Inuit culture, customs and knowledge in designing its rules of procedure and in setting out the factors that the board must consider in determining appropriate compensation when an approved project or activity may substantially affect water quality, quantity or flow.

It establishes the following water management functions that were not covered by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement but were contained in the existing Northwest Territories Waters Act. For some years since the water board was established, these rules have been unclear and some difficulties in administration have appeared.

The bill indicates clearly the role of the minister and governor in council in licensing, in water planning, in the scope of conditions to be attached to any licence and who, other than the Inuit, is entitled to compensation.

It provides for inspection and enforcement. It provides a process for the appeal of licensing decisions. It should be noted that no additional resources are required to implement the above functions. They have all been carried out by the board in the interim.

The bill also recognizes that the water board must work closely with the Nunavut Planning Commission in the development of land use plans as they concern water. It must also liaise with the Nunavut Impact Review Board in assessing environmental and socioeconomic impacts of water related projects.

The hearings and operations of the board are open to the public for the registry of applications and written rulings are made available.

As I said at the beginning, this is a step forward in self-government for the territory of Nunavut. On behalf of the minister I want to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for dealing with the bill so expeditiously over the past two or three weeks.

I want to give credit to the chairperson of that committee and particularly to the hon. member for Nunavut who serves on that committee with a number of other hon. members. We are all pleased to present the bill at third reading and hope that it will have speedy passage through the House this morning.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[An hon. member]

Why?

[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.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for South Shore. I was just about to say southern shore, that great part of Newfoundland, the hotbed of hockey where you would feel very comfortable yourself, Mr. Speaker.

However I have a couple of questions for the member. First, he talks about subsurface rights. I wonder what provision is made for the people of the area, the natives in particular, to have first right to all benefits coming from the exploration, development and processing of minerals found within the respective areas. Second, I wonder if any mention is made of the subsurface rights applying to the waters adjacent to the coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the issue that we take with this legislation is that in my opinion it is not clear on subsurface rights. It certainly does not have the same type of context that we had in either the Canada-Newfoundland or Canada-Nova Scotia offshore agreements. More clarity is obviously needed in that respect.

I noted with interest that the hon. member mentioned that the southern shore of Newfoundland is a hotbed of hockey. Certainly one of the things he might be interested in is the fact that hockey is a very intensely played game in Nunavut and all over Canada's north. It would be an adventure, perhaps, to see the players on the southern shore of Newfoundland challenge some of the players in the north. It would be a long way to travel to lose a game of hockey, but I suggest that he might want to try that.

The issue of subsurface rights was part of the hon. member's question. Subsurface rights are fairly well described in this legislation in regard to the Nunavut land claims areas. There is no guarantee that the federal government gives the local government first option on subsurface rights outside of the land claims areas as far as my definition of the bill goes. It absolutely needs greater clarity and we will be revisiting that aspect of the bill.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, without having been at committee to listen to all of the argument it is difficult to respond, but I will respond to the member's direct question.

It would seem that the government has once again, in pursuing legislation, just simply ignored some amendments that certainly would have improved the legislation and allowed for more self-government.

As far as charging a fee for water is concerned, the area of Nunavut is still a territory although we may not completely support that and would expect that it would move toward further and greater self-government and actually to complete responsibility for its own area. However, as long as it is a territory the minister would have to sign and it makes absolutely no sense that the minister would have final authority for water on Nunavut owned lands. The whole principle behind the evolution of responsibility and devolution of power is to actually give power to Inuit organizations, to first nations.

A good example of that for the hon. member is Bill C-49, which we passed in this House. It gave greater power and full control of land and the resources on it to first nations on reserves in southern Canada. There were 14 first nations in the original group in Bill C-49 when we passed that legislation. For the first time it gave those first nations full control of land use on reserves.

Many Canadians thought that first nations already had full control of land use on reserves, but they absolutely did not. They needed a permit from the minister if they were to cut logs, cut firewood, dig a well, put in a septic system, gravel a road, build a road or even start a gravel pit.

This is good legislation. It is legislation that is needed, but it is certainly not the end of the road for this piece of legislation or any other. It is not untypical of a lot of legislation that the government brings in. It goes partway but it really does not finish the job.

I hope those comments are satisfactory to the member.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate, and I say this with the greatest respect, I do not know if it is the case in the area of South Shore, but it has been said that in parts of the country people take their hockey so seriously and play with such intensity that even the fans wear helmets.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.