[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 9, 1995
.0909 
[English]
The Chairman: We have a quorum. We are continuing with our deliberations on Bill C-98, the Canada Oceans Act, and we're getting close to our last numbers of witnesses, so we may have another day or two of witnesses; that's about it.
.0910
This morning from the Inuit we have Mary Sillett, vice-president; and Angela Stadel, environmental researcher. It's all yours.
Ms Mary Sillett (Vice-President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Good morning,Mr. Chairman and committee members.
My name is Mary Sillett, and I'm originally from Labrador. I am the vice-president of the ITC, and Angela Stadel is a member of our research team.
Before we begin, I'd like to talk about the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.
The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, or ITC, is the national voice of Canadian Inuit, and in Canada there are about 40,900 Inuit living in the Northwest Territories, in northern Labrador, and in northern Quebec.
Our organization is made up of a board, which is democratically elected. Our president, Rosemarie Kuptana, is elected by every single Inuk in Canada, including Inuit living in the south, and we have the vice-president and the secretary-treasurer, who are nominated at the annual general meetings of the organization and elected by the board of directors.
We have representatives from six of our regions in the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec, and Labrador, and on our board we have a representative from the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which will represent the new territory of Nunavut. We also have sitting on our board a representative from the National Inuit Women's Association and the National Inuit Youth Council, and we also have someone on our board who sits from the international Inuit organization, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.
We'll begin with our presentation. Because our scope is national, our presentation will be very, very general.
After us, I understand that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. will be making a presentation to address many of the legal issues related to the Oceans Act. So we're just giving more or less a general overview. I understand, too, that Makivik, which is from northern Quebec, in Nunavik, will be making a written presentation. So now I'm going to begin with a presentation.
We are a maritime people. All but one of our 53 communities are located on the coast, and the only community that is not located on the coast is Baker Lake, which is in the Northwest Territories. We are a hunting, fishing, and trapping people, and our livelihood and way of life depends on the health and productivity of our lands and waters.
In the Arctic, the ocean's resources are a primary food source for a majority of Inuit. Seals, whales, walruses, polar bears, fish, ducks, geese, and seabirds make up a significant portion of our diets, and their products are important sources of income. The waters serve as key transportation links for our communities, for resupply and industrial operations, and the ocean beds are sources of immense hydrocarbon and mineral wealth.
Canada's sovereignty over Arctic waters is supported by the long-standing and ongoing occupancy and use of the arctic coastal environment by Inuit. This is recognized in article 15 of the Nunavut Final Agreement. We would hope that the proposed Canada Oceans Act, which establishes Canada's sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, would also recognize the essential role of Inuit with respect to Canadian sovereignty over Arctic waters.
While the near-shore and land-fast ice zones are the most important areas for harvesting, the marine life zones are an equally important part of the Arctic marine ecosystem. Marine mammals, such as beluga and narwhal whales, migrate farther out and are shared with other nations. These animals are also affected by industrial activities, such as shipping, oil and gas development, and the long-range transport of airborne pollutants that find their way into the Arctic oceans and into the food chain.
Our primary concern with the proposed Canada Oceans Act is that it should in no way limit existing and future Inuit management regimes and harvesting rights in the Arctic coastal zone. Since 1975, we've negotiated three land claims covering most of our Inuit homeland. These are the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was signed in 1984, and the Nunavut Final agreement, which was signed in 1993. Only our claims in Labrador and the area offshore of Nunavut - which is in northern Quebec - remain to be settled.
.0915
It has taken many years and a lot of money to negotiate and implement the provisions of the land claims. We would hope that the Canadian government would seek to respect and incorporate the principles and management regimes that are established in the Arctic when new legislation like the Oceans Act is developed.
The chief tools our land claim settlements give us with respect to environmental protection are land ownership and co-management. The co-management bodies deal with environmental screening and review as well as fisheries and wildlife management, land use planning and water. This management authority extends over the entire settlement region, including offshore and coastal areas. While the Inuvialuit Final Agreement only provides for ownership of lake beds, rivers and bodies of water subject to a 100-foot access strip around the seacoast and shorelines of navigable waters for the purposes of travel, recreation and emergencies, they have had a significant impact on ocean policy through the co-management regimes, especially through the Fisheries Joint Management Committee and the environment impact screening and review boards.
The Nunavut offshore management authority is specifically outlined in articles 15 and 16 of the Nunavut Final Agreement. Requirements for government to consult with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board extend past the borders of the Nunavut settlement area.
Makivik Corporation is currently negotiating an offshore claim for Nunavut, and the Canada Oceans Act should be made consistent with the provisions of this claim as well as the Labrador Inuit claim still under negotiation.
Our comprehensive land agreements are treaties within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. The principles of Inuit participation in environmental protection and management and the institutions established for that purpose are part of the fundamental law of Canada. They are not optional. They are not discretionary.
Further, the provisions of our land claims are paramount. They prevail over any other federal, territorial, provincial or municipal law or regulation that may be inconsistent or in conflict with them. We have some recommendations to make on how the Canada Oceans Act could be made more consistent with the provisions and the spirit and intent of Inuit land claims.
Part I of the Canada Oceans Act, establishing Canada's marine zones and the sovereign rights and authorities of Canada over the offshore, contains a non-derogation clause - subclause 24(2) - with regard to existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. While this clause ensures the protection of aboriginal rights, it would be up to the aboriginal peoples concerned to prove in the courts whether their rights were derogated. It also applies to part I and not to the entire act.
This does not meet the spirit and intent of the land claims agreements, which require that federal legislation be consistent with the provisions of the land claims. This can be done through a positive recognition of Canada's constitutional obligations to consult with the designated Inuit organizations - in this case the co-management bodies. Therefore, paragraph 14(a) should include a recognition of the Inuit settlement areas and the rights over exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living and non-living natural resources of the exclusive economic zone of Canada.
Clause 18 addresses Canada's sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of mineral and petroleum on the continental shelf of Canada. Again, these activities must be consistent with the offshore claims requirements discussed earlier and also the environmental assessment regime requirements provided for in the land claims.
.0920
We fully support a cooperative approach to the development and implementation of environmental management strategies, as can be seen from our work on the co-management boards and on transboundary and regional wildlife management strategies such as the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, the Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Agreement, the South Baffin Beluga Committee and others.
However, we feel that the text of the Oceans Act with regard to an oceans management strategy reflects a very limited definition of collaboration. The preamble and clauses 29 and 31 call on the minister to work in collaboration with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada in the development of the strategy and regional plans.
We are more than just interested persons, and our organizations are more than just interested bodies. This text should be changed to explicitly recognize the responsible Inuit organizations as follows:
- The minister, in collaborations with the relevant regulatory and conservation regimes, and
co-management boards defined in existing and future treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples under
section 35 of the Constitutions Act 1982, interested persons...
Also, we ask that in the determination of regions, the Labrador Sea be considered part of the Arctic Ocean as its ecological characteristics are much closer to the Arctic Ocean than to the Atlantic. The Labrador Inuit are also culturally and politically tied to the Arctic.
Clause 32, dealing with the implementation of integrated management plans, uses the optional wording of may ``recognize established advisory or management bodies''. This should be changed to ``shall'' in order to reflect Canada's constitutional obligations to consult and work with co-management authorities under the Inuit land claims agreements.
Clause 35 allows the Governor in Council to establish marine protected areas and to make regulations in these marine protected areas. We view the creation of conservation and protected areas as a critical feature of our claims settlements, and several national parks have been established through the Inuvialuit and the Nunavut final agreements.
On the north coast of Baffin Island, the community of Clyde River is working with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and Environment Canada on the Isabella Bay bowhead sanctuary. The continuation of our traditional harvesting rights within park lands is the first fundamental condition for the creation of these protected areas. This is based on our recognition of our interdependent relationship with other living things that inhabit our lands and waters. It is the wildlife co-management boards, in consultation with Inuit communities, who will determine the need, location and level of protection required in an area within the land claims settlement region.
Clause 36 is perhaps of greatest concern to us. It allows the Governor in Council to make orders exercising any power under clause 35 on an emergency basis where they are of the opinion that a fishery resource or its habitat is or is likely at risk.
This clause should include a subclause that requires approval from wildlife management boards in Inuit settlement areas and by the Labrador Inuit Association when assessments about resources and habitat at risk are made.
The issues of marine transportation and marine pollution are of great concern to us, and we hope the minister will look closely at these issues in the Arctic now that he will effectively take over responsibility for these duties of the Canadian Coast Guard. Of particular concern are the threat of spills and accidents, especially with regard to travel through ice seas. The closest response centre is Nova Scotia. In the event of a spill in the Arctic waters, that is much too far away.
.0925
The minister would now also be responsible for marine sciences under clause 42 of the Oceans Act. During our thousands of years in the Arctic, we have developed a sophisticated knowledge and deeply rooted understanding of the land, the waters and animals, and our place in the natural world. This expertise and knowledge is not recognized in the proposed Oceans Act. I therefore recommend that the documentation and use of indigenous knowledge be added to the marine science activities listed under clause 42. New research proposals should also respond to community and co-management board research needs. The minister and his department should also be responsible for reporting findings of research to the co-management boards, and provide support so that these can be made available in the language and form that is meaningful and understandable to Inuit in our communities.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to say that no issue is more important to us as a people than ensuring that the Arctic environment and its renewable resources are conserved and sustained for the benefit of future generations. We are a maritime people, and therefore a strategy to protect the ocean is one that we fully support. However, we would hope that a national oceans strategy and a federal oceans act would also respect and recognize our rights and our responsibilities, which are constitutionally protected and paramount.
I hope you will carefully consider the recommendations we have made today and the recommendations that will be made by the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and Makivik Corporation.
[Witness continues in native language]
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you.
The Chairman: I want to thank you for your presentation. I always like a presentation that gives us specific changes that could be made to improve a bill. Sometimes we get a presentation that is very broad and general, and that sort of leaves it up to us to figure out how we fix what they perceive is not right with the act.
I have just a couple of questions before I hand it off. First of all, you mentioned that they are currently negotiating an offshore claim for Nunavik and the Canada Oceans Act should be made consistent with the provisions of this claim, as well as the Labrador Innu claim, which is still under negotiation.
My first question is this. In any of the land claim settlements, has there been a recognition of the role and rights of the Innu in offshore areas? Is that currently part of any existing agreements or treaties?
Ms Sillett: First of all, I'll focus on the Inuit. There is a very fundamental difference between the Innu and the Inuit. I come from Labrador, where there are Innu and there are Inuit, and I was on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This is a common mistake right across this country, so I would like to clarify that issue before I respond to your question.
The Innu are first nations in Labrador, and there are Naskapi and Montagnais. The Inuit are what used to be referred to a long time ago as Eskimos, which is not acceptable politically. In our language, ``Inuit'' is ``the people'', and as I said, we primarily live in the north.
In terms of the claims, NTI are here and they will be in a better position than we are to address that question. I understand, however, that the NTI is probably the only claim that really does recognize some offshore rights.
Am I right?
Ms Angela Stadel (Environmental Researcher, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): In the Inuvialuit Final Agreement there are some as well, and through the co-management boards that cover the settlement region, which includes coastal areas and ocean areas, there is also offshore management authority in that area.
In terms of the Nunavik offshore claim, you'll have to wait to hear the presentation from Makivik. Their offshore claims people are working on a brief for you, so you will get more details about the extent of those offshore claims.
.0930
The Chairman: So primarily what you're indicating is that even if those claims are currently not verified or quantified in treaties or agreements, you want in the act language that would compel the minister to adhere to any future agreements.
Ms Stadel: It should be existing and future as opposed to just existing.
The Chairman: Existing and future. So it's a bit anticipatory as well so that we don't have to come back with worries about this issue at some time in the future.
Ms Sillett: As you know, offshore is probably a very controversial area. I know that in Labrador, for example, it was an area that would never be seriously considered by the governments. It seems to me that in later agreements, however, like the one for Nunavut, they were more successful than in earlier agreements, like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, in terms of having that as an issue for negotiation. That's why it is still an unresolved area for Makivik, for example.
The Labrador Inuit Association is still in negotiations. I guess you hear a lot about Labrador these days because of Voisey Bay. I don't know what kind of an impact that will have on the conclusion of their negotiations, but I'm sure it is an issue that they will be discussing, too.
The Chairman: To just expand a bit, you talk about clause 35, which deals with the establishment of marine protected areas. My reading of that particular section is that this would happen separate from marine parks but some other witnesses have sort of confused the two. The designation of marine parks is under Heritage Canada. They have a program that they may statutize at some point in the future.
Most of the application of this clause would be in a critical or emergency situation. Could you just flesh out for me the type of role you see being played and specifically the type of language that you would like to see in clause 35? Are you saying that if an emergency situation comes up in areas where there has been agreement, the minister would be compelled to go back in to consult, to negotiate, to do whatever? What would he be compelled to do?
Ms Sillett: I think the way we answered it in our presentation was by saying that we feel they should work with the co-management authorities under the Inuit land claims agreements.
The Chairman: My question, though, and my reading of this clause - and I may be wrong on this - is that it applies in emergency situations and gives the minister, through the Governor in Council, fairly extraordinary powers to go in to do that. Are you indicating to me that there should be a requirement to consult, or are you telling me that there has to be an agreement before the minister can act? It's a matter of degrees. Are you saying the minister should consult or should be compelled to consult or must seek the agreement of?
Ms Stadel: I think NTI was going to address this further, but from what I understand, in the settlement area it is the wildlife management board that makes those decisions. It is a co-management board so there is government representation on it.
I guess the worry here is about who determines when an area is at risk and is threatened and what kind of information is used. That's why the wildlife co-management authorities are in place there. They will do the work and they will work with the Inuit communities as well to establish if an area is at risk. So there's a danger there that with this emergency type of clause, someone could come up with something like a population count and say, this is a population at risk so we've got to go in to put in an emergency measure without any approval of a co-management board, even though that board may have additional information. That's the way it is set up in the land claims and it is not an optional feature.
The Chairman: So in the areas where these claims have been settled, you would see that the minister would not have that authority because the authority that is vested in the sections of the act are fairly specific and substantial. By getting cabinet approval he can declare a zone as a marine protected area. You are saying that in the area where the land claims have been included the minister, or in fact the cabinet, would not have those powers and that it would in fact have to go back to the co-management board.
Ms Stadel: I'm not a legal expert so I think that's going to be addressed a little bit further by NTI, because there are provisions in the Nunavut agreement. How we see this, however, is as a potential problem because of the way this section is set up. I believe Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has some recommendations there in terms of wording.
Ms Sillett: Actually, they are nodding and are saying they will be dealing with this issue.
.0935
Ms Stadel: Yes, they're going to deal with it more, so we're going to leave that to them.
Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): That was a very interesting presentation because it gives us a dimension of the acts that we haven't considered in such depth before.
I had a question on clause 36 as well, but since that's going to be dealt with later, I think I'll just leave it.
I had a question on your statement in your brief that said something to the effect that our comprehensive land claims agreements are treaties within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, and I wondered on what facts that allegation is based. Is it so designated within the treaty itself, or is that an interpretation of the treaty that you are working under?
Ms Sillett: We were just discussing that. I think it's actually in the act and in the agreements. I think that is fairly well accepted as fact: the modern day agreements are treaties within the definition of the Constitution Act.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Okay. I wondered too, when you said that your primary concern with the proposed Canada Oceans Act is that the act should in no way limit existing and future Inuit management regimes and harvesting rights. Would you like to see that explicitly written into the act, then?
Ms Sillett: Yes.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Is the wording that you suggested in your brief on the bottom of page 4 designed to cover that concern?
Ms Stadel: Again, we haven't worked out legal wording and I think that's something that probably needs to be developed further. But this type of wording is similar to what was used in the recent migratory birds treaty negotiations and the amendments made there. As to whether this is exactly what should be there, I think we need to look at that further, but this is similar to what was used in those amendments.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you, that's very helpful.
Mr. Wells (South Shore): I don't have any specific questions. When we reviewed this legislation, I think we felt we had a good understanding. But this puts a different perspective on some of the issues, and I think it will make us go back and take another look at some of these sections.
What I'm interested in doing is reviewing this with the department, because we're not familiar with these treaties. We haven't seen these treaties, and I'm assuming they would have reviewed these treaties in the drafting of the legislation, although that's probably an incorrect assumption.
I don't have any specific questions. I'm interested in the next presentation, but it certainly has highlighted some things that we'll have to look at, and I thank you for the presentation.
Ms Sillett: Thank you.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Just briefly, welcome, Mary and Angela. I'm from Newfoundland, so I'm glad to see you here.
The chairman has said already that your presentation is a very explicit one and comes forward with some good recommendations, and I want to thank you for that.
You just mentioned at the end of your presentation that you'd like to see this made available in a language and form that's meaningful and understandable in the Inuit community. I'm just wondering if you can be a little more explicit in what you mean by that. What form and which language would be most acceptable to you?
Ms Sillett: I think, first of all, Inuktitut. I feel that the legislation should be translated into Inuktitut. I think legislation is always very, very difficult for ordinary people to understand, so there has to be an accompanying communications strategy. I find in the north the most effective means of communicating any kind of information is through the radio or TVNC - through the media. The information should be presented in such a way that the highlights could be distributed over radio and television so that many people in the community would be aware of that legislation.
.0940
Mrs. Payne: Thank you very much. It's good seeing you here.
Ms Sillett: Thank you.
The Chairman: I'm glad you're here. We've heard from a number of individuals over the last number of weeks, and it seemed to be on the same aspects of the bill. I said to the researcher this morning that unless there's somebody who has a new perspective to add, there's not much sense in us hearing many more witnesses because we've pretty much heard everything. Well, I was too quick to say that this morning. You've certainly added a very important aspect of interest, and of law as well, that must be looked at.
I know we have two witnesses here today, and between both these sets of witnesses...and I would ask if we can identify an individual we can keep in contact with. We will have to go back to the department, Mr. Wells, and we'll have to pursue this language to make sure it is consistent and that it is broad enough to cover any future agreements that are under way. Before we pass final judgment on the bill and have it reported back at third reading, I would like to be able to pass some of those concerns back to see if they're addressed. It doesn't mean that every concern you have we will necessarily agree with or get addressed...but on some of the stuff that is important with language, to ensure that rights that are there that are real, ones that have been negotiated that are in treaties or co-management agreements, and that the language in the act is such that it recognizes it in a clear manner.
I know just as well as you that unless language is clear in an act, it's just a lot of work for lawyers in the future - with the greatest respect. It may be clear while we're here at the table, but it seems the farther you get away from the legislative process, the less clear it can become.
So maybe by the end of the morning we can identify somebody who can liaise with our researcher to make sure that if we start looking at the language, the language we're looking at as far as recommended amendments are concerned is consistent with some of the things you've brought up today.
Ms Sillett: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I think before NTI makes its presentation we'll have just a very quick session with them to identify someone who could be the contact person. I would think that would be a lawyer, though.
The Chairman: I want to thank you very much for your presentation.
Ms Sillett: Thank you.
The Chairman: As our next witnesses, we have the representatives from NTI. I think we have Bruce Gillies -
Mr. Bruce Gillies (Environmental Coordinator, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.): That would be me.
The Chairman: - the environmental coordinator; Laurie Pelly, legal counsel; and Paul Okalik. Is that right, Paul?
Mr. Paul Okalik (Adviser, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.): Yes.
The Chairman: You are from the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Mr. Okalik: Yes, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
The Chairman: I'm not even a Newfoundlander, but I'm hanging around with too many of them here! I grew up right across from Newfoundland. Half of Cape Bretoners are Newfoundlanders who ran out of money on the way to Toronto.
.0945
Now that we've dispensed with the levity there, we'll pass it to you, Paul.
Mr. Okalik: We were just listening to some of your remarks while we were sitting down, and I'm delighted to hear that you're open to suggestions. That's a nice change.
The Chairman: It's because we're a nice committee.
Mrs. Payne: The majority of us are Newfoundlanders.
The Chairman: Regional rivalries will now burst forth.
Mr. Okalik: I would like to introduce myself to you. I'm Paul Okalik, and I'm from the community of Pangnirtung, which is on the coast of Baffin Island. I'm presently an adviser to the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and for many years I was a negotiator with the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, the Inuit organization that successfully negotiated a Inuit land claims agreement, which is this document.
With me today are Laurie Pelly, who is our legal counsel, and Bruce Gillies, who is our environmental adviser.
The Nunavut Tunngavik is the land claim implementation organization representing more than 19,000 Inuit in Nunavut. It is my pleasure to represent my people in front of you today, and I thank you for this opportunity.
Please note that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. will be following up with a written submission to the standing committee, which will detail our concerns and views on the proposed Oceans Act based upon the comments that you'll hear today.
I wish to focus my attention on the proposed act and the Nunavut land claims agreement, which is very relative to the Nunavut marine management.
First, as a backdrop to this discussion, I wish to make it very clear to you how important the marine environment is to the Inuit of Nunavut. The Inuit are predominantly a marine people and our marine environment is as important to us as offshore areas are to any coastal people in any part of Canada or the rest of the world.
In a number of ways, we depend upon our marine environment for our livelihood. It is for this reason that we strongly support a coordinated marine management regime that will ensure strong conservation measures.
When you consider that the Inuit of Nunavut had the opportunity at the land claims table to bring forward a host of important issues to negotiate into the agreement, what did they bring forward? Approximately 70% of the agreement is concerned with environmental protection, conservation, and the wise management of land and marine environment. The Inuit put protection and management of their land and marine environment above all else. We put the Inuit right to meaningful participation in the decision-making process concerning the management of our land and marine environment first. Why? It is because the land and marine environment is a unique culture and anything that affects it affects us. We'll be involved in any decision affecting this environment, and that, in a sentence, is what the agreement guarantees.
The Nunavut land claims agreement recognizes this and acknowledges that the legal rights of Inuit in marine areas flowing from the agreement are based on Inuit traditional and current use. Canada's sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago is supported by Inuit use and occupancy. An Inuit economy based in part on marine resources is both viable and desirable, and there is a need for Inuit involvement in aspects of arctic marine management, including research.
The agreement recognizes these and other important principles, but it does much more than this. It provides for the establishment and jurisdiction of co-management boards that will apply to Nunavut marine areas. Approximately 43% of the agreement applies directly to the Nunavut marine environment. In other words, the Nunavut settlement area, the application of Inuit legal rights and the jurisdiction of the management institutions of the agreement, includes the offshore.
.0950
One such co-management institution is the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. In Nunavut, this board occupies the regulatory field in providing access to and harvesting of all wildlife. Wildlife, as defined in the agreement, includes all terrestrial, aquatic, avian and amphibian flora and fauna. Therefore, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has regulatory jurisdiction over all marine wildlife in the Nunavut settlement area.
It is important to remember that the Nunavut settlement area includes Canada's territorial waters to the 12-mile limit including the land past the ice zone.
Looking at the map of Nunavut attached to the back of this paper that you have with you, you will notice that there is also a map in a larger scale.
You will notice that a major portion of Canada's coast is within Nunavut; 26 of the 27 communities that we represent are on the coast. Looking at the second map also in the presentation before you, you will notice that the land-fast ice zone along the Baffin coast is also within the jurisdiction of the Nunavut management institutions.
The Chairman: This is the first time I've heard about this land-fast ice zone. What exactly is this?
Mr. Okalik: Land-fast ice zones are areas that are covered by ice during the winter months, which we use to hunt wildlife during the wintertime.
The Chairman: It can be further out than the 12-mile zone.
Mr. Okalik: It extends beyond the 12-mile limit, which is recognized in the agreement.
Mrs. Payne: How long does it generally stay around there?
Mr. Okalik: Usually just during the winter months.
Mrs. Payne: December to April?
Mr. Okalik: It depends with each year. It moves around throughout the year. The map before you shows the greatest extent of the land-fast ice zone within the last twenty years. That's where our rights through the agreement flow from.
The Chairman: In terms of the rights in the agreement on the land-fast ice zone, does co-management through the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board include not just resources on the ice but aquatic resources below the ice as well?
Mr. Okalik: Yes.
The Chairman: So, in fact, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the agreement has co-management responsibilities for the 12-mile and these also extend further out on the land-fast ice zone.
Mr. Okalik: That's correct.
I should also mention that in the part of the Hudson Bay area that is within the internal waters it goes beyond the 12 miles throughout the coast. It goes out to 50 or 60 miles. It doesn't just apply to the wildlife management; it applies to environmental management and land-use planning throughout the entire settlement area.
Concerning the management of the marine species beyond the 12-mile territorial sea, section 15.3.1 of the agreement states that:
- Government will maintain a structure or structures to promote coordinated management of
migratory marine species in Zones I and II and adjacent areas.
Lastly, section 15.3.4 states that:
- Government shall seek the advice of the NWMB with respect to all wildlife management
decisions and Zones 1 and 2 which would affect the substance and value of Inuit harvesting
rights and opportunities within the marine areas of the Nunavut Settlement Area.
.0955
That's enough of definitions. The point is that the jurisdiction to regulate marine wildlife in the Nunavut settlement area near to, and to some extent well beyond the Nunavut settlement area, rests with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
The next major point to bring to the attention of the standing committee is that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act. In addition, the agreement states that:
- Where there is any inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial and local...laws,
and the Agreement, the Agreement shall prevail to the extent of any inconsistency or conflict.
- How then can the Canada Oceans Act propose that:
- 35. The Governor in Council may make regulations
- ...
- (b) prescribing measures...for the conservation and protection of fishery resources and
their habitat in marine protected areas
- and in clause 37 provide that every person who contravenes the regulation is guilty of an
offence punishable by law. This will not be the case in Nunavut. The Nunavut Wildlife
Management Board has the sole authority to set quotas and regulate non-quota limitations or
seasonal harvests in the territorial waters of Nunavut.
- ...all Inuit shall have the free and unrestricted right of access for the purpose of harvesting to all
lands, water and marine areas within the Nunavut Settlement Area...the said right of access
shall extend...to Parks and Conservation Areas...
To summarize, in the Nunavut settlement area, and to the extent of the land-fast ice zone off the eastern shore of Baffin Island, the regulation of all harvesting of marine wildlife is the responsibility of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
In marine areas beyond the Nunavut settlement area, the agreement obligates government to seek the advice and recommendations of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board with respect to any wildlife management decisions.
The Oceans Act must recognize in the body of the legislation that in Nunavut subclause 35(a), the authority to establish marine protected areas, will only apply within the 12-mile limit and land-fast ice zone with the approval of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Similarly, subclause 35(b) is subject to Nunavut Wildlife Management Board's authority to regulate the harvest of marine wildlife in these protected marine areas, which itself is subject to agreements between affected Inuit and the appropriate management agencies. The act should reflect these facts.
The governing council's regulatory authority in the Nunavut settlement area, is severely restricted. These provisions prevail over conflicting federal laws. Further, in zones 1 and 2 and in adjacent waters, governments must seek the advice of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board with respect to any wildlife management decisions.
I now wish to turn my attention to part II of the proposed Oceans Act, the oceans management strategy. Subparagraph 32(c)(ii) states that the minister may: ``recognize established advisory or management bodies; and'' for the purposes of implementing, integrated marine management plans.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has very clear relevancy to this part. Established by the agreement and by virtue of article 15.4.1, there shall be the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board. They may together, as the Nunavut Marine Council, or individually advise and make recommendations to other government agencies regarding marine areas of Nunavut. The government shall consider its advice and recommendations in making decisions that affect the marine areas.
.1000
Recall that marine areas, for the purposes of the provisions of the agreement, mean Canada's territorial sea, whether open or ice covered, lying within the Nunavut settlement area. Whether the management institutions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement jointly or individually make recommendations to government on the marine areas of Nunavut, the government is obligated to seek the input and recommendations of these institutions on marine matters.
As noted earlier, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board is the main instrument of wildlife management and the main regulator of access to wildlife in the Nunavut settlement area. Its jurisdiction applies to all the marine areas in the settlement area.
The Nunavut Impact Review Board is the main instrument to assess development impact performing ecosystemic and socio-economic screening and review in the Nunavut settlement area. Its jurisdiction applies to all the marine areas of the Nunavut settlement area.
The Nunavut Planning Commission has the responsibility to establish land use plans that guide and direct resource use and development in the Nunavut settlement area. Its jurisdiction applies to marine areas in the settlement area.
The Nunavut Water Board has responsibilities and powers over the regulation, use and management of water in the Nunavut settlement area. It may advise and make recommendations to government regarding marine areas.
Like many other organizations, Nunavut Tunngavik believes that the Oceans Act should define and give clear management and conservation jurisdiction to a lead federal agency accountable for oceans management.
A clearly mandated lead agency for government on ocean management would greatly improve the ability of the Nunavut management institutions, the Nunavut Marine Council and Inuit to give advice and recommendations to government. NTI believes that government is obligated to seek the input and recommendations of these institutions on marine matters now, concerning the development of Nunavut ocean management, if a unified ocean management regime for Canada is to result.
The Oceans Act should explicitly recognize, in the body of the legislation, the existence of the right of the management institutions of the Nunavut settlement area, and in particular the Nunavut Marine Council, to advise and make recommendations to government agencies regarding Canada's territorial sea lying within the Nunavut settlement area.
Subparagraph 32(c)(ii) stating that the minister may ``recognize established advisory or management bodies'' should be changed to read ``shall recognize established management bodies, when referring to land claim agreement co-management institutions''.
We have a most serious concern with clause 24(2) of the bill. It has been our experience and expectation that in all legislation the non-derogation clause protecting aboriginal rights against certain legislation reads, ``Nothing in this Act shall abrogate or derogate...''. However, in the proposed draft we have noticed that this clause falls within part I and states ``Nothing in this Part shall...''.
This allows for the interpretation that all of part II and part III of the bill can abrogate and derogate from any aboriginal or treaty rights.
Our concern then, if this is the intent of this provision, is that clause 35, allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing protected areas for the conservation of fisheries, potentially conflicts with the mandates of the management institutions of the agreement.
Further, clause 37, which provides for punishable offences within these areas, potentially conflicts with the mandate of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board, as well as the Inuit of Nunavut's right to harvest marine wildlife in these areas.
Again, the agreement states:
- Where there is any inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial or local
government laws, and the Agreement, the Agreement shall prevail to the extent of the
inconsistency or conflict
The agreement ensures that such regulations would not prevail in Nunavut. However, this standing committee must ensure that provisions of this proposed act do not abrogate or derogate aboriginal rights established by treaty or land claims agreements.
Subclause 24(2) should be changed to read:
- Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal
or treat rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982.
Clauses 42 and 43 of the proposed act authorize the minister to collect data and conduct studies to increase the understanding of ocean ecosystems. Throughout the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the management institutions are obligated to allow and give appropriate weight and due regard to any culture, customs and knowledge. We invite this committee to explicitly recognize this source of knowledge in clauses 42 and 43.
In the spring of 1994 NTI approached the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Brian Tobin, to point out that his department had allocated a restrictive turbot quota to the waters adjacent to the Nunavut settlement area. This had an impact on the turbot fishery on the south of Baffin Island.
NTI stated to the minister at the time that his department's jurisdiction to set commercial quotas begins at the twelve-mile limit and the land-fast ice zone and goes outward. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was and is without the power to set quotas within the 12-mile limit and the land-fast ice zone. This is the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board's jurisdiction.
Further, the agreement obligates government to give special consideration to the economic dependence of communities in the Nunavut settlement area when allocating commercial fishing licences in zones I and II and in adjacent waters.
At the same time, the agreement allows that the allocation of licences shall not preclude Inuit access to wildlife harvesting purposes in zones I and II. NTI would like to prevent the setting of quotas in violation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement from reoccurring.
Clause 16 of the proposed act states:
- The fishing zones of Canada consist of areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada that are
prescribed in the regulations.
- Relative to this, NTI has the following recommendation.
NTI has a short question concerning subclause 24(1), which says:
- Nothing in this Part limits the operation that any act, rule of law or instrument has apart from
this Part.
- What does this mean? In NTI's opinion this provision should be rewritten.
Like many other organizations, Nunavut Tunngavik believes that a Canada oceans act is long overdue. The act should define and give clear management and conservation jurisdiction to a lead federal agency accountable for oceans management on an ecosystem level. A clearly mandated lead agency for government on ocean management would greatly improve the coordination of advice and recommendations from the Nunavut management institutions and Inuit.
.1010
NTI recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ensure that the proposed Canada Oceans Act be consistent and represent and reflect Inuit rights and interests in Nunavut marine matters as defined in the agreement.
Thank you for your attention and time today.
The Chairman: Has the NTI been specifically included in any consultations leading up to the act at first reading?
Mr. Okalik: No.
The Chairman: Nothing? So you're absolute sure?
This whole issue of consultation has dogged us for about a week now, as to who has or hasn't been consulted. It concerns me that the NTI, which has just concluded a very substantial settlement with the Crown, was not consulted. We have three oceans, and a large part of one of them is in the settlement area. It's astonishing if you haven't been at the table.
Nobody has asked you to come in and sit down and review it and find out where your concerns are?
Mr. Okalik: No.
The Chairman: This is the first time?
Mr. Okalik: Yes.
Mr. Gillies: This is the first time we've been able to organize ourselves around the issue and present to you. But we haven't had anything more substantial than having an early draft of the proposed act sent to us with an offer to contact - I'm just trying to remember the people - the office and to arrange a time for some discussions, in which we were unable to participate.
The Chairman: I want to get this down. You say that you had been sent an early draft. When did you get the early draft, just roughly?
Mr. Gillies: In August or September.
The Chairman: Of this year?
Mr. Gillies: I believe it was.
The Chairman: It wasn't an early draft, because -
Mr. Gillies: After the first reading, I guess. Well, we had an earlier draft -
The Chairman: [Inaudible - Editor]...in the House, first reading.
Mr. Gillies: I'm thinking of the first reading draft - after the first reading draft.
The Chairman: Well, you got the bill, because once it's tabled in the House it's not a draft anymore. It's in the process.
So there was no consultation with the NTI prior to introduction at first reading?
Mr. Gillies: No.
The Chairman: It's astonishing.
I have a million questions, but I'm not going to go through them today. Your presentation and the previous one have opened up a whole area of which we haven't been aware. It's a little concerning to me that a piece of legislation has come forward without a tremendous amount of consultation with your organization.
If there are inconsistencies, then they should have been resolved through consultation and negotiations on the wording before introduction at first reading. There is no question about that. Pieces of legislation cannot be inconsistent.
The Nunavut agreement is a recent one, so it's not as if somebody should have forgotten about it. I would be surprised, and I'll ask the departmental people exactly what they've done in this regard. These two acts should be consistent with one another and the rights that have been given and granted and agreed to in the Nunavut agreement should certainly be reflected in this bill.
Mr. Okalik: This agreement is a constitutional document, if you'll check in section 35, and any law that might be introduced by Parliament that contravenes it will not be enforceable.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Mr. Okalik: This agreement took almost twenty years to negotiate and it took a long time for us. We gave up our aboriginal rights for this agreement.
The Chairman: Who's here from the department? Can somebody help me with this? We seem to be stuck on this. Do you know if this organization has been consulted?
Also, what is the process by which you reconcile language? It's clear that the Tungavik agreement has some primacy. We just don't want confusion in legislation. This is crazy.
.1015
Ms Mary Jean Comfort (Senior Programs Biologist, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board was briefed on October 4 on the bill itself.
The Chairman: October 4 of when?
Ms Comfort: This year.
The Chairman: Post bill, post second reading?
Ms Comfort: For our walk-through of the contents of the bill. As well, I don't have the list of consultations, but the department debriefed a number of aboriginal organizations.
The Chairman: With the Nunavut, you're not aware of anything prior to October 4. That's after approval of second reading in the House of Commons. It means that once it's approved there's nothing substantial that can be altered unless the bill is defeated.
Ms Comfort: I thought the question was about the bill specifically. I know the aboriginal organizations, and I think Nunavut - I don't have the list of consultations - was part and parcel of discussions on the vision paper.
The Chairman: Yes, but the vision paper can go in a whole bunch of different directions. When you're dealing specifically with a draft piece of legislation - because this has stymied us; we've gotten stuck on this about five times - I'm not sure anymore what consultation means. There's the vision documents, and this, that, and the other thing, but unless somebody feels they've been specifically consulted on the draft piece of legislation, I guess they're not consulted.
You can go out as a department and indicate that we're looking at oceans generally or marine policy generally and hit on 30 different things. Their name can appear as part of the consultation list, but they may not feel that they've been consulted on specifics of the legislation that comes forward. We've heard this far too often. We've heard it about seven times now. It's a matter of what your definition of consultation is, I guess.
Before you leave the table, can somebody from the department find out for us? I'd like to know this morning, because we're on a timetable of when we're going to report this bill. If there has been a major problem with consultation, we may decide to not do anything until a group such as the Nunavut have a chance to have greater input in some of the wording to see if we can come to some agreement with the department.
We can go and recommend wording, but if the department doesn't want the wording, they'll just vote it down in the House. So what can we do?
Mr. Gerry Swanson (Acting Director General, Marine Environment and Habitat, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): We have to strike a balance when we're consulting with proposals that ministers are bringing forward.
In the case of the Oceans Act, we began a public consultation process over one year ago with the publication of the minister's vision for the oceans. As we went on, that vision became more and more specific in terms of the reactions we were getting from groups outside of government and in terms of us being able to refine our proposals.
In terms of the bill itself, we're in a position, prior to the minister bringing forward the proposal before Parliament, to speak in a general way and gradually become more and more specific in terms of what it is that we would like to bring forward. Certainly the proposal that he brought forward reflected input that had been received from groups all over the country and advice from outside groups, including workshops that had been conducted at various locales across the country, including the north.
Once the bill was tabled in the House and we had something very specific that we could talk about, it was sent to a wide group of people across the country with offers that we would be prepared to sit down with people and brief them and talk to them about the bill so that they would be in a position to talk to the bill when it was going through the parliamentary process. We will undertake this morning to again look through our records to see how this was tracked, starting with the distribution of the minister's vision paper last October or November.
Unfortunately, in many cases we make offers to discuss with people, and because of their timetables and other commitments, it's sometimes difficult to hook up. But certainly the intention and the desire has been there to make our consultative basis as broad as we possibly could.
.1020
The Chairman: But you would recognize that in the case of the NTI this is not just another group that you can consult, because of the vast territory that's included in the Arctic Ocean and down the Labrador Sea under the agreement.
Mr. Swanson: I think the presentations from both witnesses this morning have been excellent, and I've certainly made notes from the point of view of the department. There are some valid points that we had better be looking into or ensuring have been looked into.
The Chairman: Mrs. Ablonczy.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Well, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the minister's officials, the fact of the matter is that if the substance of this presentation is correct, the provisions of the bill are ultra vires the Government of Canada.
Mr. Swanson: Well, I'm not in a position to answer that question, but it's certainly something that would have to be looked at.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Well, it's very clear on the reading of provisions of both the agreement with the Nunavut and the constitution that the Government of Canada does not have the jurisdiction to draft these provisions. They are ultra vires the government.
The government has relinquished its sovereignty in this area to this Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. It's extremely clear, and I find it very shocking that these folks would have to appear in front of this committee at this late date to make that point.
The Chairman: Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire (Egmont): This is a question. I just wanted clarification as to whether, in 1999, the federal government will give up jurisdiction for the entire territory with all these basins, sounds, straits, and inlets, plus 12 miles all around it.
They have no jurisdiction under the old BNA Act or the Constitution Act that this agreement basically takes the place of any agreements in the Constitution Act.
Mr. Okalik: Well, we were there before anybody else, so that's a premise of the agreement. We had sole jurisdiction, and the Government of Canada came along and said it's no longer ours, so we're just asserting some of our rights that we've always had in the past with the agreement.
Mr. McGuire: So as far as you're concerned, they gave those rights back to you under this agreement.
Mr. Okalik: Not all of them. It gives us certain rights that are now protected in the Constitution. We weren't willing to just give away the rights that we've always had for the sake of getting an agreement. We insisted that some boards with Inuit participation be established through the agreement to have sole jurisdiction over the areas that affect us the most.
So we were just willing to sign the land and cash deal for the sake of getting a deal. We wanted to protect our future generations from the sole authority of government to regulate our lives.
Mr. McGuire: So the Government of Canada has given you back, under this agreement, the 12-mile limit plus any other extension of that through the ice season, plus all the inland streams, inlets, and sounds that are in that territory. That's all in your exclusive jurisdiction now.
Mr. Okalik: To me, the agreement establishes these joint boards, half of which are are appointed by the Inuit and half of which are appointed by the government. So it was a trade-off to manage resources in the area. It's not sole jurisdiction for Inuit. We ensure that we will participate.
Mr. McGuire: So these are joint boards. They're not exclusive.
Mr. Okalik: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not in a position to comment on whether this Bill C-98 abrogates or derogates the rights under section 35.
I think it's a point brought forward by these groups who obviously asked the department to look at it, but I would caution the members not to jump to all sorts of conclusions without having all the facts and without having the opportunity to analyse whether there is derogation or abrogation of section 35 of the Constitution Act.
I think the best thing to do is refer it back to the department for its view in light of these proposals and have officials come back and give an opinion on what that is and review it at that time.
The Chairman: Laurie.
.1025
Ms Laurie Pelly (Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify that in view of the questions on the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board's jurisdiction and under the agreement within the Nunavut settlement area and the land-fast ice zone limit, the NWMB has the sole authority to establish quotas for harvesting, which would include total bans on harvesting within that area. This authority is a co-management board authority and it's subject to the ultimate authority of the minister to disapprove after reviewing decisions of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, but that doesn't take away from their authority to solely establish those quotas and non-quota limitations also within that area.
In addition, with respect to the marine protected area section in the proposed act, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has the authority to approve the establishment or disestablishment of conservation areas as defined under the agreement, which in our view includes marine protected areas, although it's not defined in the act. Thank you.
Mr. McGuire: On page 15, it indicates that you talked to the minister about this turbot decision. What did the minister do once you reminded him that he doesn't have jurisdiction there over a 12-mile limit? What happened to the turbot quota or whatever in that particular zone?
Ms Pelly: We met with the minister. He acknowledged that the failure to consult was a deficiency in his department's operations. He didn't change the turbot quota as a result of that. He proposed that there be a meeting concerning next year's turbot quota with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and that a working group be formed. I'm not aware of whether that proposal has actually been done.
Mr. McGuire: So it didn't change the quota. Is this agreement effective now, or is it effective in 1999?
Mr. Okalik: It was formally signed. It's been passed by the House, as you know. It was formally signed on July 9, 1993. It's part of the Constitution now.
Mr. McGuire: Right now. So in 1999 there's not a -
Mr. Okalik: Well, 1999 is a reference to the Nunavut government that'll be established to govern the territory of Nunavut.
The Chairman: Ms Ablonczy.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I appreciate Mr. Dhaliwal's comment on my intervention on this matter. I think it might be helpful for the committee to have a full briefing on the legal effect of these provisions as they intersect with the Nunavut agreement. I wonder whether the committee would find it helpful to have that kind of briefing so that when we consider the effect of these provisions, we at least have some advice as to the full legal effect that we should be considering.
The Chairman: It's a suggestion I think we will take. As chairman, I'm confused at this point as to whether or not this act has been coordinated through other departments and it indeed recognizes the recent act of the House of Commons that statutizes and makes part of the Constitution of Canada this particular agreement. Until such time as we have officials from the department who are prepared to specifically address the concerns that are raised, I don't think we can go forward with the bill, because these are not minor things.
There are questions in my mind. I'm not a legal expert on any of this stuff, but you've sufficiently raised some questions in my mind, and I think it would be imprudent of us to proceed any further until such a briefing has taken place. I'm trying to figure out how we should do this. I would like to see some dialogue opened up immediately - today, if we could - between the department and the witnesses that are here today on the specifics, because there may be, subsequent to the initial discussions, other issues that are raised with respect to the bill. I would like to see that happen. At the same time, when officials of the department come, I would also like to have a representative from the NTI here in case there are issues raised that they may have a contrary view on.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that perhaps officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may be able to be of some assistance to us as well.
The Chairman: Is it agreed? Agreed. Are there any further questions of these witnesses?
.1030
Mr. Verran (South West Nova): Yes, just because we're not happy with this and we don't know what the procedure really was for communication between the government and the groups concerned.
What I gather from it is that, yes, the department sent out a general paper to many different organizations across the country, from Labrador to the Northwest Territories, etc., and just said, ``If this reaches you, contact us, and we'll talk''. But there are a lot of people whom this general kind of information package does not reach, especially when they are as directly involved as the two groups of people we met this morning.
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and others on the committee, that we should have things clarified by the department in order to know exactly what took place.
I'd like to take this opportunity to go a bit further. For instance, on the bottom of page 5, I'd like to ask you a question about adjacent waters. It mentions a reasonable geographic distance of a zone. What would you consider to be ``reasonable''? Because the department is not very concise either, it leaves a lot of questions. That's just one thing I'd like to know.
Mr. Okalik: If you look at the maps that are accompanying this presentation at the back, we would see adjacent waters along the Baffin coast. No other communities or other communities in Canada live there, so it would be adjacent to our territory. So I would see that as an example.
Mr. Verran: That would be a reasonable geographic area.
Mr. Okalik: Yes. It's within the zone, but -
Mr. Verran: There's no one else around using it and it's close to your communities.
Mr. Okalik: Yes.
I want to stress that we do not oppose this legislation. We just have some concerns about it.
We support the initiative of conservation. We've been able to survive through all these years by conserving our resources, so we support that initiative. We welcome the thought of meeting with DFO officials to perhaps reword these clauses.
Mr. Verran: Mr. Chairman, it reminds me a little bit of fisheries, because in the fisheries committee we deal with both, and now, with this, it is probably enough.
Again it's a case of departments not going and consulting with the people who really know, who have lived.... I'm referring to fishing captains and people who have been in the fishery for thirty years. Things are done arbitrarily by bureaucrats. I'm just making a relationship between the two, and this seems to be the effect of what's happening or what has happened in the past. I wouldn't want to continue in that way.
The Chairman: Here's what I'm going to propose.
Paul, for how long will you be in town?
Mr. Okalik: I can be here any time.
The Chairman: I will talk to somebody from the minister's office at the conclusion of the meeting. You might tell our clerk where you're going to be for today so we can try to get some things arranged. I think it's important for the issue that you raised to be addressed directly with individuals from the department who are knowledgeable in this area.
We might want also to have some people from Indian Affairs and Northern Development attend that.
We will tentatively schedule for November 21, which is the Tuesday on which we shall get back. The first briefing that we'll do in the day will be on these issues that have been raised, and if there will have been some agreement, then that will be fine. If not, then you'll leave it up to us to try to figure out.
We'll have to separate as a committee and figure out what we can recommend, Don.
So tentatively for November 21, I would say early in the morning, we shall deal with that. The clerk has been requested by me to get in touch with officials from both departments.
Mrs. Payne: November 21 is not a good day for me. I'll be gone all day. Could we make it another day?
The Chairman: We're going to see the ministers on that day as well, Mrs. Payne. On November 21, 22, and 23, we're going to try to conclude our deliberations on this bill.
Mrs. Payne: It's too bad somebody hadn't consulted with me first.
.1035
The Chairman: It's a separate issue that we'll deal with, Mrs. Payne. If you want to sit down and reopen the timing of the bill, we'll do that after the witnesses leave. But I would just advise everybody on the committee that as chair, my duty is to try to ensure that everybody who has to be heard is heard, and everybody who has to be seen is seen. I can't schedule myself half the time, let alone eight or nine members of the committee.
If there is a change by the committee members we'll notify you of the meeting on November 21 at probably 9 a.m. We'll see if this issue can be dealt with prior to that. It might be concluded by that time. There might be an agreement on some language. If there is, it will just make it a little easier for us to go forward.
I want to thank you for your presentation. We thought we were winding down. I know we originally had you scheduled for Tuesday, and I'm glad we did see you because you've added a new dimension to our deliberations.
Mr. Okalik: My apologies. I couldn't be here on Tuesday. As you know, we're quite a ways....
The Chairman: Yes. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Okalik: Okay.
[Witness continues in native language]
Thank you. Merci.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.