Another piece of lost power

Because Bill C-33 isn’t in front of the House of Commons anymore, we’re not likely to hear much about it until it’s proclaimed and becomes the law of the land.

That’s too bad, because the Inuit of Nunavut deserve to know more about the bill, and the little piece of power that it removes from the Inuit of Nunavut and hands over to the minister of Indian and northern affairs.

Bill C-33, as many readers may know, is a proposed law affecting two important public bodies created by the Nunavut land claim agreement: the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal.

The land claim agreement requires that the federal government pass such a bill.

This is actually Ottawa’s third attempt to bring the bill through Parliament. The first attempt, in 1996, was withdrawn because Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. objected to parts of the bill, saying they were inconsistent with the Nunavut land claim agreement.

Their second attempt, a bill introduced in December 1998, got first reading, but died when the Prime Minister dissolved Parliament to call an early election in the fall of 2000.

The latest one made it through third reading in the House of Commons last fall, and is now waiting for third reading in the Senate. It’s only a matter of time before Bill C-33 becomes law.

When that happens, disputes over who’s in charge of water licencing in Nunavut will come to an end. From now on, it will be clear who’s boss — and that’s the minister of Indian and northern affairs.

That’s because the act states that all water licences issued by the Nunavut Water Board are subject to the approval of the minister. The Nunavut land claim agreement doesn’t say this must be so — Ottawa added this requirement more or less unilaterally.

Because of an amendment put forward at the committee level by Nunavut MP Nancy Karetak-Lindell, this ministerial veto power is now somewhat mitigated.

Thanks to Karetak-Lindell, Bill C-33 now contains words that set a time limit on when the minister may veto a water licence. Her amendment states that the minister must make a decision on a licence approval within 45 days, and may extend that period for another 45 days if the board is notified.

If the minister doesn’t supply the board with a written decision within either 45 or 90 days, then the licence in question is deemed to be approved.

Don’t blame Karetak-Lindell for the weaknesses in the bill. Within the constraints of the party system, she worked as hard as she could to improve it on behalf of her constituents. And her amendment at least requires the minister to supply his reasons in writing — which is important if some group were to launch a legal challenge against a ministerial veto.

But the fact remains that every time the Nunavut Water Board issues a water licence containing provisions the federal government doesn’t like, the minister has the power to kill the licence.

Indian Affairs Minister Bob Nault’s speech to the House of Commons last fall, made when the government introduced Bill C-33, exposes the federal government’s real attitude toward the Nunavut land claim agreement. A simple deconstruction of the language he used in that speech reveals that Ottawa has little real interest in Inuit rights.

Consider this:

“The certainty created by the act will encourage investment.”

Translation: “Developers need not worry that environmental standards will get in their way.”

And this:

“These institutions will ensure that residents of Nunavut have a say in decisions about the use of water resources, the deposit of wastes and access to lands throughout the territory. Their role will be to balance the role of many stakeholders.…”

Note the absence of the word “Inuit.” Also note the absence of the phrase “decision-making power.” In Ottawa’s view, the purpose of the water board is merely to provide a “say” in decisions — decisions, which, presumably, are made by someone else, just as they were in colonial times.

In November 1992, when Nunavut’s Inuit land claim beneficiaries voted yes to the idea of surrendering their aboriginal title in exchange for the rights and benefits set out in the land claim agreement, they weren’t voting for a continuation of the status quo — they voted for change. They did so on the understanding that public government management bodies such as the Nunavut Water Board would give them decision-making powers over the entire Nunavut settlement area.

But in the end, that’s not what the Inuit got. As Peter Townsend and the Who said 30 years ago: “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

JB