Kevin O'Reilly

Merci, Monsieur le President. I pointed out in my statement earlier today that there have been a number of instances in which serious and not uncommon medical conditions are not eligible for healthcare supports under the specified disease conditions list through the extended health benefits program. The latest instance brought to me of non-coverage was with regard to autism. I mentioned how the NWT Autism Society has produced legal analysis that claims that non-coverage of these conditions is discriminatory. I would like to know from the Minister whether his office has had a chance to review...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 39 be amended by:

(a) renumbering clause 18 as subclause 18(1), and striking out "Minister of a department or" and substituting "Minister of a department referred to in paragraph 17(1)(a) or the" in that renumbered subclause; and

(b) adding the following after renumbered subclause 18(1):

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in considering whether a decision might significantly affect the environment, the Minister or deputy head shall consider the factors set out in paragraphs 9(2.1)(a) to (h).

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have no comments to make at this time. We read the report in yesterday. That is, I think, all we need to do at this point. Thank you.

Merci, Monsieur le President. Members of this House have likely encountered the issue of NWT Health Plan coverage under the specified disease conditions list under the Extended Health Benefits Program.

Recently I brought forward another instance of lack of care supports because a constituent has a condition that is not covered. Recently the NWT Autism Society released a thorough legal review of how autism is not covered under the list of specified disease conditions and how this may be viewed as discrimination. When I raised this review with the Minister of Health and Social Services, the...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is interesting, because there is now some significance criteria actually incorporated into the bill as a result of an amendment that the Minister accepted during clause-by-clause review. Clause 9 has now been amended, providing some criteria for the Minister to consider when determining whether something is likely to cause significant harm to the environment. They include, as now provided for in the bill, magnitude of the effect; geographical area of the affect; duration of the effect; degree of reversibility of the effect; nature of the effect; likelihood that the...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. During committee's consideration of Bill 56, we heard comments raising concerns around "Why doesn't the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act apply to MLAs?" As I understand it, that is not generally the case in other jurisdictions.

There is provision in the code of conduct, the draft as it exists and will be tabled in the House shortly, to ensure that MLAs treat the information they get from their constituents and about their constituents in an appropriate manner. That is how we deal with privacy considerations here and will deal with them in the future.

This...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have some questions that I would like to ask the Minister on clause 18.

This is the part of the bill where a statement of environmental values would be created by the Executive Council. Section 18, though, provides that a Minister of a department or an agency shall take every reasonable step to ensure that a statement of environmental values prepared or amended under section 17 is considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made by the department or body. Can someone explain to me how that determination of significantly affect the...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that upon adoption of the new code of conduct and the coming into force of Bill 56, that a news release be distributed and plain-language materials be posted to the Legislative Assembly website explaining the changes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. In my remarks earlier I mentioned that this bill has been in place for 29 years. It is not very well-used. What has happened in those 29 years is that the concept of environmental rights has evolved. I mentioned how 149 of 193 countries in the world now have constitutional recognition of environmental rights in one form or another. Unfortunately, Canada is not one of those countries.

I also talked about how expectations were raised by the department during the public consultations of the bill around matters like definitions of a right to healthy environment, public trust, and...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That information the department is looking to put on its website perhaps to better promote this, will that include maybe a plain-language version of how a request for environmental investigations can be made and other provisions in the bill? Is that the sort of thing that would get promoted in plain language? Thanks, Mr. Chair.