Frame Lake

Statements in Debates

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I move that subclause 10(2) of Bill 38 be amended by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

(b) if the Minister is satisfied that the area meets the purpose of this act, unless,

(i) in the case of a nomination by an Indigenous government or organization, the nominating party has no asserted or established Aboriginal right or title in the area nominated;

(ii) the nomination covers all of the public land within an area of asserted or established Aboriginal right or title;

(iii) the nomination is frivolous, vexatious, or malicious;

(iv) the nomination is solely...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just one more question, if I could, of the law clerk. Under 10(6), it says that the Minister may, in the Minister's discretion, reject a nomination made under this section. Is it fair to say that the Minister has total and unfettered discretion, then, to decide whether to accept a nomination or not? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. At the risk of driving everybody crazy, can the Minister repeat that commitment? I just want to get it very clear on the record because there is a lot of interest in moving forward, particularly with Thaidene Nene. I had heard that there might be federal ministers coming up to make a formal launch in July around the federal part of that, so can the Minister commit that all the other sections of the act are going to be brought into forces as soon as possible? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I see that the Minister can prescribe eligibility criteria. Does the Minister or his staff have any thought about how long it might take to develop that list? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I understand that there are forms prescribed in here, or the ability to prescribe forms, largely around the inspection, sort of warden functions and labs. That's where they'd be designated as well. Would there be the opportunity, then, to move forward with bringing into force other sections of the act immediately upon it or shortly after assent? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think the heard the word "months." Okay, that's helpful to understand. I just want to turn to 10-6 under the current bill that is before us. It says: "The Minister may, in the Minister's discretion, reject a nomination made under this section." Can someone explain to me what sort of circumstances might lead to the Minister rejecting a nomination? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just so I understand this completely, is the Minister of the opinion or the view that any specific regulations are required to bring this act into force? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Okay. Can I get some understanding of how the nomination process worked under the old Protected Areas Strategy? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. What I want to do is just read a sentence from a letter received from the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated. This is a letter dated May 3, 2019:

"Therefore, the SSI maintains that the Sahtu Dene and Metis must have a substantial role in the development of regulations under the bills in a manner consistent with the operation of the working group with respect to the development of the bills. It is not enough for the GNWT to simply consult with the SSI about the draft regulations."

This is the part I really want everybody to pay attention to:

"To that end, the SSI and other...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 79)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think it's fair to say that all of committee agreed with this recommendation. We all have maybe some different ways we want to go at this. We are going to deal with that when we get to the clause-by-clause review of the bill, but we heard very strong evidence from the Indigenous governments themselves that they want to have a clear role moving forward in development of regulations, similar to the process that was used in actually developing the bill itself. I support the recommendation. I support co-management. This is coming directly from the Indigenous governments...