Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are directed to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. I want to follow up on my earlier Member’s statement, a key priority of the 17th Assembly’s support of environmentally sustainable development, and obviously the public is on track here. Given our current policies, we’re not achieving that and we’re not able to achieve that. There’s no potential to achieve that. What is the Minister prepared to do in terms of improved policies and law to counter the threat to our people and environment?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the more important question is, given the Member’s acknowledgement or description of, in his mind, the shortcomings of what the government is doing, what does the Member suggest we should be doing differently that we’re not currently doing, given that we’re on the eve of moving into yet another business planning process?
Most of my Member’s statement was in fact dedicated to that, but I’d be happy to offer a lot of suggestions. We have elected this Minister to lead us and I’m expecting… This was raised in the last session, as you are well aware, having ruled on various points of order and so on. Now we’re finally getting back to the debate here. Obviously, months have gone by and there’s still no response. I’d like to ask that question again. What is this Minister doing, what is he prepared to do to modify our policies and laws to address the concerns on greenhouse gas emissions?
This is consensus government and we’re in this together. The Member brings decades of experience, knowledge and skill on this issue to the table. It would be a shame if it wasn’t fully incorporated into our thinking. We do rely on his advice in terms of what he would suggest.
We have laid out a plan. We have the Greenhouse Gas Strategy. We invested tens of millions of dollars into alternative energy, solar energy, building standards, any number of areas, waste reduction, all that have energy components, all that have climate change implications. We’ve spent millions on adaptation and we’re trying to do the same on mitigation. We have a full slate. The Member says it’s not enough. What would the Member like us specifically to do?
I guess we have a new protocol here. The Minister is asking me questions. I’m happy to take some time to answer those questions, as long as the Speaker will allow me. The first thing I would do is I would immediately get rid of the policy that says that we will allow our emissions to increase 100 percent by 2020 from some much earlier level when we were much lower when we know, and the Minister agrees, that the science says we need a 25 to 40 percent reduction in emissions by that time. It’s behaviour such as this government…
Mr. Bromley.
Yes, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Bromley, this is time for question period. I’m sorry to cut you off, but if you could just raise your question, the Minister will answer. Continue.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the Speaker request the Minister to respond to my questions, to answer my questions?
The current plan has us working to stabilize our emissions at 2005 levels or less. We have laid out - and I could go on at great length but I appreciate your direction on short answers - the things we have underway with the resources we have available. We’re going to continue to work on those. We’ve met with local groups. We’re pursuing the work on carbon tax, emission standards, all those types of things in addition to the ongoing work. We’re in fiscal restraint so we don’t have the same amount of money that we did in the 16th Assembly, so we’re trying to be as creative as possible. We would appreciate all the guidance and assistance we can get as we move forward with the resources we have to deal with this issue.
Thanks for that response from the Minister. I appreciate that. Will the Minister commit to immediately revising the Greenhouse Gas Policy to remove the policy of allowing greenhouse gas emissions to soar to 100 percent above earlier emissions by 2020 and replace it with a more responsible policy in line with the science with which he agrees?
As I’ve indicated, we’ve set the target for ourselves at reducing our emissions to 2005 levels or less. If that is through the course of the business planning process not deemed adequate by the Legislature and committees as we come forward, we will look at making whatever adjustments are agreed to. This is the result of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy that was just renewed at the tail end of the last Assembly. Of course, it’s subject to ongoing review and we’ll be happy to work with Members opposite as we go through the business planning process.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for that response from the Minister. There are two main keys to achieving a reduction of greenhouse gas output and both of them also provide many opportunities for economic development reducing cost of living and so on. One is getting this government and our communities off carbon-intensive fuels and onto renewables. Another is requiring all future major industrial development to achieve carbon neutrality as a condition of approval. When will the Minister table a plan for achieving these crucial objectives?
We have tabled a Biomass Strategy that speaks to that particular initiative. We’re concluding a Solar Strategy. We’re doing a Hydro Strategy. We’re looking at wind as well. Geothermal. We, as well, are clearly on track. We have a plan that’s called devolution. Devolution will give us the authority to control land, water and resource development, and it will allow us to make changes that are appropriate to the North on regulatory regimes to address some of the very issues that the Member talks about. With his full support, we could have that agreement signed by 2014. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
