Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, rules of the House stopped me from saying what I really want to say, but the fact is, it’s not true. I can tell you right now, because I have a constituent who was trying to pay their arrears at the Yellowknife Housing Authority and they were catching up and it was certainly within reach and yet they were told that if they didn’t pay it all up by that Friday they were out. And guess what. They got a reprieve for a couple of weeks and then the Supreme Court folks showed up and it was only because there was a mix-up in processing the paper that gave them a couple extra weeks. So, Mr. Speaker, the briefing notes may say that, but I can tell you they don’t. So I ask it this way: Would the Minister have a serious look at this policy and make sure it’s being implemented, if there really is an intervention program? Because I can tell you it isn’t out there and it isn’t working. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member that it is out there and it is working. The situation he’s referring to is a situation where the courts have already ruled. That would take approximately a year to a year and a half before we went up at that stage. Once the court has ruled that there is an eviction, it is very difficult to intervene. Up to that point, there are all kinds of opportunity to sit down and work out a solution to stay in a unit and I would be glad to sit down with the Member and explain it to him. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member from Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation follow-up questions on my Member’s statement. I’ve been working with the department and talking with them for more than a year -- for about six years -- and trying to answer the question about getting runway lighting for Jean Marie and new runway lighting for Nahanni Butte. I’d like to ask the Minister what existing plans does the department have to address the need for runway lighting in these communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently there is no runway lighting in the communities of Nahanni Butte and Jean Marie. We continue to use flare pots. We have, historically, installed runway lights and in both communities. They were damaged on many occasions and it was decided to remove them. It is a safety concern with the federal government when we list a runway as having permanent lighting and they don’t work due to damage, and if they’re not consistently operational we certainly would be responsible for some liability in that area. So until we can find a solution as to having lighting in those communities...and we’ve had, Mr. Speaker, training programs to try to avoid damage to these lights, but it hasn’t helped. So we need to find some kind of mechanism for some comfort that if we do install lights that they won’t be damaged. So far we haven’t been able to do that. These lights are fairly expensive. Depending on the style of lighting it could be up to three-quarters of a million dollars for each community and that’s something we can’t afford to keep replacing. Thank you.
The runway lighting training program that the Minister refers to is very successful and I would like to commend the department for continuing that, but we cannot punish communities for past behaviours, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister, once again, to have a good look at these communities -- Nahanni Butte has never had runway lighting at all; Jean Marie has had it before -- and to look at seriously having this very necessary public safety infrastructure at these community airports. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I think the Member asked this question in our last session and we can certainly take another look at it. The cost factor is something that concerns us and if there is a way to provide adequate training so that the operators and the people maintaining the airports in those communities could assure us that they’re either going to cover the cost or they’re going to avoid damaging these lights, we certainly would like to look at it. It’s something that I can understand the community wanting to have.
But I do want to correct the Member about Nahanni Butte. Nahanni Butte did have runway lights in the early 1990s and they were removed as they were damaged on a number of occasions. So I can commit also to taking another look at it with our staff to see if there’s a way through this and a way that we can ensure that Transport Canada and all our users of those airports are feeling comfortable as we consider looking at the lighting system.
I know that the cost factors are also an integral part of any capital planning process, but I would just like to say again that this is necessary public infrastructure and must be there. The safety of residents, safety for the travelling public, not only government travel, there’s a lot of other reasons people land in these communities in the evenings, et cetera. So I would like to once again, on behalf of my communities, ask the Minister to have a serious look at and support this need to install this runway lighting in each of these communities and I’d like to have the department have a good serious look at it, engineer it, plan it and tell me exactly how much it will cost. Thank you.
Certainly we probably could provide that up front, the actual cost of runway lighting in both these communities. We need some resolution to how we can deal with the maintenance issues and then we could pick the next step to consider whether that would be enough for us to invest in those two communities to put the runway lights back in.
Up to now flare pots have been the safest course to use in the landing and darkness and it’s also been something that removes the safety concern of having lights that are on Transport Canada’s list that do not work and are damaged on a regular basis. So we need to have some answers there and I don’t have them right now, but we can provide the dollar figures and take a look if the Member is willing to sit down with the communities and ourselves and see if there is a way through this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once again, flare pots are like a creation from the 1940s, Mr. Speaker, and that’s something that my communities are not willing to accept any longer and I’d seriously like to ask the Minister to begin the process. We’ve got a capital planning process coming up here in July and August. We’d like to work towards getting that on the capital plan. Will the Minister commit to having a serious look at the needs of these communities and work towards getting them in the capital planning process? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I always take all issues raised by Members very seriously and I certainly will, once again, take a look with our officials and with any input the Member would like to provide to this situation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member from Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I talked about the need for a housing development plan for Tu Nedhe communities. I’d like to follow up now with questions for the Minister of Housing. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me if the NWT Housing Corporation has a plan for some sort of a community specific housing development plan for the non-market communities? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have developed plans in many of our communities, some very comprehensive, some pretty straightforward in terms of just delivering the capital, and we are currently basing our plans for investment, as the Member is aware, on a 2004 needs assessment. In some of the communities we’ve been able to engage the local government and the LHO, and the NWT Housing Corporation headquarters, and the local leadership to talk about some fairly comprehensive planning that includes dealing with some of the public housing stock, future homeownership programs and also removing some of the abandoned units, and also to do some work in the area of land development and land planning. So it is something that we support; it is something that we’d like to do in all the communities. However, it’s something that is very difficult to move forward unless we have input from many different people. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister, for the response. Will the Minister commit to implementing such a housing plan in both communities of Tu Nedhe: Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution? Thank you.
The Housing Corporation, of course, is always very open to having those discussions. We’ve managed to make some considerable headway in one of the Member’s communities. I think Lutselk’e has done a lot of good work in terms of planning for housing, investment housing development. We need to follow through on that and a lot of our other communities. As we move forward and review our results of the 2009 Community Needs Survey, I’d like to see us do more of this type of work. I’d certainly like to work with the Member to implement a similar plan in the community of Fort Resolution.
I’m aware that a lot of the planning obviously has already taken place, especially in communities where we have to barge the stuff in. I’m fairly pleased with the plan for Lutselk’e. I was wondering if the Minister could provide a copy of any sort of plan or draft copy of any sort of plan that could be available for the Tu Nedhe communities.
I’d be more than willing to share all of the information that we have compiled in terms of investment and plans for the communities, especially in the Member’s riding. We have certainly been encouraging our regional staff to get into the communities, to talk to the leaders, to share our own housing programs, to share the specifics of all the different areas that we have in terms of support: with our public housing initiatives, with our homeownership programs, our educational programs, our financial counselling programs. As we move forward, we will be starting to develop lands for presentation to the Members. We expect to have our 2004 Needs Survey done very shortly and we would be glad to share that with the Members of this House.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you. As indicated in my Member’s statement and mentioned by the Minister, a needs survey is very important. I was wondering if the Minister could tell me specifically when the results of the needs survey can be available for use.
The time frame for the community needs assessment for 2009 I expect to have in my hands by the end of June. I would be pleased to share that with Members. As we move forward, putting our investment plan to the communities for the communities, I would also be pleased to roll that out. I would hope to have everything all compiled and ready for sharing with the Members. There is a number of areas that we’d have to work towards in some of the communities such as the Member’s indicated for time frames, schedules, and clear roles and responsibilities. But we’ll move that forward as fast as we can and share it with the Members.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions today for the Premier. It goes back to my Member’s statement where I talked about the federal government and investing dollars in Northern Canada. I have to say, the other day I was really impressed that the Yukon government looks like they’re getting $71 million from the Government of Canada to invest in the Mayo hydro facility enhancement and stage 2 of the Carmacks-Stewart Transmission Line. It got me thinking whether or not our government has had any discussions with the federal government in terms of coming to the plate on the Taltson expansion and whether or not there might be some federal dollars there. I’d like to ask the Premier: Has our government had any discussions with the feds on getting some funding for the Taltson expansion?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Yukon amount the Member has made mention of actually falls in Canada’s Green Infrastructure Fund, is the term that’s been used. There are a number of things that we’ve gotten ready for. We have a number of proposals that are ready to go as we engage in those levels of discussions. The Yukon project was the first to announce this program, is what I understand.
We’ve got quite a number of initiatives that are in the pipe, as we call it, that works with the federal government; a number of departments to get the funding and resources up here in the North. That fund is a cost-shared program, 50/50. We have the appropriate Ministers ready to go with projects we feel might be able to work. Some of those are ongoing projects already.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a supplementary question. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just wondering, I don’t think we’ve had a discussion on what we should spend the portion of our Green Infrastructure Fund on and we haven’t had a discussion on whether it should go to one project like the Taltson expansion or whether it should be scattered across the Territory in various projects. I guess it sounds like that decision has been made by the government and I’d like to ask the Premier if that isn’t the intent of the Government of the Northwest Territories, is to look at a bunch of different projects and maybe the Premier could comment, too, on what our portion of the $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund is here in the Northwest Territories.
This fund is an application-based fund. It is not set out per capita or an allotment made out. Traditionally, for example, when a federal program and dollars are announced, if it’s a billion dollars, we qualify for just over $1 million. So this is not the case. This is project by project. We are using, for example, though the list has not been compiled in the sense of all potential projects, but because it’s cost-shared, we have to come up with our own dollars and we tend to use projects that are in the system already established. We have a number of projects, as Members are aware, that are in the Alternative Energy Program and that’s where we think that we might be able to tap into some dollars there as well.
Sticking with the federal investment in our Territory and opportunities to do so, I’m wondering if the government has any proposals before the federal government on the Growing Forward Initiative, which is a $1.3 billion fund that the feds have set up to spearhead some investment in agriculture in this country.
I understand that the Honourable Bob McLeod is working on this initiative and is prepared to come forward with projects that he’s been looking at or the involvement that they’ve had. So that is something that we’re tapping into as well. Part of the problem is we’ve been trying to get the details and what would qualify under these programs, and as that detail has become available, we’ve started to put the focus on some of those projects.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over in the Yukon they’ve accessed $5 million of that Growing Forward Initiative money already and that was announced back in April. I guess what I’m trying to suggest to the government is we had better get on with this and put our proposals in, find the money, and try to leverage what dollars we have with the federal government’s dollars so that we can get some projects started here in the Northwest Territories. The question I have: Are we going to wait until the business plans in the fall before proposals such as Mr. McLeod might have are going to come forward in front of Members so that we can move forward with these proposals?
The process involved, number one is to qualify for some of these areas, and some of these are agreements that are in place that we have to sign with the federal government and then work with the criteria as well. I understand he has come to that stage and is ready to sit down with Members to give them information on that. Hopefully we will be able to get the time together and get more information on that. But it is in the system and it is very close to being finalized in the sense of agreement between the federal government and ourselves.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to provide its report on the review of Bill 6, Species at Risk (NWT) Act and commends it to this House.
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to report on its review of Bill 6, Species at Risk (NWT) Act.
Bill 6, Species at Risk (NWT) Act, set out the processes to identify, protect and recover species at risk in the NWT. The proposed act will apply to any wild animal, plant or other species managed by the Government of the Northwest Territories. It will apply everywhere in the NWT, on both public and private lands, including private lands owned under a land claims agreement.
Bill 6 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on October 24, 2008, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure for review. The review process began on January 19, 2009, with opening comments from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. The committee then conducted public hearings on Bill 6 in the following communities:
Yellowknife on March 30 and April 6, 2009
Dettah on March 30, 2009
Fort Resolution on March 31, 2009
Fort Smith on April 1, 2009
Fort Simpson on April 2, 2009
Fort Providence on April 3, 2009
Norman Wells on April 7, 2009
Tulita on April 8, 2009
Inuvik on April 9, 2009
A list of persons and organizations which participated in the hearings is attached at Appendix A. In addition, several organizations submitted written comments to the standing committee. The written submissions are included in Appendix B. This report reviews the concerns identified through the public review and provides information about the views of the standing committee.
In 1996, all provincial, territorial and federal governments responsible for the management of wildlife agreed in principle to the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Under the accord, jurisdictions agreed to work together to provide effective protection to all species at risk in Canada and to help those species recover. The accord includes a number of commitments, including a commitment by each jurisdiction to put legislation and programs in place to protect species at risk. The Government of the Northwest Territories signed the accord in 2004.
The federal government passed its Species at Risk Act in 2003. The federal act establishes a process to assess and list species at risk at the national level, including migratory birds, fish and marine mammals. If a species is listed as threatened or endangered under the federal legislation, protection measures apply immediately anywhere in Canada. The federal government has management authority for fish and migratory birds, wherever they occur, as well as management authority for wildlife in national parks, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. Federal protection measures include automatic prohibitions against the killing, harassing, harming, buying, selling or trading of any threatened or endangered species and protecting its residences.
Territorial and provincial governments are responsible for managing other species such as land mammals, amphibians, reptiles, non-migratory birds and insects. Under the federal Species at Risk Act the appropriate jurisdiction is responsible for providing protection to species that are listed at the national level. It also contains a safety net provision whereby if a jurisdiction does not provide effective legal protection, the federal government must step in to protect the species.
At this time I’d like to pass the floor over to my deputy chair, Mr. Jacobson, to continue with the report.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Initial consultation on the Species at Risk legislation began in 1999 in conjunction with consultations on the proposed Wildlife Act. During this initial phase the land claims organizations advocated for a direct role in the drafting of the legislation to ensure that the rights, roles and responsibilities of the cooperative wildlife management processes established under the various land claims agreements were properly addressed.
The Government of the Northwest Territories agreed to an inclusive process for drafting the species at risk legislation that involved the four land claims organizations, the co-management boards and their legal counsel. In 2005 the Species at Risk Working Group was established. They collaborated with Environment and Natural Resources staff in the drafting of the legislation. The working group membership included the Joint Secretariat, the Wildlife Management Advisory Committee, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, the Sahtu Secretariat, the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board, the Tlicho Government and the Wek’eezhii Renewable Resources Board. The aboriginal groups with unsettled lands claims -- the Akaitcho Territory Government, Deh Cho First Nation, Northwest Territory Metis Nation, and the North Slave Metis Alliance -- were invited to the working group as observers but declined to participate. They did not want to have the process influence their land claim and self-government negotiations.
The Minister of Environment and Natural Resources tabled a draft Species at Risk (NWT) Act in the summer of 2008 for public review and comment. Revisions were made to the draft based on comments received from aboriginal organizations, wildlife organizations, industry representatives and the general public. The Minister then introduced Bill 6 in the Legislative Assembly in October 2008.
During the public review, standing committee members heard from the four members of the Species at Risk Working Group. The working group membership included the Joint Secretariat, the Wildlife Management Advisory Committee, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, the Sahtu Secretariat, the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board, the Tlicho Government and the Wek’eezhii Renewable Resources Board. All endorsed the proposed legislation and spoke of its importance in strengthening the wildlife protection goals under the various land claims and self-government agreements.
Eddie Erasmus, director of the Tlicho Government’s Lands Protection Department and working group member, told committee members it was necessary to establish a unique system for protecting and managing species at risk in the NWT because land claims and self-government agreements have established new responsibilities, rights and obligations for managing all wildlife. Because of those constitutionally protected agreements, it is not possible for any one party acting in isolation to conserve species that may be at risk. Instead, aboriginal governments, co-management bodies and the governments of the NWT and Canada need to work together in a cooperative way to achieve those important objectives.
Mr. Baryluk, resource management coordinator for the Inuvialuit Game Council, told committee members, while it may have taken a while to get here, we believe that the additional time taken has resulted in a draft bill that gives consideration to all the necessary aspects of the various land claims provisions and co-management processes that currently exist in the Northwest Territories. The participation of the land claims organizations at the table while the bill was being drafted produced a stronger bill that the Inuvialuit Game Council can feel comfortable supporting.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to pass the report on to my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Jacobson.
Many people who participated in the public hearings raised concerns about whether the federal Species at Risk Act would supersede the proposed NWT legislation. For species in the NWT that are listed under the federal legislation, the Government of the Northwest Territories must show that its laws are providing effective protection for those species. The Species at Risk (NWT) Act will establish the mechanisms to assess the status of a species at the territorial level -- which could differ from the national level -- identify the threats facing the species in the NWT, and identify what actions are necessary to protect, conserve and recover that species. This would fulfill the NWT’s commitment under the national accord and meet the obligation to provide effective legal protection.
It will also allow for the assessment of species that may be at risk in the NWT but are not at risk nationally, and provide the appropriate protection and conservation measures to address threats in the NWT. The proposed NWT legislation will also provide protection to species at risk in the NWT in a manner that recognizes the unique circumstances of wildlife co-management in the NWT.
Throughout the standing committee’s public review process, many questions were raised by presenters about how aboriginal and treaty rights were protected under the proposed legislation. The committee members are confident that the proposed legislation makes the paramountcy of aboriginal and treaty rights over the legislation clear. Clause 2 of the bill ensures that aboriginal and treaty rights cannot be infringed upon by the Species at Risk (NWT) Act. The act also makes it clear that if there is an inconsistency between the act and a land claim agreement, the provisions of the land claim agreements prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. In addition, the preamble to the act also specifically recognizes the constitutional duty of the Government of the Northwest Territories to consult with aboriginal peoples.
Under the act, aboriginal groups with unsettled land claims are not recognized as management authorities because they do not have the same accountabilities established with respect to species management until their land claim or self-government agreement is settled. However, the preamble of the act recognizes that “future agreements with aboriginal peoples whose land claims are not yet settled are likely to address authorities and processes for the management and processes for the management and conservation of species” which thereby allow for a future role as a management authority. However, whenever the interests of these groups are affected, the Minister is bound to consult and accommodate as established in current case law and under section 35 of the Constitution Act.
Management of wildlife resources in the Northwest Territories is shared by three levels of government -- federal, territorial and aboriginal -- and by co-management boards established by land claims agreements. The protection, conservation and use of wildlife resources in the NWT are also bound by case law and aboriginal and treaty rights.
The proposed species at risk legislation establishes a Conference of Management Authorities which will set out a formal process of collaborative decision-making among co-management boards established under land claims and self-government agreements and the Governments of the NWT and Canada which will guide the identification and management of species at risk.
Members of the Species at Risk Working Group who made presentations to standing committee see the concept of the Conference of Management Authorities as the best approach to accommodate the complex decision-making that would be required for species that cross boundaries of two or more land claim areas and allow for coordinated action among the various wildlife co-management structures that exist in the NWT.
The standing committee members agree with the proposed structures to manage and assess species that may be at risk in the NWT. The conference builds on the existing co-management processes and authorities established for wildlife management in the NWT.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like to turn it over to my colleague from the committee, Mr. Krutko. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The proposed legislation also establishes a Species at Risk Committee (SARC) to assess the biological status of species that may be at risk in the NWT. This assessment would be based on traditional, community and scientific knowledge of the species. The committee would include members appointed by co-management boards and members from areas without settled land claims, who would be appointed by the Minister. Members of SARC would have significant traditional, community or scientific knowledge about northern species and would act independently from their appointing agencies. SARC would make recommendations on the listing of species and on conservation measures for the consideration of the management authorities. SARC will not consider socio-economic effects in its assessment.
The standing committee heard from industry representatives that the SARC should consider socio-economic effects in its species assessment reports. Under the proposed legislation, socio-economic effects, along with biological status of the species and results from any required consultation are considered by the Conference of Management Authorities when attempting to reach a consensus agreement on listing.
The standing committee members agree with proposed legislation which focuses on the biological status of that species based on the best available traditional, scientific and community knowledge. This provides a foundation on which the Conference of Management Authorities can then consider other issues that may be impacted by listing and protection measures, including socio-economic effects.
Other presenters questioned how efficient these structures will be in carrying out their prescribed responsibilities. They were concerned that the process could lead to significant delays in identifying species at risk and in establishing management and recovery plans.
The standing committee members recognize that the proposed timelines for the various processes under the proposed legislation are lengthy and in some cases can be extended. In order to address this issue, the legislation proposes that if the Species at Risk Committee recommends that a species should be listed as being at risk, the species is considered a “pre-listed” species and conservation measures can be put in place immediately. The standing committee is satisfied that this will provide the necessary protection measures for species at risk until a final management plan or recovery strategy is approved and implemented.
The standing committee recommends that the government should closely monitor these costs and implement ongoing evaluation measures to ensure the process operates efficiently and in a cost-effective manner.
The standing committee also recommends that the Minister should review the implementation plans for the Conference of Management Authorities and the Species at Risk Committee with the standing committee.
With that, I would like to pass it on to Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The proposed legislation will not contain a list of species at risk in the NWT when it comes into force. Rather, species designated at risk in the NWT under the federal species at risk legislation will be assessed under the processes established in the NWT legislation.
Committee members heard from a delegation of polar bear hunters who described the impact on their livelihood that occurred when the USA designated polar bears as “endangered”. They all acknowledge that there have been negative impacts on the bears over the years; however, they believe the bear population remains relatively healthy. They felt that traditional knowledge was often overlooked in assessments of species’ health. They stressed the need for a balance between scientific and traditional knowledge when assessing species that may be at risk. They support the broad conservation goals that are at the heart of the species at risk (NWT) legislation and believe that appropriate management plans can address the need to both conserve species while at the same time support local economic activities.
Committee members heard from many others who wanted assurances that traditional knowledge would be included in a meaningful way throughout the assessment, listing and recovery processes. Committee members agree that the inclusion of traditional knowledge can improve a species’ assessment and supply much of the information needed for such an assessment when combined with scientific information. More importantly, the inclusion of traditional knowledge supports the meaningful involvement of aboriginal people in species conservation, which may improve local-level acceptance of a species’ status and associated recovery programs.
The standing committee recommends that a series of protocols and guidelines for the collection of aboriginal traditional knowledge be developed to support its inclusion in the assessment and protection measures of species that may be at risk in the NWT.
Given the importance of migratory birds and fish to NWT residents and to the biodiversity on which the northern ecosystem depends, committee members wanted to know why the Department of Environment and Natural Resources excluded them from the proposed NWT legislation. Departmental representatives indicated that in 2002, during the preparation and review of the legislative proposal for the Species at Risk Act, concerns were raised about the GNWT taking on responsibility for costs or activities associated with species under federal jurisdiction, namely migratory birds and fish. The department was given direction that the bill should not include any provisions that would in any way provide the GNWT with responsibility for fish or migratory birds.
The proposed act does enable the Minister to make an agreement with the Government of Canada to assess, but not list, the status of fish and migratory birds in the NWT. This would allow the Species at Risk Committee to assess the biological status of federal species that are not listed under the federal Species at Risk Act or are listed in a category that a co-management board considers inappropriate to their risk in the NWT. The assessment would be provided to the appropriate co-management boards and the federal government, with no obligation on the GNWT to take further action.
The standing committee recommends that the inclusion of fishes and migratory birds in the Species at Risk Act be undertaken as consequential amendments to the new Wildlife Act.
Now I will pass it along to my colleague, Mr. Ramsay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
