Thank you, Mr. Druyan. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chair, thanks for that response. I think it was Section 19 we were talking about. He said 17, but I’m sure he meant 19. In fact, the point I’m raising is that that’s not good enough. They should be required to hold public hearings on any matter. Again, I’m not surprised at mirroring federal legislation but I’m trying to raise a point that we can talk about later, but that’s my view on that.
Section 27 allows the Minister to set up an oil and gas committee under his or her direction. Five-members-only criteria for appointment seems to be two members have to know something about oil and gas. The other three I think are government members. Appointees can’t have an interest of more than 5 percent in any oil and gas property. Wouldn’t that be something? The committee seems to hear appeals, may hold hearings.
Again, maybe I can just ask that. It wasn’t clear in their jurisdiction, which is in later clauses. If I can just get some examples of what sorts of appeals and other inquiries are being contemplated here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Fulford.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can think of one, off the top of my head, where there’s unitization where different interest owners are basically forced to work together to maximize the production from appeal and to conserve the resource that appeals in relation to that go to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. That’s a good example. It helps me see the purpose of this committee right away.
Section 61(4) seems to provide GNWT with an immunity, once again, for any damages or liability associated with regulations they may make even if they are bad regulations or cause problems. We’ve heard about this earlier today. Again, this seems typical for our federal government, but does this sort of subscription to a lack of degree of accountability apply to this government? Is that something that we might see considered in the review if there are no options now? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I see this provision as just a reflection of the polluter pays principle and that the government shouldn’t take on responsibility for something that was caused by a company that was exercising a privilege granted to it by the government. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that intent. There seems to be some other interpretation of this. Maybe I can just ask. Is there any granting of immunity to the GNWT here for regulations good or bad? Maybe a response to both of those. Thank you.
The Member is correct that this provision insulates the government from liability for and a lawful authorization that is granted from any liability that might arise out of that authorization caused by any discharge, emission or escape of oil and gas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Section 65(5) requires an inquiry for a bigger spill or event, but the requirement for public disclosure, the report is not as strong as it should be, as I think we have heard about earlier. In fact, I think typically in federal regulatory processes that I have participated in, there’s a clear, well-laid-out process and predictable process for distributing information and reports. Can we assume that that sort of thing will be developed in the regulations so that the uncertainty I think Ms. Bisaro was referencing could be resolved? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, Section 65(5) doesn’t speak to that being spelled out in regulation, but in theory that is something that could be addressed in future amendments to the act and regulations made under the act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That would, I think, be appropriate and add some transparency and predictability that would support the public in its oversight role.
My last point here is there doesn’t again seem to be mandatory requirements for closure and reclamation plans. Could I get a comment on that? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I guess I would again reiterate my response to a question raised in respect to the Petroleum Resources Act that there is a variety of different instruments under the mirror legislation that provide for that type of thing. Thinking again of the Waters Act and the water licence requirements or the land use permitting, the standard terms of leases, they all work together to ensure that there is some plan for reclamation and getting the land to the way that it was before the activity occurred. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Committee, we are on Bill 15, general comments. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick follow-up to that. Do any of the other acts that Mr. Fulford referenced provide for mandatory requirements? I’ve only seen recommendations or that sort of thing, but I am very interested in pinning down mandatory requirements. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Fulford.
Mr. Chair, my understanding is that it is a mandatory requirement under the Waters Act and the water regulations. I can endeavour to confirm that in the next few minutes if the Member desires that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The next few days would be great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
General comments.
Detail.
Thank you. Does committee agree that we will go clause by clause?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we will go in lots of 10?
Agreed.
Clauses 1 to 10.
---Clauses 1 through 10 inclusive approved
Clauses 11 to 20.
---Clauses 11 through 20 inclusive approved
Clauses 21 to 30.
---Clauses 21 through 30 inclusive approved
Clauses 31 to 40.
---Clauses 31 through 40 inclusive approved
Clauses 41 to 50.
---Clauses 41 through 50 inclusive approved
Clauses 51 to 60.
---Clauses 51 through 60 inclusive approved
Clauses 61 to 70.
---Clauses 61 through 70 inclusive approved
Clauses 71 to 80.
---Clauses 71 through 80 inclusive approved
Clauses 81 to 90.
---Clauses 81 through 90 inclusive approved
Clauses 91 to 100.
---Clauses 91 through 100 inclusive approved
Clauses 101 to 110.
---Clauses 101 through 110 inclusive approved
Clauses 111 to 120.
---Clauses 111 through 120 inclusive approved
Clauses 121 to 125.
---Clauses 121 through 125 inclusive approved
Bill as a whole?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 15 is ready for third reading?
---Bill 15 as a whole approved for third reading
Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.
Next we have Bill 16. Premier McLeod, please proceed with your opening comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 16, Northwest Territories Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management Act. The introduction of this bill is an important step towards implementing the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and fulfilling the commitment made to reflect our Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management in legislation.
The Northwest Territories Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management is described in Chapter 4 of the Devolution Agreement, as an agreement that “sets out a government-to-government relationship and provides for mechanisms for coordination and cooperation with respect to the management of public lands and settlement lands and rights in respect of waters.” The Government of the Northwest Territories and our Aboriginal government partners in devolution worked hard to reach an agreement that reflects our shared commitment to work together. This legislation will again solemnize that commitment.
The goal of the NWT Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management is to provide opportunity for the GNWT and Aboriginal governments to work collaboratively and cooperatively in areas related to land and resource management. The agreement commits all parties to work to an intergovernmental council to explore means of improving our respective land and resource management regimes. It will provide opportunity to harmonize practices, policies, laws and regulations that without cooperation and collaboration might create inefficiencies and frustrate our efforts to maximize the benefits of resource development for the people of the NWT.
Bill 16 fulfills a commitment made by the GNWT in the NWT Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management to recommend legislation for enactment by the Legislative Assembly providing for the implementation of that agreement and, in effect, will fulfill the pledge made by the GNWT to implement the NWT Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management. This is something that this government supports, and reflects our Assembly’s goal of a strong and independent North built on partnerships.
This legislation is not mirrored legislation. It reflects a “made-in-the-NWT” approach, and there is nothing similar in existing federal legislation. We have shared the draft of this legislation with the Aboriginal government parties to the Intergovernmental Agreement.
I’m also happy to report that the Tlicho Government, one of our partners in this undertaking, passed its own law on February 20th that will implement the agreement on behalf of the Tlicho Government.
I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Do you have witnesses to bring into the Chamber?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Committee agreed?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the House.
Premier McLeod, could you please introduce your witnesses?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my immediate right is Martin Goldney, deputy minister, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations; to my far right I have Thomas Druyan, legislative counsel, Department of Justice; and to my left is Jamie Fulford, legal counsel, Department of Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. We are on general comments of Bill 16. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A number of questions here. I’m trying to understand this bill. I realize it’s based upon an agreement which was negotiated between devolution negotiations and so on. I guess, considering that we have an agreement that has been signed by all parties, why do we need legislation to implement the agreement? Why can’t we just use the agreement as the document that governs what’s going on? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Goldney.
