Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 44, Forest Act, be read for the second time. This bill establishes a new framework for the management and protection of forests in the Northwest Territories. It sets out some general requirements with respect to the sustainable use of forests and forest resources. It enables the protection of forests through wildfire management and prevention and includes provisions to respond to forest insects, disease, and invasive plant species. The bill also authorizes the use of forest resources through forest harvesting agreements, permits, and licences. The right to appeal certain decisions is granted. Finally, an enforcement scheme is created in order to ensure respect for the new management and protection framework. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to speak on the Forest Act, to represent the Aboriginal Indigenous governments of my riding. I have been contacted by the Indigenous governments that are not in favour of this bill moving forward at this time. The Indigenous governments would like to see the bill go back to the government, and they would like to see them participate as a government. Right now, they feel like they are stakeholders. The bill has been drafted with all the Indigenous governments across the territories treated as stakeholders. In this act, being a stakeholder would mean that they may not even be the main stakeholder that the government deals with moving forward.
One opportunity that the Indigenous governments have to have a say in what happens with the Forest Act is not necessarily through a technical working group when, at the last minute, we are being asked to intervene and not pass this bill by the governments that we represent for that reason. They feel like they are stakeholders. There are large gaps between when they get to see the act. The Forest Act is an important act. It is a renewable resource act. It is a renewable resource act that is replacing acts from the federal government at this time, two acts.
It is similar to what happened with the Wildlife Act. In the Wildlife Act, the Indigenous governments got to co-draft the act. It took three or four governments. It took 10 years, mind you, but it essentially set the standard on how government should be drafting legislation. It was at the cutting edge of drafting legislation when you have a public government that is working with Indigenous governments to draft legislation. It took a long time for the Wildlife Act to go through, but we replaced an antiquated act back then. It was an act that the people see as an improvement. It is an act that the Indigenous governments can say that they held the pen.
This is not the case here. In the Forest Act, they have gone backwards, maybe, back to the idea that the GNWT will do all the drafting and they will do consultation with the Indigenous governments from time to time or work with the technical working group.
Today, or over the last few days, I have been contacted by the Indigenous governments. They feel like stakeholders through this process. This government meets with these Indigenous governments on a regular basis and treats them as a government when they sit across from each other in bilateral meetings. Not in this case here. In this case here, they are treated as stakeholders, stakeholders who may have less of a stake than industry.
Once this Forest Act is passed into the third reading, it would go to committee. They would have an opportunity to speak on the act, and they would have opportunities for consultation. That is not the full involvement that the Indigenous governments would like to have. The Indigenous governments want to co-draft legislation.
Like I said, this is an important piece of legislation. There are two very important renewable resources; wildlife and forest. They had an opportunity. Although the process took a long time, they had that opportunity in the Wildlife Act. Today they are not going to have that opportunity.
If we pass this second reading, it will go to consultation, and that is what it will be. It will be consulted. They will be consulted like any other stakeholder across the territory. If there are stakeholders registered to speak on this act, then they will be at equal level to the governments that this government sits across in bilateral meetings and indicates that "You guys are a government. We respect you. You guys sit across from us, but only on some things, not on all things. Legislation is not one of them." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I will speak to the process that resulted in the bill, also provide some comments on the bill and concerns with what is there and what is missing. The bill is really just supposed to modernize our forestry practices and management. There have been some recent media tension and news releases related to the way in which it was developed, how inclusive that process was, and whether there is appropriate recognition and incorporation of Indigenous rights and agreements.
ENR's approach on the development of its environmental legislation appears to have been similar to other departments in a post-devolution world, but there were some significant difference. ENR created a two-level approach from consultation. A large stakeholder advisory group, consisting of NGOs, industry, and others, was invited to a series of three large workshops that were held October 12, 2017; February 28 to March 1, 2018; and May 9 and 10, 2018. Participants were promised a chance to review the draft bills before introduction to the House, but this was not done.
There was also a broader public engagement for the Forest Act that closed on December 14, 2018. A bulleted list of possible principles and content was posted to the ENR website. A "what we heard" report was promised but never delivered. Submissions were also not posted. Public consultation and engagement appears to have ended in late 2018.
Technical working groups were established for each of the five ENR bills being considered, including the Forest Act. Indigenous governments were invited to participate in detailed discussions and exchanges of proposals and drafts. Co-management bodies were sometimes allowed to participate in the technical working groups as some of them would be expected to implement parts of the bills.
Indigenous governments that were not members of the inter-governmental council and some NGOs without paid staff were provided some limited financial assistance from ENR. I believe that is a good step.
As I understand it, notes were kept for all the stakeholder advisory group and technical working group meetings. ENR did not share any of its research, best practices, or cross-jurisdictional analysis publicly. Despite repeated attempts by standing committee and Regular MLAs, ENR did not share anything substantive from its consultation and drafting process with Regular Members.
The Minster said in writing on March 28, 2018, that he was "committed to provide SCEDI with updates on ENR's legislative initiatives and the technical working group and stakeholder advisory group meetings." That never happened. Despite several reminders to the Minister and even the Premier, the standing committee had no idea what the actual bills would contain or what stakeholder and Indigenous government feedback ENR had received. The Minister did provide some information on a confidential basis last Friday on this in the past week following media reports of dissatisfaction with the co-drafting process.
The secrecy surrounding this bill was not helpful and was worse than the ITI bills, much worse, and will make the job of standing committee that much more difficult, especially when it comes to inviting public commentary. This is not how consensus government is supposed to work.
ENR has not provided any plain-language summaries for its legislation, although the Minister did commit to do this in Committee of the Whole review of the department's budget last week. This needs to happen very quickly as the public needs help to participate democratically in the review of Bill 44 and the other proposed ENR legislation.
There are lots of lessons we can learn about the development of these bills. There is a need for formal review across departments of how we did with our first steps in the post-devolution world.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to the principles and merit of the bill.
GNWT has a Forest Management Act and four sets of regulations under it. That legislation allows for the establishment of a supervisor and officers. The powers of the Minister are also set out. Agreements can be entered into, and permits and licences issued for forestry activities. An appeal process is also set up. An enforcement regime is established, including offences and penalties that are set out, along with regulation-making authority.
There are regulations that set out more detail for permits and licences for harvesting, commercial operations, and research. Charges and fees are laid out, including those related to reforestation. Record-keeping is also required. The other three regulations create a forest management unit near Cameron Hills for the cutting of timber, zones for management purposes, and other areas for management. There is also a Forest Protection Act with no regulations under it. It deals largely with fire suppression, duties to report, and duties to assist. Offences and penalties are established with ministerial power to create regulations.
Bill 44, the Forest Act, will repeal and replace these two pieces of legislation and their regulations. Modern forestry legislation should establish a planning and management regime, and the bill purports to do this, but it is going to take a lot of hard work to get it in order.
The Forest Act sets out some overall administrative roles and responsibilities. Sustainable forest management is outlined, followed by a detailed section on forest fires and suppression. Agreements, permits, and licences are provided for in the bill, and there is a detailed appeal process. Officers are created to provide enforcement through inspections, investigations, and seizures, with fines and penalties, as well. Alternative measures may be agreed upon. Regulation-making authority is spelled out. Lastly, there are some transitional provisions.
There are some laudable aspects to this bill, such as the extensive preamble and the purpose section. There is a commitment to work in a cooperative and collaborative manner, use best available information, including traditional knowledge and adaptive management, recognition of wildfire as a natural process, ecological integrity, and sustainability. However, the bill does little to translate these lofty ideas into actual practice in a coherent, consistent, and logical fashion.
There are a number of very serious issues with this bill as I see it. It is almost as if the bill was half-done before it was introduced. There is no logical order or flow to it. One might expect to see research and inventory work that would lead into the development of forest management plans, which would then form the basis for forest use through agreements, followed by licences and permits that would authorize specific forestry activities, which would be monitored and reported on.
Although the bill contains most of these functions, they are scattered about in an almost incomprehensible fashion. It is going to take a lot of work to organize these steps into a logical and orderly process for forest protection and management. It is like parts of the previous two bills were glued together, rather than woven into a pattern that is clear and makes sense. I will have some specific comments on some of these functions a little later.
There are few, if any, cross-references to other resource management legislation, which creates a potential for overlap and duplication, or even conflicting provisions. For example, the definition of "forest ecosystem" includes all wildlife. There are provisions for ecosystem management plans, while we already have a detailed Wildlife Act in place for wildlife plans.
While the bill does acknowledge and recognize the prevailing co-management system established under constitutionally entrenched land rights agreements, it does not fully embrace or support the role of the Renewable Resources Boards or Indigenous governments in those areas in the bill itself. There are no clear roles for the co-management bodies or Indigenous governments in the development and approval of forest ecosystem management plans, forest harvesting agreements, permits and licences, or monitoring and reporting on the state of forest ecosystems. The Minister can develop and implement plans, policies, and programs, but there is no requirement for notice or any kind of a review process. There are lots of provisions and approaches from the Wildlife Act that could and should have been incorporated into this bill to fully incorporate co-management.
In a very strange twist, the only defined role for co-management bodies and Indigenous governments in this bill is a right to be notified when an appeal is received by the Minister from a third party for denial of a permit or licence or suspension of same or a seizure. Co-management bodies and Indigenous governments don't even have the ability to file an appeal themselves if they disagree with the decision by the Minister. Once notified of an appeal by a third party, co-management bodies and Indigenous governments have a right to intervene in that appeal process. Surely we can do much better in recognizing the roles and responsibilities of our resource management partners who already have constitutionally protected rights to manage forest resources.
There is the ability for the Minister to enter into agreements with others to carry out forest management. This may allow the Renewable Resources Boards to substitute for the poorly organized and drafted functions provided for in this bill. There are provisions for a public registry in the protected areas bill, and such is also the practice with the Land and Water Board of the Mackenzie Valley and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. There is no requirement for, or even a mention of, a public registry for management plans, licences, permits, inspections, or the plans, policies, and programs that the Minister may develop to manage forests under Bill 44. How is anyone supposed to know what is going on without a public registry?
The lack of a public registry is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are no provisions anywhere in the bill for public notice or participation in the development of forest ecosystem management plans, forestry agreements, permits, licences, or state-of-the-forest reporting. Surely there should be some role for the public in knowing about and commenting on at least some, if not all, of these tools for forest management and protection.
I want to highlight one glaring example of how the bill does not tie together the forest management tools that it contains. There is the potential for the supervisor to develop forest ecosystem management plans. That is great. I believe that it should be a duty as well. However, these plans must be completed before a forest harvest agreement can be issued. This is, in principle, a good thing and mirrors how land use permits and water licences must conform with an approved regional land use plan or, at the municipal level, how a development permit must confirm the zoning and a general plan. While a forest ecosystem management plan needs to be in place before harvesting can take place, there is nothing in the bill that says that the harvesting has to conform to, and be consistent with, the completed forest ecosystem management plan.
The bill is almost devoid of any public notice or reporting requirements, except when it comes to fire management and suppression. The supervisor may monitor the state of forest ecosystems, but there is no duty to do so or to report publicly. This oversight needs to be corrected and coordinated with the state-of-environment reporting requirement in the proposed Environmental Rights Act and similar requirements for the environmental audit performed under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.
The bill deals with fire suppression, and there is a mandatory requirement for prevention and preparedness plans for industrial activities. This is a good feature, but there is no provision for any kind of review or public participation, even by a community government that may be nearby or called upon for assistance. The supervisor can provide reimbursement for those called upon to assist with forest fires, but there does not appear to be any dispute resolution process if the amount offered is not acceptable.
Fees or charges in respect of reforestation or clearing are to be tracked as a special purpose fund and are to be used only for forest renewal activities. This is, in principle, a good step. However, there is no requirement for any monitoring or evaluation of the effectiveness of such efforts and no public reporting, either. This does not create any accountability or transparency.
Again, as we have seen with most of the resource management bills coming from Cabinet, there is a very troubling pattern of extensive and sweeping ministerial power and discretion without many checks or balances. There are 40 listed areas for potential regulations that take up more than two pages in the 57-page bill.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to take a lot of time and effort to fix up. I have to wonder if it would have been better to allow more time for the parties involved to bring it to the level where it should have been for a public review. I believe that the public interest would be better served by sending this bill back for further work. I will not be supporting this bill moving forward at this point. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will not be supporting the bill in its present form. I understand that this is in principle, and I understand that the spirit and the intent of this bill is to protect the forest. The forest legislation proposes, of course, a regulatory system, and we have been told that it is a framework that will basically guide any form of development related to forestry in the NWT.
As everybody is aware, devolution changed things. I think that the whole idea behind devolution is that we are at that age where we could be responsible for our lands and resources. There are various legislations that need to be mirrored, and it could be just simply a cut-and-paste program, or else you take a very extensive approach to consultation and build approaches from the grassroots up. In this case, there are two efforts. There is the forest management and the non-timber forest products that have to be merged in one legislation.
In one section, we have an industrial interest for forest products at this point. An example is biomass or wood pellets, as an example, but there is still a prevailing interest of Indigenous people to go into the bush, you know, without hassle, without harassment, to cut wood and be able to heat their homes and cook their food and warm their children. Provisions like that should be reflective of future legislation.
In understanding consultations, I understand that it is supposed to be collaborative, and it is supposed to, at the end of the process, be a co-management system. At this point, with the draft that we have, do we have a co-management system? No, we don't. Mahsi.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to attempt to repeat what some other Members have said, only to say that, behind the scenes, when the standing committee is working on developing some of these pieces of legislation, oftentimes it is a back-and-forth process, where bills are sent in draft form only to be returned and worked on again. I can think of some successful examples of that; the Mineral Resources Act, the Petroleum Resources Act, bills before this House. Those went through that kind of collaborative effort. This bill did not.
The quality of the legislation is a very important consideration when considering the merits of this bill, and there are certainly some troubling concerns with how it is going to be implemented. Is it really, fully-cooked and ready to be taken on the road, ready for public consultation, or does it need more time?
Setting those issues aside, we have to look at the very serious issues that have been raised by Indigenous nations in the Northwest Territories through various forums. This government made a commitment through the Devolution Agreement and through the Intergovernmental Agreement on Land and Resources to co-draft legislation with Indigenous governments and organizations as it relates to land and resources management. I think that it is very important that we live up to those agreements, and there is an expectation that those agreements will be followed. This means more than discharging the legal requirements of a section 35 consultation; it means full nation-to-nation collaboration on laws like this Forest Act.
These issues concerning the involvement of Indigenous nations were shared with me and with other Members of this House, in addition to being made public through the media, and they are serious concerns. Many of the pieces of correspondence that I have reviewed have encouraged the government not to proceed with introduction of the bill, and I have seen no correspondence since that has changed the perspective on that. This is not one or two; this is the vast majority of our Indigenous partner governments.
Reconciliation is something that I believe in, Mr. Speaker, and the concerns raised by Indigenous governments are enough to make me question the merits of voting in favour of this bill. We must do more than talk the talk. We have to walk the walk and live up to our promises to Indigenous nations and work together for our common interests. That was the promise of devolution, and that is the great promise of the Northwest Territories, a jurisdiction which always promotes our shared culture, our shared experience, our shared histories, and our ability to offer Canada a vision of what reconciliation looks like. That must permeate everything that we do and every bill that we create, especially bills that we acknowledge need to be co-drafted.
I believe that moving ahead without the involvement of Indigenous governments on the current form of the bill will imperil the positive nation-to-nation process that has been developed since devolution in respect to these co-drafting agreements. The bill should be withdrawn and returned to the technical working group so that we can ensure that the views of Indigenous nations are properly represented, along with their constitutionally protected co-management systems.
Unfortunately, withdrawing the bill is not an option at this time. This House must make a decision, and that decision is: which is more important: the political expediency of this government's legislative agenda, or the rights and recognition of Indigenous nations in the Northwest Territories and the agreements that we have signed with them?
If there is even a hint of a shadow of a doubt towards meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples, I do not believe that this House should take the risk. Therefore, I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I request a recorded vote.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation acknowledges the effort that the GNWT has put into many of the pieces of legislation that are being tabled this sitting. Mr. Speaker, I, as well as the Inuvialuit, firmly believe that better legislation results from cooperative policy developing and drafting. While the tabled bill does not include helpful amendments since a version was circulated in December, the Forest Act process did not provide sufficient time for cooperative drafting.
Mr. Speaker, going forward, IRC urges the Government of the Northwest Territories to provide enough time and opportunity for cooperative development of the regulations. In particular, the rights holders and the Government of the Northwest Territories will have to work together to determine what can and cannot be done on private lands. This approach will ensure that the act is implemented in a way that aligns with land claims agreements across the Northwest Territories, as well as works in practice.
Mr. Speaker, having reviewed the updated and tracked bill after the first reading, I can say that my major concerns with the proposed act are fewer. At request, the bill now clearly defines land resources and self-government agreement as specifically including the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The powers of the supervisor, including land access, are now subject to land claims agreements. The role of co-management bodies are now specifically acknowledged. Also, the burden for extinguishing forest fires has been taken off landowners, like the Inuvialuit Land Corporation, for example, Mr. Speaker, and placed on industrial operators. All of these are essential changes.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to convey a lot of criticism after ENR has made these major changes. It shows inclusion. The issue below can be addressed through a committee process. My main concern relates to the application or non-application of the Forest Act to privately owned lands. This was raised during the January 9th meeting of the technical working group, and this is the response that came back in their "what we heard" table: "The act, which deals with both forest protection and management, applies throughout the Northwest Territories, including federal lands, with the exceptions of lands in national parks. ENR will not issue permits or licences on private lands without the permission of the landowner."
Mr. Speaker, that is good for land claims organizations. There are many land claims groups across the Northwest Territories. "A fully developed protocol to guide any actions regarding this issue will be required before ENR gets involved in licence issuance on private lands."
I can understand the need to include all of the Northwest Territories' forests under the act, subject, of course, to the lands claims agreements, because they are connected, and fires, pests, et cetera, do not pay attention to jurisdiction. However, it would be helpful to state in the act that the supervisor cannot issue a permit for things listed in section 36, for example, timber-cutting, clearing, research, management programs, et cetera, on Inuvialuit lands.
Also, the act gives the supervisor powers beyond issuing licences that presumably would apply to private lands. One example is the authority to develop and implement ecosystem management plans, EMPs, that address forest sustainability, maintenance, and ecological integrity, the cumulative effects of forest use and other management objectives in section 12. This section does not require engagement with rights holders within the area identified by the EMP, Mr. Speaker.
We must give the bill the time that it needs to be co-drafted with Indigenous rights holders in the Northwest Territories. The Wildlife Act took 10 years to complete. Time does not make everything right, Mr. Speaker. Actions which include land claims holders and rights holders across the territory are key as we look at the Constitution Act. Section 35, Mr. Speaker, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which are key to Indigenous people around the world and across Canada, Mr. Speaker, mainly here in the Northwest Territories, should be considered when drafting something this important or negotiating.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that Inuvialuit actively supports the act in its current form, but what I can say is that it is better than it was in December. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation will work through the review process should the act pass its second reading as they always do. Mr. Speaker, nothing starts off as something that will make everyone happy. This is something that we will need to improve together.
Mr. Speaker, we need to see express exemptions from the permit requirements for beneficiaries, exercising their traditional rights as they relate to forest products. This is a big one for everyone because infringement carries big penalties, Mr. Speaker. We need confirmation that the supervisor cannot issue permits to Indigenous private lands. This is a big one for Inuvialuit, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure there are other Indigenous groups across the territory who would say the same. The powers of the supervisor need to be subject to the same limits the Minister is subject to. There needs to be consultation with Indigenous organizations prior to the establishment of the ecosystem monitoring plans. Once developed and approved, there needs to be adequate monitoring and implementation.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I may support this bill if I can get confirmation today from the Minister on the floor to allow co-drafting of regulations for this bill to reflect the land-claim agreements of the Northwest Territories. An improvement of this through the public review process is key. If the Minister cannot guarantee inclusion of Indigenous organizations moving forward, I may not show support for this, but, Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in developing something. For example, look at my handwriting. No one can read it at times, but with help through some of my colleagues, it can get better, Mr. Speaker, and readable by everybody. It depends on how we look at it, as well. I am a strong believer that we can pull through this together and make it work for the people of the Northwest Territories.
As I mentioned before, Indigenous people are key to being consulted in something like this. This is something very big and something very important to a lot of us. Earlier this morning, I was told: there are no trees in my land. What am I doing here? Mr. Speaker, Inuvialuit have reach in the Yukon and Alaska, across the world, here in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, we are very capable of drafting and co-drafting any important policies that may be of importance to any Indigenous group across the territory, mind you, across this world.
I encourage the Minister to show support to the colleagues across so that we will work together when it comes to drafting something this important. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just going to read a summary from the Dehcho First Nation, which is five of the communities that I represent. It is summarizing. This was a letter sent to Minister McLeod on January 18, 2019.
"DFN does not support the introduction of the draft Forest Act bill as provided to us on December 20, 2018. The draft legislation as discussed with the technical working group meeting on January 9, 2018, is not consistent with the provisions of the Dehcho IMA, and does not address DFN's substantive concerns about the potential adverse impact of this legislation on Dehcho rights.
"There was limited opportunity for DFN and ENR to engage in any meaningful dialogue to resolve the outstanding policy issues raised in the technical working groups prior to May 2018. There was also no opportunity legislative drafting prior to receiving the December 7, 2018, draft number 8 of the bill on December 20, 2018, during the Dehcho First Nation office holiday closure.
"Legislation that is inconsistent with the Dehcho IMA, does not afford protections for the exercise of Dehcho rights, and does not even meet the general standards for consultation and accommodation between the GNWT and Indigenous governments set out in the Wildlife Act and other pending ENR legislation. Such fundamental omissions are not acceptable."
Mr. Speaker, it has been quite an interesting opportunity to discuss this legislation with the residents of the riding I represent. I have had more calls about this than the cannabis bill, which is quite interesting to see. It was the technical group that was starting to work on it. Then all of a sudden, it didn't go there. We talk about the opportunity to fix this.
The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh said it took 10 years to get the Wildlife Act done right. That is what we should be doing. We should be getting this act done right.
Also, when this bill goes to committee, the scope is limited, what is able to be changed. What needs to be done? I was hoping that the government would be willing to take this act back, fix it up, consult with the Indigenous groups who are the landowners. We are guests in here. We need to understand that, and we need to respect them. This act does not respect them as we move forward.
I have heard the opportunity to make changes. Changes need to be made prior to this going out with committee. We are also being pushed to get it done in the 120 days. We are not giving enough time for committee to do the work. We need to do this right. This is going to be a legacy for not just us but our grandchildren and their grandchildren. That is what needs to be understood.
The government needs to work with us. I have been in some of the community meetings, and I have listened to them. I have listened to both sides. I thought we were moving forward. I thought there was some good work. This technical working group was a very positive step by this government. Somehow, it changed somewhere along the line, and then they were no longer co-drafting this document.
I would hope the Minister and the department would say, "Okay. We will withdraw it, and we will work with the committee to get this done right." I say, "the committee," but also the Indigenous groups. That is who we need to be working with on this.
I represent six communities in Nahendeh, and they all have said, "This act is not good. It needs to be fixed." They appreciated the consultation from the government at the beginning, but it seems to have stopped. That is why they are saying, "Don't vote for this," so I will not be able to vote for this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We really live in a multi-cultural and multi-diverse area of the territory, which includes many various details of consultation. I have seen many applications, demonstrations of systems, and consultations that give you the terminology of joint collaboration. I have carried land-use planning applications, which were underneath the jurisdiction of Diane in those days. I have carried applications in boxes to the Sahtu land-use planning office. Then the process carries on through the referral as set out in the land claim. Those are just examples of consultation.
Back to the bill, I know for a fact that the working group was made up of a representative from the Sahtu. No one can say we weren't at the table. Consultation is truly a terminology that could be described in many ways. Is it a phone call? Is it a fax? Is it a text?
The department has given me confidence that, yes, we have defined consultation by saying, "Okay. We are going to reach out to parties and the stakeholders, and we are going to bring them to the table so we are sitting across from each other." To me, that is genuine consultation rather than doing it over the phone.
We are in a very similar situation as what we discussed the other day on one of the other previous bills to allow community consultation. I support this bill, and I support it moving on to the next stage of consultation, and I am hoping that some of the communities that I represent would be on the engagement referral list, to give more public input outside of the representation that we had on the technical working group. After all, everybody should be allowed to speak at these public forums. Elements of cooperation and reconciliation, consensus government, I put all of that in the basket of what I have learned over the last three and a half years. Just earlier, we came to a compromise by extending and giving an extension to Bill 29, which allows for more time to design the piece of legislation that is going to be there for generations and generations. Joint collaboration and consultation, we have that coming up in the Sahtu. My understanding is that there is a bilateral meeting going to happen next month. So those are examples of consultations. Now, if one side cannot make the meeting and they send a representative, well, to me, the principle of the meeting is there. We have a structure in the Sahtu. I can't speak for anybody outside the Sahtu, but, in the Sahtu, we have a regime and we have an administration that looks after various departments. In this case, the representative for the SRRB was at the table.
So, given the consultations, there is going to be room for additional recommendations once we take the piece of legislation out on the road, and I look forward to working with the people who I represent in both communities, of non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries, saying, "Right here, here is the schedule. Tell me when you want me to put you on the list." I will engage them and help the department to engage and reach out to those organizations that I think would be appropriate for positive feedback in designing and modernizing this piece of legislation. We have also got to keep in mind that what we are doing today is for tomorrow's generation. That is about all I have got to say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been a lot of words spoken today. We have heard that, of course, some Indigenous governments do not feel that the process to date respects the agreed-upon process of co-drafting. We have also heard about many challenges with the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, everybody in this room knows that standing committee plays a significant and important role in developing legislation on behalf of this Legislative Assembly, and so, while I can't speak, let's say, for every individual specifically on the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, the standing committee that will be tasked with taking this particular legislation on the road, I can say that the standing committee has consistently been clear in its messaging, that we feel that there has been a lack of supporting information and that, to some degree, we do feel ill equipped to take this material on the road.
Mr. Speaker, what is also important is that this particular piece of legislation is going to be going on the road with two other bills that we are bundling together to take this on the road. So, while again I respect that there are a number of Members saying that there will be a due diligence process for further consultation, let's remember that it's going to be bundled with two other pieces of legislation that need equal or greater attention, to some regard. We are talking about the Protected Areas Act and the Environmental Management Act. Mr. Speaker, we have seen some bills in this House, 911, cannabis, take significant time and resources from their respective standing committees to go out on the road and do very meaningful consultation. A number of them went into a number of communities, 15, 16, 17 communities in one instance, and it took months to properly do the deliberation. Mr. Speaker, departments have had nearly four years to get their legislation in order to be able to present it to the standing committees, and now the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment has April, May, June, and July, four months, to take nine bills that this committee is going to get on the road. Six, I should say, for sure are going on the road, possibly seven, a couple maybe that we do not have to travel with. It took months for 911 and cannabis. They travelled independently, on their own, with the full time and resources of their committees from a couple of years ago, to be able to focus and give it the time it required and the resources necessary. This committee is taking six pieces, possibly seven pieces, on the road in four months, with limited resources, limited time. This is not due diligence for a piece of legislation so serious and so critical as the Forest Act. This deserved to the parked and put forward to the 19th Assembly, where it could start out of the gate with fresh resources, fresh time, fresh energy, and the due diligence to do the proper co-drafting consultation, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, it's frustrating, to say the least, that I feel that our government is compounding all of its efforts into these last few months to get legislation pushed out through the door so that we can check off some boxes rather than doing it right. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill. Thank you.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like many of my colleagues, I also reached out to my land claim group, the Gwich'in, but what the Gwich'in council was concerned about was that our Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board was saying that they were not being consulted or involved in co-drafting. The Gwich'in Tribal Council wrote a letter to the environment and natural resources Minister, and he sent a response that there would be more engagement after the second reading. The Gwich'in certainly want to maintain our good relationship with the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues earlier today said, oh, we do not have much for timber up in my neck of the woods, but, to be truthful, we have some of the largest trees in the Northwest Territories, maybe next to Fort Liard. You know, we do have a lot of timber in our area, and those who may have travelled in our territory know that we have a lot spruce, dry wood, green, and, over the last, say, 15, 20 years, maybe more, our people have been probably the leaders, going out and getting wood permits, just taking what we need. Also, while getting permits, we are actually keeping track of how much we are harvesting so that we know for future generations. So we are already doing our part in the Mackenzie Delta and also the Beaufort Delta, even when it comes to driftwood, Mr. Speaker. It's a voluntary thing, but the reason we are going out and getting wood permits is so we know how much we are harvesting throughout the summer months, and that is just wood that is coming down the rivers.
Mr. Speaker, because the Gwich'in are willing to work with the government through our next steps, you know, I am sure I will get a lot of flak for it, but I will be voting for the bill to move forward. If the changes are not going to be let with the Aboriginal working groups over this process, it is not too late to shut it down at third reading. If that is something that we need to do, then that is when this whole process will surely fall through, but let's go through the process.
Like I said, the Gwich'in are willing to work with the government and ensure that their concerns are brought forward. We are here for our future generations, as it was said, and some of us are practising that already and are just willing to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I share the concerns of many of my colleagues. I have heard not a lot of support for bill; even the Members who say that they are going to support the bill are doing so begrudgingly. There seems to be a bit of a difference between the perception of Indigenous groups from land claim areas and those areas without settled land claims yet. In my area, there are no settled land claims. I know that Indigenous leaders in my region have spoken out against moving forward with this bill.
I look at the process that went into drafting this compared to something like the Mineral Resources Act. We got regular updates from the Minister. I know that there were working groups. I know that Indigenous governments were really engaged with that, and it doesn't seem to be the same situation here. This seems to be lowering the bar in terms of engagement. I think that, moving forward, looking at the future of our territory, everything will be devolved, eventually, to Indigenous governments. I don't know why we are sort of taking a step back in terms of consultation and in terms of drafting with this piece of legislation.
I also share the concerns of the Member for Yellowknife North, who talked about the committee's workload taking this out on the road. I am on the Standing Committee on Government Operations, and we have dealt with some big bills. They are nothing compared to the technical pieces of legislation that we are looking at here. Not only do we need the staff surrounding us, we need to become experts in these bills so that we can take the information that we hear and incorporate it into the bills.
I can tell you right now that this process is not going to lead to the best possible bill. Putting this forward now, in the state that it is in, in the future, people will be saying, "Why didn't they just take their time and do it right?" We have legislation like that now, and I can see that we are heading that way with this bill. For those reasons, I won't be supporting the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate all of the concerns and comments from Members opposite. There were some concerns that were raised with the bill and the way it was brought forward. We have had a lot of negative comments, and we take those as well as any positive comments that we can get.
We reached out to a lot of our partners yesterday and had some conversations with them. They shared some concerns. Four of them said that they will take part in the standing committee process, recognizing the standing committee's workload. It has been that way for the four Assemblies that I have been a part of. We do have a bit of work in the last little bit. Unfortunately, at the beginning of this Assembly, we should have been doing a lot more work. We spent a lot of time on other things, and that took up a lot of time and energy that could have been put into some legislative initiatives.
However, I recognize the concerns of committee. One of the reasons that I think we need to bring this on the road is because, if we bring on the road a completed product without input from the public -- and that is one thing that we hear a lot in here: "The public has to have input; the public has to have input." I agree with you, 100 percent, but if we make the decision in here for the public without giving them an opportunity to have input in the final product, then we are going against what we chose.
Somebody made the comment that the Aboriginal governments are just stakeholders in all of this. Maybe that is your feeling and that is your opinion, but in your opinion, Aboriginal governments are our full partners, and they will be, going forward. They know that, and we know that. Members have taken part in a lot of the bilateral discussions that we have had with Aboriginal governments. We respect the input that they put into it.
There was one comment that the spirit and intent is to protect the forest. I agree wholeheartedly. That is the spirit and intent of this particular piece of legislation.
There were a lot of suggestions from one particular Member about a lot of things that could be improved in this bill, and I agree with that as well. That is what we need to hear. The Member tells us what he thinks needs to be in the bill? Fine, we will listen to that, but then we need to listen to what the public has to say, because they may have some other ideas that they want to work into the bill.
When we get through the public consultation and the feedback from public, we will make a determination there whether this is going to proceed or not or be punted to the next Assembly. I believe that we have an obligation to try and do as much of the work as we can now, and I am a big believer in getting things right. However, I can say that, if we had come up with a finished product between ourselves, the Aboriginal governments, and committee, I would have been criticized for not bringing this to the public and seeking their input. I am not going to risk that; we will seek their input, and then we will come back to this Assembly. We will make a determination at that time about the feedback that we got, how we can incorporate into the bill, how we can improve the bill, and then we will move on from there, Mr. Speaker.
Everything that we do respects the land claims process, and everything that we do respects our partnership with the Aboriginal governments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that a request for a recorded vote was asked for. Thank you.
