Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will begin with consideration of Committee Report 18-18(3). I will turn to the chair of the standing committee that developed the report for opening comments. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not sure that there is going to be a lot to add, from myself, at least, today with regard to the report. Yesterday was when we read the report into the record and asked to have it moved into Committee of the Whole. I think, for the most part, the report speaks for itself. It is fairly extensive in terms of capturing what the process was.
Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment concluded its review of Bill 38, Protected Areas Act, on June 3, 2019, with a public clause-by-clause review held here at the Legislative Assembly building. This was followed by public hearings on the bill held in eight communities earlier this spring.
The committee received 20 public submissions on the bill and carried 30 motions to amend the bill during clause-by-clause review. These motions were a result of close collaboration between the committee and the Minister and resulted in a much-improved bill. The committee thanks the Minister for his ongoing cooperation.
I would be remiss if I didn't add at this point in time that the committee was concerned originally as to what kind of time and resources that we might have to be able to focus on the Protected Areas Act during this particular sitting. It was through some common understanding and, again, collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, quite frankly, with the Minister and his department, that we would take the Forest Act, Bill 44, and have it removed and move it to the 19th Assembly for further consideration and public consultation so that it, in itself, could be improved.
By doing that, Mr. Chair, that allowed the committee to free up a little bit of resources. I won't use "free" too freely, because, quite frankly, we still have a considerable amount of work on our plate, but it allowed us to put some considerable resources and some important time towards moving the Protected Areas Act into the May-June sitting.
With the efforts that were made by committee, as well as the Minister and his staff, we were able to get to where we are today, and I want to just express my thanks and gratitude to everyone involved. I am happy to see that we have reached this point in time, and I look forward to us moving the amendments and improving the bill later on.
Mr. Chair, individual Members may have additional comments or questions as we proceed with consideration of the bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. I will open the floor to general comments on the committee report. First, I have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I first want to acknowledge the hard work of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment and on the part of the sponsoring Minister to collaborate on improvements of the bill. Thirty-four motions were moved that were concurred with by the Minister in the committee review stage and did result in a bill that is now more connected with the co-management regime that exists in the Northwest Territories and has far more public-facing information than the original version of the bill. I think that those are laudable improvements.
I am in an interesting position as the co-writer of a dissenting opinion with my colleague the honourable Member for Frame Lake. This is typically not something that you see all that often, at least in my time in this Assembly. I think that that is largely a result of the accelerated time frame and the urgency that we heard loud and clear from the public on moving Bill 38 forward. I don't take issue with that.
The two outstanding issues that were identified in the dissenting opinion are important issues. They are issues that are informed by the committee's consultations with the public, by the Indigenous co-drafters of the legislation. I will not go into the exacting detail, because that is contained in the dissenting opinion that was read into the record, but, given the seriousness of those concerns and that this bill is one of many that represents a step forward in the government's efforts to reconcile with Indigenous peoples and nations and build a truly world-class regulatory regime that takes into account co-management principles, I feel that it's very important that those principles are reflected in the bill and that we are allowing Indigenous governments to speak in their own words on the kind of improvements that they want to see in the bill, given that they were so close in co-drafting it.
I think that is not at cross-purposes with public government and public governance in the Northwest Territories. We have made this commitment to do this in this area of public policy, and we need to live up to that. The amendment that I am speaking of in particular is just to create a clear legal pathway for the devolution agreement and the intergovernmental agreement to play out in a cohesive and integrated way in the bill and in no way impacts the government's prerogative to exercise its authority to draft regulations.
However, this is a very critical concept and, as a result, a dissenting opinion was required. I look forward to continuing to debate these issues. Of course, during the committee review stage, the motions that came out of the dissenting opinion resulted in a tie, and the chair was required to break that tie to allow for more debate to happen here on the floor. I look forward to that debate because these are critical issues, and I think the issues that my colleague and I have brought forward are worthy of consideration by this House in a fair and open mind in how we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Next, we have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I guess I, too, would like to offer a number of thank yous to the chair of our committee, who I think steered the ship along a course that involved a lot of meetings that were sometimes taking place over weekends, over evenings, and managed to keep us all on course. It's sometimes an unruly mob that he has to deal with. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Minister and his staff because, while we were meeting, they were also meeting, talking about some of the changes and ideas that we had suggested, so I think this was very much a collaborative process. I want to recognize the hard work that everybody put into this bill. We may not agree on a few remaining items, but it is still a bill that I think we can all be very proud of, and I think it is world-class.
I do want to say that we had 26 written submissions. There was obviously a high degree of public interest in this bill. We had some very sophisticated submissions from Indigenous governments, co-management bodies, NGOs, and some individuals, as well, always some very thoughtful ideas, in many cases actually suggested wording changes. I want to recognize all of the hard work that everybody put into their submissions on the bill, as well.
I think another thing I want to recognize is that there were 30 amendments made to this bill. I have been here only for three-and-a-half years. That is more changes to a bill than I have ever seen in any other legislation that has come forward, but I think it's a reflection of the hard work that everybody did to try to make this the best possible legislation.
It is an important piece of legislation. This is the first post-devolution bill that is coming before this Assembly. This represents a new era, a new way of doing things, a new way of us looking after our own resources. I think the value that standing committee brought to this process, and I tried to discuss a little bit about that yesterday in my Member's statement, and I cannot speak on behalf of all of committee, but it certainly, from my perspective, tried to bring a lens of a number of items or criteria that I used in reviewing the bill. I wanted to make sure that co-management was fully recognized and implemented into the bill; that there was strong accountability set up; that there was a greater transparency and opportunities for the public to be involved throughout the various stages of identifying, reviewing, and managing protected areas. Also, access to information was an important thing that I think we have all agreed to improve with this bill.
I am going to reserve any comments that I have on specific sections, Mr. Chair, to when we come to the clause-by-clause, but, as I said, this is a bill that I think we can all be very proud of. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Next, Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to recognize the chair of SCEDE and the Members, the staff, the department, and the Minister's office for everyone's collaboration to expedite this to where we are today, recognizing there are a number of candidates, a number of areas of interest, that can immediately and in the long term comply with their initiatives under this bill.
In my recent trips to my home community in Fort Good Hope, I witnessed the discussions or negotiations going on to set out a protected area upstream from Fort Good Hope and the Rampart River delta area, an area unique to a number of wildlife and a good habitat area to preserve, create a conservation economy in legacy of this generation for the next. In speaking with the president of the Yamoga Land Corporation, he had mentioned:
"Our community has been working on this designation for over 20 years. It is now time for the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to take the necessary steps. I urge you to expedite the passage of Bill 38 so that Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta can be established as one of the first territorial protected areas under this new legislation."
So I look forward, and I recognize everybody's efforts in expediting this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Next, we have Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to recognize the committee's hard work during the travel and also the department with their experts on this, Mr. Chair. I believe Bill 38, as it stands, stands strong, and it's a great example of including Indigenous governments and working with Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories and setting a good example for developing policy not just in Canada but maybe co-leading projects like this when it comes to protected areas or areas of interest in our waters, in Canadian waters and international waters. I think collaboration and cooperation during this process was some of the best you can see, and, Mr. Chair, I think committee has done some great work and had some great input.
Sometimes, when we travel on bills, we don't travel at the best times. We travel to communities where sometimes harvesters and the people who are actually the ones I would say who have the knowledge of the land rather than some of us sitting outside, who live among the caribou, live in the ecosystem that we are very much building a bill on right here today are the ones who we need to seek input from. I think, looking forward, there may be better practices that we can take on in the next Assembly and moving forward so that we capture the essence of what we are really doing. Looking at the Northwest Territories, Mr. Chair, there are a lot of Indigenous groups in the territories, and they have a lot to say, and I think we need to respect that. This is a document that, for the most part, has done that in a great manner.
Mr. Chair, I look forward to the discussion. We had a discussion during Committee of the Whole earlier this week, and we voiced our concerns. Mr. Chair, I think the bill is ready to go the way it stands right now, and I am a strong believer of that. I come from an Indigenous government. Actually, you know, today, it is Inuvialuit Day, and we are looking at the collaboration and cooperation that has gone on between Inuvialuit. You know, I could only speak for myself, Mr. Chair. I cannot speak for anyone else. The Government of Northwest Territories has a good working relationship, a very progressive one, from managing wildlife to the environment, and as well infrastructure. Infrastructure projects. Housing is one huge one that we are starting to get a handle on, and I believe that the relationship is improving, likely to a point where it has never been before, and I hope that with all Indigenous governments that these relationships continue to improve when we develop bills such as this Mr. Chair.
Once again, I would like to commend the committee for their work and the Minister and his office for their expertise. It is good to keep each other in check, and I think we have done that to the point where we could move forward with this. That is all I have to share now. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Anything further from committee in the way of general comments? Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, wanted to commend the committee, but also at the same time the department that drafted and put forth this piece of legislation, which could be in some ways unprecedented since devolution gave responsibility of lands and water to the Tlicho Government from the federal government. I think this is a rather ground-breaking initiative in advancing, at least, the idea of environment and conservation initiatives that have been going on for some time. I think it brings the reality a step closer to realizing some key initiatives that have been long put forth by Indigenous governments or First Nations People in the NWT.
You know, just to name a few, like the Thaidene Nene has been an initiative that has been ongoing. You know, the most recent one, of course, in the Deh Cho was the federal government's involvement with the advancement of Edehzhie or Horn River or Horn Plateau protected area, and those initiatives are something that people had committed and worked a long time on those processes. You know, I just put it out there that things have to sometimes work in partnership or collaboration, but at the same time we also have to understand things work in parallel, too, as well. In a lot of ways, I think there is an almost tripartite processes with bodies and groups. It is also a bilateral processes that recognizes the idea of land claims. Regions that have settled their land claims or have their rights protected are in 6 and 35 of the constitution.
At the same time, there are some regions that haven't a settled a land claim that still retain the asserted title to their treaty and Aboriginal rights of their region. That, again, is entrusted in section 35 of the constitution, so these are key things that I think are elements that we need to be aware of. At the same time, things move forward and this piece of legislation has been worked on for some time. I'd like to see it through and advance, and so I will be supporting the passage of this legislation. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Further comments on the committee report itself? Seeing none, we can proceed to the next phase. Usually, the way these things work is that there are recommendations contained within the reports. This report has five recommendations. I assume the chair will be moving motions related to each of those recommendations, so I will turn now to Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, as you heard yesterday, we did read in the report, and it came with five recommendations yesterday and, as is regular practice, we would typically take those recommendations and move them as motions. They aren't necessarily directed to the principle of the bill. These particular ones have to do more so with process matters, collaboration, co-management, and even reporting. Without further ado, Mr. Chair, I will move the motions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can live without the recommendation as it reads, but I think the real issue here is trying to prevent a conflict from happening in the first place. I think it is fair to say that everybody recognizes that the paramountcy of the land rights agreements, and that is recognized in this legislation, as well, but the trick is in ensuring that the resource management, the environmental legislation, that that's brought forward, really incorporates and recognizes the co-management regime that has evolved here in the Northwest Territories. I think that the real issue here is not so much dealing with conflict that may arise. The trick is to avoid the conflict in the first place by careful drafting consideration in building in the co-management bodies, and I think that by necessity means that the co-management bodies need to be at the table and the development of some aspects of these pieces of legislation. They have evolved into very sophisticated bodies. They have their own processes and procedures, lots of great on-the-ground experience that, I think, needs to be captured sometimes by those that are drafting legislation. I think it just brings added value. It is not about slowing down the process, but it is building on what we have already agreed to.
While I can live with the recommendation as drafted, I think the real trick is in preventing that kind of conflict from arising and making sure that co-management is properly incorporated and recognized in the legislation that we do develop through this co-development, co-drafting process. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this Assembly recommends that any prior reports on protected areas should be developed in collaboration with the management boards established under this act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Under section 97 of the bill, it says that:
"The Minister shall table a report to the Legislative Assembly at least every five years with respect to status of candidate protected areas, state of protected areas established under the act, and the overall state of the protected areas network in the Northwest Territories."
So that is a reporting requirement on the part of the Minister every five years. I think the intent of committee here was to just make sure that that is a collaborative effort moving forward, and that the management boards that are actually established for each of the protected areas would have some involvement in preparation of the report and evaluating the state of the protected system network moving forward, so I think it is a helpful recommendation. I am sure the department would probably do this anyway, but it was an observation on the part of the committee that this would help improve reporting and collaboration moving forward, which I am sure is the intent of everyone. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this Assembly recommends that any required reports should be coordinated with reports required under other legislation, notably the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act and the State of the Environment Report pursuant to Bill 39, Environmental Rights Act, if and when it is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne. There is a motion on the floor. It is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I respect my colleague as chair, of course. I guess what this motion is trying to do is suggest or ensure that there is some coordination of reporting around state of the environment that is already taking place under part 6 of the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act, and that is generally facilitated by the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program staff who actually work within ENR these days. There are going to be reporting requirements, as I just outlined in speaking to the last recommendation, under this bill every five years. There is also to be some annual reporting that may happen under Bill 39, Environmental Rights Act, so the suggestion here is that, when that reporting is done, it's good that that is coordinated in some way to avoid overlap and duplication. I think it's a good recommendation and look forward to the response from our Cabinet colleagues. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this Assembly recommends that the Minister convene regular meetings with Indigenous governments or their designated representatives, protected areas management boards, and relevant co-management bodies for the purpose of promoting cooperative and collaborative working relationships for the effective management of protected areas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think the idea, I know the idea here is that we heard the Minister of Lands make a statement earlier in this sitting, as well, about a land use planning forum that happens, I think, every couple of years, where different land use planning boards, bodies, come to together to talk about their lessons learned, how they can share their experience moving forward. There is already an NWT board forum where the co-management bodies in the Northwest Territories get together to talk about how they can collaborate, maybe joint training, working together on issues. I think the suggestion here is that it would be a good idea for something, a similar sort of forum, for those bodies and organizations that are working on protected areas so that they can come together on a regular basis to learn from each other and share their experience and improve the way that they all work moving forward. I think it's a good recommendation, as well. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Finally, I move that this Assembly recommends that the Minister develop a process for engaging Indigenous governments in the development of regulations under this and other devolution-related legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think it's fair to say that all of committee agreed with this recommendation. We all have maybe some different ways we want to go at this. We are going to deal with that when we get to the clause-by-clause review of the bill, but we heard very strong evidence from the Indigenous governments themselves that they want to have a clear role moving forward in development of regulations, similar to the process that was used in actually developing the bill itself. I support the recommendation. I support co-management. This is coming directly from the Indigenous governments themselves. We may deal with this in terms of some amendments when we get to clause by clause, but I stand by this recommendation, and I look forward to a formal response from the Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we discussed in our report, there was an effort to put something similar in law around this, the co-drafting process, so that there would be a clear pathway for engagement of Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories. When we undertook our standing committee hearing of the bill, the Minister indicated at the time that this discussion would play out at the intergovernmental council. The only concern I have around that is many of the Indigenous governments that were invited to participate in the co-drafting exercise are not signatories to the devolution agreement and are not members of the intergovernmental council. Given that they had an opportunity to have a seat at the table for the co-drafting process, I think it's prudent to continue that process moving on. So giving the Minister the authority to develop a protocol and that is clearly laid out in law just gives certainty to our Indigenous partners that there will be something moving forward. I certainly don't think I heard anything from our consultations that the relationship as it relates to these bills was flawed. I think everyone had very good things to say about a strong working relationship with the GNWT on co-drafting. There were some process issues, but they can work those out. The real priority for me is to ensure that these things continue, so I support this motion.
Again, this is a recommendation to government. It may be moved by the House and accepted by the House, but it's not adopted by the government necessarily, so the government will take its time to respond to these recommendations. I would like to see more certainty. Although I appreciate this motion, we need to go a bit further because that is what we heard and that is our role as lawmakers, to ensure the laws reflect the will of the people. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion.
Question.
