Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that a registry be created to capture all of the reporting requirements found in the various environment and resource management bills, allowing the public a one-window access point to information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is on the floor and has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I mentioned earlier how the department, in carrying out the public consultations that went into the development of the bill, had said that they were contemplating the development of an environmental registry.
Ontario has such as registry already in place, and has had it in place for more than a decade. This is one place on the Ontario government website where any individual can go and find important decisions that are made with regard to the environment; proposals for policies, programs, new regulations, draft regulations; and there is an opportunity for the public to comment on these, so we already have a model or a system that works in another jurisdiction. Apparently, the department heard some concerns about duplication with the Land and Water Board registries or the review board public registry. That is not what I think this contemplates. Those registries do a great job of informing people of decision-making proceedings under the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act.
What we are talking about is areas of GNWT jurisdiction, things like the Forest Act or the Environmental Protection Act, where GNWT has specific authority and makes decisions, issues permits and so on. That is where these things could be located because right now there is not much access to some of that information, although, through committee's development review of a number of the resource management bills, there will now be registries for mining, for public lands. All of those could be combined and put into an environmental registry, providing some greater coordination and maybe even some cost savings. That is what the purpose of this is, to ask the department to further consider this idea of an environmental registry and how to allow our citizens to have more information about important decisions made about the environment and maybe even a chance to comment on decisions before they are made or drafts of things before the decisions are made. 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, to the extent it is possible before the dissolution of the 18th Assembly and for the public record, that the government provide a response to these recommendations, even of a preliminary nature, that committee may publicly disclose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is in order and has been distributed. The motion is in order. 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 maybe should have read that previous motion last. A little out of order, but I will get us back on track. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories begin work on anti-SLAPP legislation for introduction during the life of the 19th Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is on the floor and has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who are not acronym-savvy, SLAPP stands for "strategic litigation against public participation," and this is the use of the courts, essentially, to silence criticism or public advocacy of a project or a policy or something that a private interest does not want to be criticized about. A number of Legislatures are considering similar legislation. The British Columbia Legislature has since passed an anti-SLAPP bill, and it received all-party support in their Legislature.
This is a really important issue. It is imperative that we protect the public's interest to be able to raise differences of opinion without intimidation from those with the means to take SLAPP actions against members of the public. I strongly support this recommendation. It does not flow directly from the bill itself, but, during our consultations, it became very imperative to the public and the nature of this bill around ensuring rights to citizens to get the government to look into problems in the environment. It is consistent with the idea that there should not be obstacles to the public raising concerns and raising their voices when they see something wrong in their community, so I think this is a very important and worthy initiative of our successor Assembly, and I hope to see this legislation come forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Next, we have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Actually, I do not have any comments, but I do support the motion. Thank you.
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. Lastly, I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources coordinate to the highest possible degree the required report under the Environmental Rights Act with reporting requirements found in other environmental legislation for which it is responsible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is on the floor and has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Earlier, I mentioned that one of the improvements in the bill is going to be a state of the environment report that is required. There is state of the environment reporting already taking place, pursuant to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act, part 6, and I guess committee felt that it was important to coordinate these sort of state of the environment reporting efforts no matter what piece of legislation they may be carried out under. Under the proposed forest act, there was supposed to be a state of the forest report, as well. ENR does a good job at pulling these sorts of efforts together. In fact, the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program, which does do the tracking that feeds into the state of the environment report under the MVRMA, that program is now housed within ENR. I am sure that folks talk back and forth and so on, and maybe those individuals may actually be responsible for doing some of the reporting related to the state of environment report under this new bill, so committee felt it was important to make this recommendation about coordination and collaboration and doing these reports moving forward. 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
Thank you, committee. Do you agree that you have concluded consideration of Committee Report 27-18(3), Report on Bill 39, Environmental Rights Act?
Agreed.
Thank you. Thank you, committee. We have concluded consideration of Committee Report 27-18(3), report on Bill 39, Environmental Rights Act. Thank you, committee. Committee, we have agreed to consider Bill 39, Environmental Rights Act. I will now ask the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources to introduce the bill. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to introduce Bill 39, the Environmental Rights Act. This bill takes steps to modernize and broaden the existing Environmental Rights Act in the Northwest Territories. The bill provides broader rights to:
request an investigation, including clearer timelines and responsibilities of the Minister;
prosecute an offence;
bring forward an action; and
protect employees who have engaged in processes under the Environmental Rights Act.
The bill also requires Executive Council to prepare a statement of environmental values and ensure that departments and select public bodies consider that statement in their decision-making.
Environment and Natural Resources has developed this bill through a partnership process with a technical working group that is comprised of Indigenous governments and organizations. Valuable input was also received from a stakeholder advisory committee, public engagement, consultation with Indigenous governments and organizations, and other Government of the Northwest Territories departments.
The department appreciates all comments and recommendations provided through the Standing Committee of Economic Development and Environment review process. The department is confident that the bill has become stronger with their amendments.
To ensure the public is aware of these modernizations to the Environmental Rights Act, the department will actively promote it through our regular communication methods.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. I will now turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, the committee that considered the bill, for opening comments. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not have additional comments at this time, other than comments provided previously when I presented the report. I will leave it to other Members, if they care to share comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister McLeod, would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Yes, I would, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Minister McLeod, please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left, I have Dr. Erin Kelly, assistant deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change. To my right, I have Ms. Cherie Jarock, legislative counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 39. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. In my earlier remarks, I mentioned how, during the development of the bill, the public consultations that were held, there were a number of items that the departmental staff had raised, maybe even some expectations, dare I say, because those were brought to the attention of standing committee during the review of the bill. There were expectations raised around an environmental registry, that there would be methods to propose policies, programs, agreements, initiatives, maybe even an ability to comment on those, as well, when they became posted to the environmental registry.
Through the environmental registry, there was some discussion of the ability to make public comments on items that were posted there, including draft regulations. There was to be a definition of a right to healthy environment. Public trust was to be established and an obligation placed on GNWT. There was to be dispute resolution. Investigations would be carried out by inspectors.
That is not what people found in the bill when they started to review it. Can someone explain to me why those concepts, those items were dropped or not incorporated into the bill before us? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, we used a partnership approach to drafting these bills. We worked with a technical working group and a stakeholder advisory group. While there were ideas that were presented in our legislative proposal, we worked on what ultimately ended up in the bill with those groups. Some of the things that the Member mentioned were not put in there for various reasons. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Is the department then contemplating bringing any of these items back into the Environmental Rights Act in the future? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We think that in the future, there would be an opportunity to have a look at the Environmental Rights Act specifically related to the registry that the Member brought up. We will be doing amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. That will be considered through that process. It is anticipated that there would be a registry through that bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.
Great. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am really pleased to hear that, that the idea of an environmental registry may still be alive. I mentioned that the current act started off as a private Member's bill back in 1990 or 1991. It has been around for 29 years. Requests have only happened four times under it and an investigation only once. When could we expect that the next review of this bill will take place? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that the next Assembly decided that this was something that they wanted to have a look at this; maybe towards middle to the end of the Assembly, then it is a decision that they would make. As the Member pointed out before, this has been around since 1990, I think he said. Last time it may have been used was 1991, been used four times. I think we have strengthened the bill a bit. We don't know how many more times it may be used because of some of the additions. The next Assembly, when they come in, they can make a determination if they want to have another look at the Environmental Rights Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
