Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister's remarks. Of course, we can't bind a future Assembly to do anything. Given that this act has only really ever received comprehensive review in 29 years, hopefully, we can find other ways to ensure that we keep up to date and have best practices here with regard to environmental rights.
Along those lines, one of the recommendations from standing committee was that the department perhaps can and should find better ways to promote environmental rights with the use of the current act and the changes that we are going to bring forward for consideration shortly. How can the department better promote environmental rights and the use of the rights as defined through this legislation? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The department will use communications tools to alert the public to the amended act. There are multiple ways that we can do that through the web and other methods. We will take an approach that will get this information out to the public. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That information the department is looking to put on its website perhaps to better promote this, will that include maybe a plain-language version of how a request for environmental investigations can be made and other provisions in the bill? Is that the sort of thing that would get promoted in plain language? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Environmental Rights Act, there would be a lot of technical talk that is in there. I think we would owe it to the general public to prepare a plain-language summary as to some of the contents of the Environmental Rights Act. It would be very technical, so we would work to prepare a plain language summary. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Those are all of the general questions and comments that I have for now. I look forward to the clause-by-clause review. I have a few items that I may speak to there. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, we have Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the whole area of consultation, engagements, feedback, publication and awareness, environmental protection, it leads me up to a few comments and highlighting some of the initiatives undertaken by the Sahtu Regional Organization in the area of just recently preserving the Rampart Wetlands. There is a stewardship training program under way, and the recognition of the Great Bear Lake biosphere is another initiative.
The jobs related to preservation and environmental stewardship give me comfort that it's a collaborative effort. This department has engaged with several organizations, including the PW Technical Working Group. That venue is being utilized and exchanging of information and incorporating concerns moving ahead for environmental rights protection. I am confident that this work has done its job in collaboration with stakeholders. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. I'll take that as a comment. General comments? Does committee agree that there are no further comments?
Agreed.
Thank you. Can we proceed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. There are 24 clauses in the bill. We will consider the clauses individually. Please turn to page 5 of the bill. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 17 inclusive approved
Clause 18. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have some questions that I would like to ask the Minister on clause 18.
This is the part of the bill where a statement of environmental values would be created by the Executive Council. Section 18, though, provides that a Minister of a department or an agency shall take every reasonable step to ensure that a statement of environmental values prepared or amended under section 17 is considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made by the department or body. Can someone explain to me how that determination of significantly affect the environment will be made? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The decision would be made by the Minister or the deputy Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate the response, that is not what I actually asked. I said: how will the decision be made? Is there a set of criteria? How will a determination be made, whether something significantly affects the environment? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister or deputy Minister, on a case-by-case basis, would take into account what was relevant to that decision. Criteria are not in any other corresponding legislation or bills from any jurisdiction. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is interesting, because there is now some significance criteria actually incorporated into the bill as a result of an amendment that the Minister accepted during clause-by-clause review. Clause 9 has now been amended, providing some criteria for the Minister to consider when determining whether something is likely to cause significant harm to the environment. They include, as now provided for in the bill, magnitude of the effect; geographical area of the affect; duration of the effect; degree of reversibility of the effect; nature of the effect; likelihood that the affect will occur; sensitivity of the receiving environment; and any other factors that the Minister considers relevant.
This was not something that the committee itself had cooked up. These were developed by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board to help guide them in making significance determinations, and they have been in use now for a while. We felt it was helpful to have some kind of criteria to help make that kind of decision. The Minister has now accepted those criteria in making a determination about whether there is going to be significant effects, harm to the environment, and whether an investigation should be carried out into it.
I guess what I am hearing, though, is that the Ministers and the heads of departments, in deciding whether something significantly affects the environment, there are no criteria. It is all going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure that that is a great place for us to be.
I am not sure if my friends at the witness table have anything else that they would like to add. I am hoping that we can probably move beyond just a case-by-case decision. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In discussions with the technical working group and stakeholder advisory group, it was determined that having the flexibility for the Minister and deputy to consider whatever factors they felt necessary at the time was the way to go. We have agreed for criteria specific to investigations, but not for these decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I don't agree, and I'll be bringing forward a motion, if I may, then, with regard to clause 18.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 39 be amended by:
(a) renumbering clause 18 as subclause 18(1), and striking out "Minister of a department or" and substituting "Minister of a department referred to in paragraph 17(1)(a) or the" in that renumbered subclause; and
(b) adding the following after renumbered subclause 18(1):
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in considering whether a decision might significantly affect the environment, the Minister or deputy head shall consider the factors set out in paragraphs 9(2.1)(a) to (h).
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. What this does is say that, in deciding how to implement the statement of environmental values that is adopted by Cabinet, Ministers and I believe it's deputy heads shall consider the factors that the Minister has already agreed to use in determining whether an investigation is going to be carried out. So this is not saying that they have to make a decision in a certain way. You just have to consider these things in determining whether something has the potential to significantly affect the environment, so I think this is helpful guidance. It does not restrict how a Minister or deputy head carries out their duties with regard to implementing the statement of environmental values. I think this is helpful guidance on how they can carry out that work. I do not think this takes away from anything that they have to do. It just helps them make those kinds of decisions in a systematic way, so I hope that the Minister and the department will accept this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When ENR reads the proposed clauses together as worded, the clauses would require the Minister or the deputy head to apply the criteria provided in the motion when considering all decisions the GNWT makes. This would include large decisions as well as minor decisions. If on the basis of the criteria it is deemed that the decision would significantly affect the environment, the Minister would then have to consider the statement of environmental values. For example, prior to making any decision, including every meeting requiring duty travel or every purchase of paper, the criteria in the proposed motion would have to be applied, and, if it is concluded that the decision might significantly affect the environment, the statement of environmental values would need to be considered. This would affect the timelines of actions, which is not conducive to efficient and effective business or emergency response, such as medical travel or deploying fire retardant.
As currently stated in the reprint of Bill 39, the GNWT would be required to consider the statement of environmental values in relation to decisions that might significantly affect the environment. Criteria do not need to be applied to all decisions for this to occur. No other corresponding legislation or bill in any jurisdiction requires all decisions to be assessed with legislative criteria. Requiring every Minister or deputy head to consider a list of criteria for every decision they make or that is made within their departments creates an unnecessary burden on all GNWT departments and several agencies. The GNWT does not have the capacity to carry out this motion, and, as such, we will not be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think the Minister has misunderstood what the amendment is all about. As I understand it, this is not about making these criteria apply to any decision or action; it's about how the statement of environmental values is applied. Something has to be determined to significantly affect the environment; this is not about applying those criteria to every single decision that the government has to make. So I guess I would like to seek the advice of the law clerk in understanding how this amendment can be interpreted, whether it would apply to all decisions that the government makes, or is this method of determining significance and how the statement of environmental values would then be applied? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. Chair, just to respond to Mr. O'Reilly's question, the intention of the motion as drafted, in my understanding, is to assist in the identification of decisions that might significantly affect the environment, and it is expressly linked to section 18, so it is intended, as drafted, to provide guidance in the identification of decisions for which the statement of environmental values would need to be considered. Thank you.
Okay. Next on the list we have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So I don't want to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I think what the Minister was saying was that these criteria, in the Minister's view, would have to be applied to any decision or action taken by the government. Is that the case? As I understand it, these would help determine what decisions might significantly affect the environment, and only then would the statement of environmental values come into play. Would these criteria apply and be required to be considered for every single government decision and action undertaken in the future? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you, committee. We will just take a two- to three-minute break here and resume shortly.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, committee. We decided to double check a couple of things here, but we will continue with a question by Mr. O'Reilly to the clerk, law clerk. Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly. With all the commotion there, could you restate the question, if there is one for the law clerk?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for this. Would there be a requirement for every GNWT decision, action, to consider all of these criteria? Sorry. Would these criteria require their consideration the way this has been drafted in every single decision, action, taken by GNWT? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Law Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What the clause is intended to do is to help identify those types of decisions that might significantly affect the environment. Whether it would apply to every single decision made by the Government of the Northwest Territories, I mean, I think it is pretty fair to say that some decisions would just clearly have no significant environmental impact at all. I would have difficulty seeing why a Minister would need to have to apply the criteria in every case. I think the intention of the clause is to assist in identifying those types of decisions where there may be some doubt as to whether there is a significant environmental effect, and the criteria in 2.1 are intended to assist the decision-maker in identifying what those decisions might be.
Thank you, Mr. Law Clerk. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks. I would like to close, if I could, then. The intent of this was to try to be helpful.
