Question
Question has been called. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
The results of the recorded vote: four in favour, 11 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 22 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Before I go on to something else, I would like to ask the Minister a question about: is there anything in this section that gives municipal governments, community governments the ability to request temporary protection of areas within their boundaries that might be covered by key municipal infrastructure? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, there is not. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the Minister explain why that isn't in here? Is there a rationale? Is there some reason why this could not be extended to community governments? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intention of what a restricted area is to be is more to protect sensitive areas that are set for a set amount of time for the long term and find long-term use solutions. Moreover, restricted areas are justified by unique attributes, fragile attributes that could face irreparable harm, significance tied to ethical values rather than public utilities or economic worth, urgent need for temporary protection until long-term measures may be secured. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there any sort of legal impediments here to providing this ability to request restricted areas to municipal governments? Are there any legal impediments to doing that? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is not the intention of this motion. As I have said, I laid out the intention of it. Municipal infrastructure is not any of these. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That wasn't my question. Is there anything in law that the Minister can cite that would be used as justification to exclude community governments from being able to request restricted areas? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to answer the direct question about whether there is a legal possibility or not, I think that is not the question at hand. There may or may not be a legal possibility to build legislation. The intent of this provision is to patch the gap between a permanent production, permanent land-use tool and the time that it takes to apply for it. That was not something that we felt municipal infrastructure fit within this provision. When you develop legislation, you have to fit within the intent of the provision. We did not build a municipality infrastructure here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. We did hear from the Northwest Territories Association of Communities. Sorry. I just can't recall now whether there was specific requests from the individual community governments for this ability to ask for temporary restricted areas. Were there any conversations like that between the department and community governments in developing the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. During the public engagement session, this wasn't a concern that was raised, but maybe it was possibly raised with the SCEDE's engagement. I am not sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can certainly assure the Minister that it was raised with committee. It is in the committee report. Committee tried to work with the Minister and his staff to reach some kind of resolution, compromise on this, and we were unable to. That is why it is here again before us.
I understand that this section actually deals with written reasons for why restricted areas would be declined and this would insert municipal governments into that process. It is probably not the best place where this fits. The point is that municipal governments just were not accorded the kind of recognition and place in the bill that they could and should have gotten.
Sorry. I am speaking to a motion. I shouldn't have done that. Sorry, Mr. Chair.
Pardon me. Could you repeat that? Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. Chair, I move that that subclause 22(7.1) of Bill 34 be amended by adding "or municipalities" after "governments or organizations." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order and is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. This would extend the ability to receive written reasons to municipal governments on if the Minister declines to accept a restricted area. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I think this is a very important section or important change because we have heard this concern from municipalities. For whatever reason, that might have not been the case with the government's early discussions with the public engagement around this, but it is certainly something the committee found. I think it is important that we respond to this in a meaningful way. If we are unable to, if the government can't support this amendment for whatever reason, we still need to find a solution.
I am not going to reflect on the outcome of previous matters, but a number of debates have occurred over motions that have been raised so far. I have yet to hear my colleagues, my friends across the way raise their voices to debate in a parliament, which is imperative to inform the public record on why we are doing this or why we are not doing it. It is a bit disappointing that these motions continue to be raised and are not being given the fullness of debate to understand their contents and understand the positions around it. I hope that can change as we continue on this process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. I will allow the mover to close the debate. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing to add. I request a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
The results of the recorded vote are: four in favour, 11 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 22, as amended. Mr. O'Reilly, you've spoken to this clause, so unless there is a procedural issue or something you'd like to raise, I'm not going to allow any more comments on this. So, since you've already spoken to it, I'll allow Mr. Testart to go first, but I will put you on the list.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, of the issues that have been raised around protecting public infrastructure, or I shouldn't say that, not protecting public infrastructure, but avoiding conflict when the rights contained in this act impact the infrastructure of municipal public interests, if the government is not content to seek changes in statute, what is their approach? How are we going to resolve this and keep these matters out of the courts and provide certainty beforehand, so they don't end up in the courts? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
