Thank you. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As I previously mentioned, there were a number of things that were learned from the public engagement. It was a very valuable experience. And some of them are the things that are coming up in the discussions today, which the technical working group took very seriously, and has agreed that those things will be coming forward as part of the regulation development process. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Wheler.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. From a technical working group perspective, public engagement is, of course, very important on operations and on matters that are to be considered in the Forest Act regulations. The technical working group understands that GNWT has a broad policy that covers all aspects of government operations across multiple departments in terms of public engagement. And we also understand, and had some discussion, I think with standing committee in the clausebyclause review, about many of the important details that will be dealt with through the regulation making process and the accompanying complementary public engagement that will be needed to deal with those important details during the making of the regulation and, in some cases, and policy. Mahsi.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks. I appreciate those comments. I guess what I was hoping to hear is probably a little bit more in line with what the standing committee report talks about in terms of things like don't wait until the very end before you carry out your public engagement; find ways to share information while you're working through different parts of a bill or issues. I don't think there's anything that would, you know, prevent I hope, ways of sharing more information as the bill's being developed and starting some of the public engagement earlier on it to get input on specific areas or issues moving forward. The committee report also speaks to the need to make sure that departments are resourced for this activity. So I guess I really haven't heard any of that. So I'm not sure what lessons were learned as a result of this bill in terms of public engagement.
In any event, I know that there's a governmentwide policy that this Cabinet put in place, and it's buried in a document if I can find the name of it here. Oh yes, here it is. Cabinet Operational Guidelines, appendix 4.11 of the Executive Council Submissions Handbook. And basically, that policy, if I or guidelines as they're called, basically gives Ministers total discretion as to when and where and how they would engage the public on policy publication and comment periods for regulations. So I'm not sure that that is a great model, quite frankly. And, you know, people have heard me on the floor of the House criticizing this or suggesting improvements already to it. So this is not the time and place to do that, Madam Chair, but I don't think that that works in all circumstances.
So I guess a couple of other features of this bill, and we've talked about this before, this is not a normal bill. This is a bill that is codeveloped with Indigenous governments. And that's a great thing. It's developed pursuant to the Legislative Development Protocol. It's also the first bill through the process convention that we where we agreed to collaboratively review a bill, and not just with Ministers and departments but with Indigenous governments. That's a good thing. I support that. But we also got to learn lessons from this, and I think one of the lessons I learned, and we heard in submissions, was that the public engagement wasn't great and that we need to find ways to improve this. And, you know, the deputy minister even said that we got to make sure that the Minister has the ability to make regulations quickly in the case of an emergency. That's not in the bill. It doesn't even appear in the bill. So in any event, Madam Chair, I do want to move a motion to amend and add a new clause about public engagement on regulations. May I do that?
Yes, thank you. Go ahead, Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 74 be amended by adding the following after clause 128:
128.1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), before making regulations under this Act, the Minister shall
(a) ensure that there is an opportunity for public engagement by
(i) publishing a copy of the proposed regulations on a website maintained by the Government of the Northwest Territories, and.
(ii) ensuring that a reasonable period of time has been allotted for receiving feedback on the proposed regulations; and
(b) consider any feedback provided on the proposed regulations under paragraph (a).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the Minister is satisfied that the proposed regulations have been prepared in response to an emergency.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. This is one of the hills I guess I wanted to die on in this Assembly. Maybe it seems like I'm trying to die on every single administrative trivia. That's not the case, but this is one that Members on this side of the House have continually raised, is the need for better public engagement and communications from our Cabinet colleagues. And I think this is really extended to the issue of regulations in particular.
In this Assembly, we did amend and I did get concurrence from the Minister. The Child Daycare Act was amended to require the Minister in that case to provide draft regulations to child care providers. And that was because of their interest in trying to move forward with the significant changes to that area. So there's a case where a Cabinet Minister went above and beyond the Cabinet operational guidelines, and we incorporated that into the bill. The Minister concurred with it. The Minister's smiling because he knows he did it. So we've done it before. And, you know, I this, as I said before, this is another this is an example of a this is not normal legislation. People have asked for this ability to look at the regulations. The NGOs asked that. NWTAC has asked that. This is in response to legitimate requests that we got as a committee. So, I'm not making this stuff up. This is the way that it should happen.
In response to the concerns from that we heard from the department and department, that's why they added subsection (2) here to this so that the Minister doesn't have to go through a public engagement process if the Minister satisfied, in the Minister's own opinion, that an emergency situation exists. So don't have to do public engagement if there's an emergency. So covered that one with this as well.
So I'm hoping that although I haven't had a lot of support so far with a number of the motions I've moved, that Members on this side who are Regular Members, we've pushed for this before in other bills; I don't know why we wouldn't do it on this bill as well. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, I'm sorry, everyone. I get where the Member's coming from. I know the government now has a standard kind of period for reviewing regulations. But I view this as no different than annual reports or mandatory legislative reviews. What happens is you get as a bill comes through the Assembly, you get sometimes these clauses are added, they have different wording, and then you find yourself where the government just has different obligations across a number of Acts. And when you look at them all, there's no rhyme or reason to it. It's just that one Member happened to get agreement from the Minister on, you know, child daycare and didn't get it on, you know, something like Financial Administration Act or another very important piece of legislation. So we just it doesn't actually lead to the consistency that the government should improve its public engagement on regulation process. They should do that as it applies to everything. They should improve their public reporting. They should do that everywhere. They should improve the way we review statutory reviews. But I don't see to do it one off on each piece of legislation that come up every 20 to 30 years. It just leads to inconsistencies. Thank you.
Thank you, Member. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is defeated.
Defeated
Clauses 129 to 139, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, to the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 74, Forest Act, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Does committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 74, the Forest Act?
Agreed.
Thank you. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here before us. This is the first codrafted bill under of the new process convention on bills drafted pursuant to the Intergovernmental Council Legislative Development Protocol. And it's been an honour to chair Committee of the Whole as this is kind of a historical moment that we've had this. And so, again, thank you for being here and, you know, we had lots of little learning curves there and we'll, hopefully, in the future we'll be able to straighten those out. Thank you for appearing before us. Sergeantatarms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber.
Committee, we've agreed to consider Bill 78, Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Act. I will ask the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to introduce the bill. Minister of ECC.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm here to present Bill 78, Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Act.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment for review of this bill. Based on the feedback from committee, several amendments were made to the bill before us today.
Bill 78 presents a significant step forward in modernizing the Waste Reduction and Recovery Act. This legislation will allow the GNWT to use the most current tools to effectively manage recycling and waste reduction in the NWT. New tools include
an expanded scope for advisory committees;
enabling extended producers responsibility program;
the ability to declare waste disposable bans for specific materials;
expand authority to delegate administrative functions and enter into agreements;
provisions enabling the GNWT to select waste facility operators based on competitive process, clarify requirements on environment funded contribution and distribution; and
update enforcement inspection provisions.
These changes were identified through the development of the NWT Waste Management Strategy, which includes input from individuals, organizations, businesses, and governments across the NWT. Targeted engagement on the proposed changes occurred throughout 2022, and the public engagement on the legislation was conducted December 2022 through January 2023.
That concludes my opening remarks. I look forward to answering any questions Members may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Minister, would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Yes, I do.
Sergeantatarms, please escort the witness into the Chamber.
Minister, please introduce your witnesses for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With me today is Dr. Erin Kelly, deputy minister of environment and climate change. On my right, Julian Kanigan, assistant deputy minister of environment management monitoring and climate change. On my left, and behind me, is Laura Jeffrey, legislation counsel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. I'll now turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, the committee that reviewed the bill, for any opening comments on Bill 78. Member for Nunakput.
MR. JACOBSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill 78, Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Act, received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on March 29th, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment for review.
In the committee's review period, the committee heard from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and his staff on June 1st, 2023. The committee was able to have a thorough discussion with the Minister and officials about concerns regarding the Minister's authorities when it comes to waste reduction and resource recovery. The committee negotiated language for five motions to amend Bill 78 with the government.
On July 5th, 2023, the committee held its clausebyclause review where five amendments were concurred with by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
I would like to thank the committee for its hard work on the review of Bill 78. Individual Members of my committee might have comments. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 78. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So despite the previous discussion, I support this bill. I support it as well. I did serve as the chair of the waste reduction and recovery advisory committee for 11 years. The staff do great work on this area within the department, and that's why we have beverage container deposits now is because of the work that the department and the committee did. And it's now, of course, been extended to electronics recycling and I understand some other waste streams are being considered, which is all good stuff. And this does create jobs in local communities because they have depots. The regional centres have some processing centres as well. You know, this is good good things all around.
I do want to ask, though, I've had concerns to me raised about the need for a second depot in Yellowknife. And is there anything in this bill that's going to make setting up these depots easier in the future? I'll start with that. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's going to be a little bit of a longwinded answer, and I apologize for that.
The Department of Environment and Climate Change has conducted research on the different technologies to provide further services in the downtown core. Yellowknife does not have enough population and beverage containers to make two additional or two traditional deposit locations feasible. ECC looked at reverse vending machines as a potential solution but our research has shown that we would not be a good fit for the NWT beverage container program. While reverse vending machines have worked in some other jurisdictions programs, their limits include limited type of containers accepted, limited size of containers accepted criteria, containers conditions requirements, small number of containers that can be processed less than 40 per minute, and they can and they need to be fed one at a time, the need for large retail space and staff time to empty the process bins.
ECC is exploring options for a pilot unstaffed drop and go deposit downtown that will provide a second recycling option in Yellowknife.
We've heard standing committee during the review public review of Bill 78 in July 2023 and are working on addressing gaps that may impact vulnerable people. This includes potential partnering with a local organization in the downtown core to provide accountable payouts without needing to go to the current Yellowknife depot on Old Airport Road. This would still come with a drop and go limitation of five business days needed for the contractor to retrieve the containers, count them, and credit the account. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I think the Minister might have got ahead of himself a little bit. What in this bill is going to improve the chances or the ability of the department to open up a second depot in Yellowknife? Thanks.
Thank you. Minister.
For that detail, I'll turn to the deputy minister. I can get back on the schedule here.
Thank you. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There's nothing needed in the bill to do this. We can do it and are planning to and have committed to doing it. Nothing in the bill prevents a satellite depot. So we're able to do that work. We are looking at a new competitive process to be developed for recycling centres, and it will help to ensure recycling centres are economically viable across the territory. But there's no issue from a legislative perspective with a satellite depot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, okay, thanks. I'm just going to tell one short story.
I had an opportunity to go on holiday into Nuuk, Greenland. It's a community of about 15,000 people. They have machines there. You push a pop bottle into it and cash comes out. They can do it in Nuuk, Greenland. You think we can be able to do it here. I know, yeah, we got harsh climate. So do those guys. So I'm glad the department's doing some work on this. And I've had lots of complaints. I know that the depot that is operating does its best to try to serve people. But they just can't keep staff. I don't know what's going on there. After the evacuation, the lineups were unbelievable. I had to go back five times before I could even get into a lineup where I thought I'd have any chance of actually getting my stuff in and processed or cashed, whatever. So anyways, we need a second depot in Yellowknife. Technology's out there. I just want you guys to go and get it done. And if there's ways of supporting the existing operations so that they can better serve Yellowknifers, let's get that done too. Thanks. That's all I have to say. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I just want to say I appreciate there's a lot of nuances to this bill, and there's been a lot of things that are needed and a long time coming, but I am going to belabour a little bit of a point on the bottle depot as well with my colleague. And I do recognize that it is not the sole intent of what we are here today to do.
But that being said, the entire reason to create a second bottle depot in the downtown area was to serve the vulnerable population that is using this as a source of income. And so for it to have a fiveday delay and, really, the reason we've been told in the past was due to security and such. I just can't find that to be an acceptable answer. I second what my colleague said about looking for more of an automated way now that we're passed pandemics and evacuations and are finding staffing to be an issue for a lot of lower paying jobs in the city and territory. I'm excited that this potentially could go to other communities besides Yellowknife. But I just don't see how we could put in a second depot without having them be able to pay cash out. It just then makes things easier for someone like myself, and it's kind of defeating or not really hitting the purpose, which was to create a space downtown where people could get this money quickly.
I understand, yeah, the department's reasons for that. But, anyway, I just wanted to throw my support behind trying to find out some other solution to this besides what is being currently proposed.
That being said, I'm very happy to hear that we're moving towards more of a streamlined and sustainable waste industry sector, however you want to call it. I don't really have a lot of questions about this, other than I support this bill and just hope that maybe we could be innovative and creative here and come up with something different so that people aren't trekking across town to get $5 and change. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Are there any other general comments on Bill 78? Is committee agreed that there are no further general comments; we can proceed to a clause by clause review of the bill?
Can we proceed to a clause by clause review of the bill?
Agreed.
Committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. We will consider the clauses in groups. Please turn to page 1 of the bill.
Clauses 1 through 10, does committee agree?
Agreed.
---clauses 1 through 74 inclusive approved
Committee, to the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 78, Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Act, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
