Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I don't want to repeat my opening remarks on the committee report other than to thank the environment and climate change staff and the members of the technical working group for getting us a bill that was much, much better than Bill 44 in the last Assembly and working collaboratively with us.
But one area that I want to explore a bit here, and this was an area that the committee spent I guess a significant amount of time, at least in the early stages of our review, was the application of the bill as drafted. It seems to be a law of general application, and it wasn't clear to us how it would apply to private lands, Indigenous owned lands, surface leases, and so on. So can I get the Minister to talk a little bit about where this act would apply. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. The Forest Act is a law of joint application which means that it applies throughout the NWT unless its application is narrowed in regulations. Some regulations on the first act may be designed to make more or some powers, such as harvesting and forest resources in applicable on private lands. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks. Yeah, one of the concerns that we had raised to us in a written submission was how the Act would apply to, say, titled property and say areas where people have surface leases for various purposes. This legislation would seem to enable the department to issue forest licenses and permits on what might be privately owned or area owned lands or areas where the surface rights have been leased out. Is that the case? And if not yeah, I'll start with that. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
For that detail, I'll turn to Dr. Kelly.
Thank you. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Minister mentioned, we will need to develop some of the regulations and they may be designed to make some powers, such as harvesting of forest resources inapplicable on private lands. Permits and licenses won't be issued unless there's permission on private land, which is the current process. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, okay, thanks. Well, we've got it on the public record, then, that it's not the intention of the department to issue licenses or permits on privately owned lands or lands where there might be surface leases. And, yeah, I think that would really be incompatible with and some of these may be compatible activities. I don't know. But if somebody has surface interests, I think it would only be reasonable that, somehow, they get engaged before licenses and permits would be issued. So I'm glad to get that assurance on the record. And I will have some more detailed questions about some other areas of the bill as we go through it. But thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Committee, do we agree that there are no further general comments?
Agreed.
Can we proceed to a clausebyclause review of the bill?
Agreed.
Committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. Please turn to page 1 of the bill.
Clauses 1 through 10, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clauses 11 through 13, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clause 14. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So through the work of the committee, with the departmental staff and the technical working group, we did make some progress on the issue of what information should be made public because the bill was totally silent on this which was, really, I guess kind of surprising given that this issue was raised in the last Assembly with regard to Bill 44. It was also raised during the public engagement by the department earlier in this year. It was raised in written submissions to the committee as well. So we did make some progress. What we have here is a relatively short list. And one of the motions that committee had originally proposed, there was quite an exhaustive list of key documents, key decisions, that would be made or could be made under the new legislation. And that was provided to the department, and I guess discussed with the technical working group. And through some negotiation, we came up with a much shorter list and some commitment to examine a longer list through regulations. So I just want to get the commitment on the record from the Minister that that much longer list that was provided by committee is going to form the basis for some further work to be done on a regulation about what information can and should be made public. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Member for Frame Lake.
Sorry, I got caught short there for a second. I'm trying to gulp down some water. I want to thank the Minister for that because there was a much longer list than what would have been what appears now in the bill.
But with that, Madam Chair, I do want to move a motion to amend clause 14.1, and I'd like to move it as follows: That clause 14.1 of Bill 74 be amended by
(a) renumbering that clause as subclause 14.1(1);
(b) deleting paragraph (d) and (e) of that renumbered subclause and substituting the following:
(d) any forest harvesting agreement entered into under subsection 25(1);
(e) any extension or variation of the wildfire season declared under subsection 28(2);
(f) all wildfire prevention and preparedness plans submitted to the forest superintendent under subsection 45(2), any such plans resubmitted under subsection 45(3), and any hazard assessments conducted under subsection 45(5);
(g) all permits and licenses issued under subsection 48(2), other than those that authorize the holder to undertake activities set out in that subsection solely for personal purposes;
(h) any prescribed information.
(C) adding the following after that renumbered subclause:
(2) Before publishing a forest harvesting agreement under subsection 1(d), the Minister may remove from the agreement any of the following information, the disclosure of which would be prohibited pursuant to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;.
(a) any ecologically or culturally sensitive information;
(b) any information harmful to the financial or economic interests of a party to the agreement.
(3) Information is not required to be published under subsection (1) if the information
(a) is prohibited from disclosure under an Act of Canada or an Act of the Northwest Territories; or
(b) is provided, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence to a person or body exercising powers or performing duty or functions under this Act, and is consistently treated as confidential information by the party providing the information.
Mahsi, Madam Chair.
All right. Members, because 14 clause 14 is its own and then 14.1 is a new one, we have to go back to clause 14. If Members agree with that one, then we're going to go to 14.1. I'll go back to you, Member for Frame Lake, and you can read your motion. So clause 14, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clause 14.1, Member for Frame Lake.
Sorry, Madam Chair, about all of that, I'm confused as much as anybody else.
I move that clause 14.1 of Bill 74 be amended by
(a) renumbering that clause as subclause 14.1(1);
(b) deleting sorry, deleting paragraph (d) and (e) of that renumbered subclause and substituting the following:
(d) any forest harvesting agreement entered into under subsection 25(1);
(e) any extension or variation of the wildfire season declared under subsection 28(2);
(f) all wildfire prevention and preparedness plans submitted to the forest superintendent under subsection 45(2), any such plans resubmitted under subsection 45(3), and any hazard assessments conducted under subsection 45(5);
(g) all permits and licenses issued under subsection 48(2), other than those that authorize the holder to undertake activities set out in that subsection solely for personal purposes;
(h) any prescribed information.
(C) adding the following after that renumbered subclause:
(2) Before publishing a forest harvesting agreement under subsection 1(d), the Minister may remove from the agreement any of the following information, the disclosure of which would be prohibited pursuant to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(a) any ecologically or culturally sensitive information;
(b) any information harmful to the financial or economic interests of a party to the agreement.
(3) Informations is not required to be published under subsection (1) if the information
(a) is prohibited from disclosure under an Act of Canada or an Act of the Northwest Territories; or
(b) is provided, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence to a person or body exercising powers or performing duty or functions under this Act, and is consistently treated as confidential information by the party providing the information.
Mahsi, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, this is a motion that was moved in committee. The Minister at the time said that he was not able to concur with it because we had basically run out of time. If people have views about this, I would appreciate hearing them, but it was supported by committee in during the clausebyclause review.
What this essentially does is add a few items to the list of information that is to be made public, and those are the forest harvesting agreements, and permits and licenses that would be issued for nonpersonal use.
We heard from the department that they didn't want all the permits and licenses issued because there was a lot for personal use, so we came back and said well, let's just we won't ask for those to be made public. We'll just ask for other kinds of permits and licenses to be made public. So that's the purpose for adding that one.
And on the forest harvesting agreements, I think the rationale from committee and I certainly supported this was that these are important agreements where we're giving rights to harvest lumber or timber to private interests, maybe even Indigenous economic development corporations, whatever, and because this is, you know, an agreement for harvesting that the public should probably know what is in that agreement because the government's negotiating isn't giving away those rights to some extent. At the same time, we recognize that there might be some information in those agreements that needs to be kept confidential, and that's the purposes of clause the second and third parts of the amendment I'm bringing forward here today. So it's really to expand that list of information that would be required to be made public.
And I think these are reasonable additions, and I think they're consistent with the kind of approach that was used in the last Assembly to create, in some cases very extensive public registries under the Mineral Resources Act, under the Public Land Act a lot more information is being made public. The public or sorry, the Protected Areas Act as well also has an extensive list of items that are being included on a public registry. So that's the purpose in bringing this forward, is to expand that list in the interest of transparency and accountability. And the argument might be made that this could happen later through regulations but I'm of the view that it should actually appear in the act because there's no certainty that it will actually happen in the regulations. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Member said, this is essentially the motion that was moved by committee. I supported it then, and I understand the Member's going to move to a couple motions that were already essentially moved by committee. I don't want to speak to the details of them. We spoke to them at committee, and the Minister responded. I guess I want to talk a bit larger about the process we're in now.
All of these motions and the motions we move, I don't think affect Aboriginal rights in any ways. I don't believe they go to the heart of what the technical working group tried to accomplish in the Forest Act. I do view them as kind of minor amendments putting obligations on a public government to be more public.
That being said, I can't find myself supporting them because I think it kind of undermines this entire process. We were fortunate to have a technical working group and a Minister work with us on committee to respond to a number of motions and make a number of amendments to the bills. And then I think now if the legislature essentially vetoes that process and says thanks for the negotiation, we're going to do it anyway, it kind of undermines everything we tried to accomplish here. And I think it puts the Minister in a tough spot where then at third reading, he has a bill that was not the bill negotiated at the technical working group and may, in fact, if, you know, these were substantive enough, just withdraw the whole thing and say I can't vote in favour of a different piece of legislation that I didn't concur with and I got instructions not to concur with.
Now, I know that in some way is kind of limiting the powers of this House, but to me it becomes a political calculation of when we should move motions that fail that committee again at third reading or Committee of the Whole. And to me, that is in very rare circumstances should we, as Regular Members who hold the majority, kind of usurp the negotiation process in committee. If that's what we're planning on doing, I think we're better off just reporting the bill not ready instead of kind of going around. And so that's my concern with passing all of these, is it then puts kind of an emergency meeting has to happen with the Minister and technical working group and say hey, you know those things you didn't concur with are now in the bill; where did you stand? Should I still be doing this? And god forbid, we then don't pass the Forest Act for the third Assembly in a row.
So I am very hesitant to move motions that did not get concurred with at the committee stage if the Minister was cooperative and if the department worked with us, and that is exactly what happened today. We had a lot of back and forth. We heard the reasons they didn't concur with them. I didn't always agree, but they were rational enough that it didn't cause me to think that we had to bring this motion and potentially undermine the entire process and all future negotiations on bills like this. So I can't be supporting these. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo what my colleague from Yellowknife North said. I want to respect the process of the intergovernmental working group in this. I think this is the exact example of where we did run out of the time at the end. I know that the Minister was open to having it go back, but we were just not able to have that fulsome conversation. It does speak to some of the motions we made or recommendations we made to have the conversations start sooner with the standing committee and having that be a lot more sort of fluid in that conversation back and forth between the three groups. And I think in the next one, we'll see that be even smoother and, as such, I won't be supporting this motion either. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As well, I agree with my colleagues as well that, you know, we if we can't have an emergency meeting on this, then to iron out the last details of this, I'm aware of what was being discussed on this bill. So as well, I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.
Well, this is a first process convention that we're doing with the working group of these various organizations and, at the 11th hour, we get this amendment. And for clarity, too, I'd like to know if the amendments were discussed with the working group? They were?
You just need to speak to the motion. So Member for Thebacha.
I don't have any comments on it.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Oh, Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not support this motion. The GNWT previously agreed to a standing committee amendment that enhanced Bill 74 by including mandatory provisions to make forest management information publicly available on a website. This motion proposed to add more details, or more items, but further analysis and engagement with stakeholders is needed to ensure that appropriate information is posted publicly. I recognize it's maybe appropriate to post more information publicly, which is why the bill allows for additional items to be prescribed in regulations. With the Chair's permission, I would refer to Mr. Brett Wheler to provide IGC's technical working group's perspective on this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Wheler.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. First, I just want to say that on behalf of the technical working group and Intergovernmental Council's secretariat, mahsi, and give some appreciation to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly for the process convention and for working through that together with us.
The collaborative process is set up through the Intergovernmental Council. They're extremely, extremely important, and they're extremely important tools for reconciliation, for recognition of the essential role that Indigenous governments have in land and resource management, and for respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples across the various regions of the Northwest Territories.
From our perspective, the current draft of the act, Bill 74, is a carefully considered and thoroughly considered process, including intensive collaboration with the standing committee. And while fully respecting the authority of the Assembly, it is fair to say that the technical working group of the Intergovernmental Council hopes that the act moves through this final legislative step intact and as is given the considerable and, we think, groundbreaking collaborative effort that has gone into it.
More work is needed to fine tune the details, but the technical working group believes that that will appropriately be done through the regulations. So, overall, the technical working group feels that Bill 74 properly and accurately reflects the goals and the objectives of the Intergovernmental Council, and we fully support the bill in its current form, and we believe no further amendments are needed.
We do fully expect and trust that this motion, and the topics raised under this motion, and all the other motions, will be carefully considered during the regulation making process. Mahsi
Thank you. I'm going to have to this is a new process for all of us. And so because it's a motion to amend a clause, the Members that can speak and so I didn't want to cut anybody off. But we're going to go call the motion again, and then we're going to have to go from there. Just because so to the motion.
Question.
