Question has been called. All those in favour, raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand. All those abstaining, raise your hand. The motion is defeated.
Defeated.
Clause 15.1, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you.
Agreed.
---Clauses 16 through 47 inclusive approved
Clause 48, does committee agree? Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So this is a 2.1 here is a new part of the bill that was added as a result of the collaborative review we undertook. And I think one of the issues that we found and this was raised in the last version of the bill in the last Assembly. It was raised again during the public engagement on this bill. I said this in the House at second reading. You know, what is the relationship of forest management as established under this bill, what's the relationship with land use planning?
We have forest ecosystem management plans. We have monitoring and research that's being carried out. And then research sorry, licenses and permits that could be issued for different kind of forest activities. How does land use planning relate to forest permits and licenses, the activities that would be could be authorized under this? And that could include cutting, timber mills, all kinds of stuff. So, you know, we added this in to make it clearer to some extent that permits and licenses issued under the Forest Act really need to be consistent with land use plans that have already been developed and put in place. And that's what this section says.
The one area that's a little bit uncertain still is zoning bylaws. And zoning bylaws are the tool or instrument that local governments use to implement their community plans. Community plans usually set out in kind of a high level what the community's trying to do and achieve in the next 5, 10, 20 years, whatever they decide, you know, goals, objectives, what they're trying to do, how they could reach economic development objectives or socioeconomic objectives, you know, what they want their community to look like. They do that at a fairly high level. The next but the most meaningful way in which they tend to implement those is through zoning bylaws. And those are pretty prescriptive. They divide up the community into different zones and say what things are allowed to happen here, what things are not allowed to happen, when sometimes they have to go back to council to check things. So zoning bylaws are the ways in which land use plans are actually implemented at the community level. And, you know, some of the regional plans that have been developed under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act have zoning as well and permitted, not permitted uses. So that's how they do it even at the regional level. But for community governments, they implement their plans through zoning bylaws.
The problem is zoning bylaws are not mentioned in this section. So I want to ask the Minister, is GNWT going to interpret this part of the legislation in a way that includes zoning bylaws made by community governments, which they prepare these things under GNWT legislation. There's a requirement that they have zoning bylaws. So will GNWT interpret this in a way that they will include zoning bylaws in legally approved land use plans? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. For detail I'll turn to Mr. Wheler, and then, with your permission, Dr. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Wheler.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. At the standing committee stage, we did work together as a technical working group and the department and the Standing Committee on the amendment to include the mandatory provision to make sure that licenses and permits issued under the bill will be in compliance with land use plans. That was one of the examples of one example of the 22 amendments that we worked through that really met a mutual goal and was very important. And the technical working group was fully behind that.
In terms of the municipal bylaws and how to consider that, the Forest Act technical working group did carefully consider whether or not and how to look at local bylaws. And we did feel that instead of imposing a solution on municipalities at this time, the technical working group, our understanding is that GNWT and the department will carefully consider and engage municipalities and community partners on possible approaches to deal with municipal level matters. And we know that under the collaboration protocol, the Indigenous governments would be involved in that as well. So the technical working group agrees with the department on that approach.
And also in our discussions, we emphasized that land use plans are critically important, and they're critically important for land and resource management, especially under the modern treaties. And we want to make sure that municipal bylaws are not conflated at all with the land use plans that arise from Indigenous governments' constitutional rights and authorities to manage or, in some cases, to comanage land and resources. Mahsi.
Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important to note that the department and the technical working group collectively there are things that the Member has brought forward that we see as being very important to look at during the regulation development process but not for the statute itself. Elevating the bylaws to the statute removes the opportunity to work with the municipalities on a process that meets everyone's need while developing those regulations. And adding zoning bylaws to this provision creates a legislative problem as the GNWT would be bound to comply with bylaws that are only created by the power that the GNWT delegates. So there's more work that needs to be done on this through the regulation development process. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I guess I'm just having a bit of difficulty understanding some of the things that I just heard. But, you know, I guess I'm pushing this because the Northwest Territories Association of Communities in their written submission said the following: There should be some sort of acknowledgement of complying with various types of community bylaws including, but not limited to, general plans and zoning bylaws, fire prevention bylaws, tree harvesting bylaws, soil protection bylaws, open air burning bylaws, among others.
So we're only talking about land use planning at this point so but they've specifically asked for zoning bylaws to be recognized in here, and that's what their a legitimate order of government, community governments, and I'm not sure why we would accord them any less status than federal the federal government, which has enacted the MVRMA, but the you know, community governments through the I better get the name of the legislation properly here, Madam Chair.
It's the Community Planning and Development Act, section 18(1), says the following: A zoning bylaw may include provisions respecting one or more of the following matters either generally or with respect to any zone or part of a zone, (o) cutting of trees, (p) preservation of habitat. They can also regulate land use by having permitted/not permitted uses. So I don't know why, if we've recognized land use plans that are enacted through federal legislation, we can't accord the same sort of consideration to zoning bylaws which enable currently enable community governments to do much the same thing. But we just I guess I've heard from the witnesses that they don't want to go there right now. This is not about imposing anything on community governments. This is in response to what NWTAC said to committee. So with all of that, Madam Chair, I do want to move a motion if I can.
Thank you. Go ahead, Member for Frame Lake.
Madam Chair, I move that subclause 48(2.1) of Bill 74 be amended
(a) in paragraph (a), by striking out "in respect of the" and substituting "in respect of an"; and.
(b) in paragraph (b), by striking out "that is applicable in respect of the" and substituting "or zoning bylaw that is applicable in respect of an".
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So a lot of fancy words to say that zoning bylaws, this addition would include zoning bylaws within the scope of legally binding land use plans or any legally binding land use plan and zoning or zoning bylaw that is applicable. So it's expanding that scope of what a legally binding land use plan is to include zoning bylaws. So I think it recognizes that and it's in response to what community governments have asked committee to do and recognizes their jurisdiction and authority. This is not imposing anything on anybody. This is just recognizing that community governments actually do already have the ability to legislate through bylaws, through community plans, land use activities, which could include forest activities, that are covered through licenses and permits, just making sure that those things are consistent with zoning bylaws. That's all this is about, is making sure that community governments, that we recognize their authority and jurisdiction in doing this in doing their work that the department is not going to issue permits and licenses that go against zoning bylaws. So that's the purpose. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So we did initially amend this as has been discussed to include land use plans. And it's one of these clauses that as far as I can tell doesn't accomplish anything. Land use plans, if they are legally enforceable are legally enforceable, and they're under the MVRMA federal statute or another applicable land claim group. You know, we sometimes put these clauses in that just to remind everyone that other pieces of law exist. And I think that's exactly what the Member's trying to do now with zoning bylaws.
This one, I as far as I'm aware, we don't do this anywhere else in any GNWT statutes. It's not as clean cut to me as, you know, perhaps we issue a timber license and then the municipality has some sort of noise bylaw and you're running your chain saw. Are we now not in compliance? Is a violation of this act something we have to enforce because it didn't comply with a municipal bylaw? Municipalities have their own bylaws. They have their area of authority. Sometimes it overlaps, you know, with potential forestry activities. But if you're violating that, then they have their mechanism to find you and enforce it. It doesn't really make sense to me for the GNWT to go look through every single community bylaw and say well, before we issue this timber permit, we're going to make sure that we're in compliance with that. That's up to the municipality to enforce their own bylaws. Just, it's not really how it works in my understanding. I'm a little confused. I get the larger community plan issue and that we have to comply with community plans. To me, that's already done under other legislation that enables all of the legislative or all of the powers that municipalities have in the first place. I just I don't like adding clauses that confuse things more than they already need to. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Minister of ECC.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not support this motion. We already talked about, you know, land use plans. In addition to bylaws to this section, it attempts to fix a problem that doesn't exist presently. And we reduce the opportunity of input at the community municipal level. Forest management regulations currently outline process to work with municipalities before licenses are issued. These processes do not strictly use or rely on bylaws but the direct input of municipalities. The Member just talking about, you know, zoning bylaws, we feel that this can be looked in at regulations but, most importantly, working with the municipalities with it. So we would have the regulations, but we would work with the municipalities to do this. So therefore, Madam Chair, I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. I will go back to the mover for any closing remarks. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks for that, Madam Chair. I appreciate the comments that folks have brought forward. But I think one of the reasons I'm bringing this forward is because the department doesn't appear to have done any public engagement with NWTAC because they asked the committee to do this. So it's one of the reasons why I'm here, is trying to ensure that zoning bylaws are properly recognized and incorporated into forest management decisions. So I think some of that work can and should have been done before we got here.
This is not about having to review every single bylaw that a community government has when you issue forest licenses or permits. It's about making sure that whoever the forest superintendent, when these things are issued, you know, if it's within a municipal boundary, might as well check the zoning bylaw to make sure that what you're doing is consistent with the zoning bylaw. So I don't think this adds any confusion whatsoever. In fact, it adds clarity because right now it's not clear whether the department's going to consider zoning bylaws which they issue licenses and permits. Maybe that could come in the regulations; I don't know. But I think if we're going to talk about land use plans and providing some clarity for those, providing some direction for issuance of licenses or permits, it should include zoning bylaws as well because that's the instrument that community governments use. So it doesn't add confusion. This is about adding clarity. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour, raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand. All those abstaining, raise your hand. The motion is defeated.
Defeated
Clause 48, does committee agree?
Agreed.
---clauses 49 through 126 inclusive approved
Clause 127. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. This is a huge long list of regulation making authority. In fact, I think it's probably longer than any other bill I've ever seen. Maybe I'm wrong but this is pretty close.
One of them here, z.01.1 talks about wildlife prevention and preparedness plans, making regulations around those and how those plans might get provided to affected governments. And I'm just wondering if this authority really covers in any way the situation where a plan a wildlife prevention and preparedness plan might change during the course of a year. Can I get an answer from the sorry, I'll just back that up.
This is a new I think it already exists in the existing legislation and regulations, but this is contained now in the legislation itself if and when this passes. And it will, I'm convinced. These wildfire prevention and preparedness plans, they will cover certain kinds of activities where operators, industries, go out and do stuff. You want to make sure that they're prepared for a fire and that they actually do their best to prevent a fire in the first place. So they're going to have an onus to prepare a plan if it meets certain criteria. And that plan is going to get submitted to the forest superintendent. And the way the bill's drafted now, it looks like the party preparing the plan might have to provide it to a community government if it's within municipal boundaries or adjacent to it. It's I think that's how this is supposed to work. I'd rather have it that it goes to the forest superintendent. But is there any provision in the regulation making authority here to actually change that plan partway through a season? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. With your permission, I'll ask Ms. Bard to come in and answer that question. Thank you.
Ms. Bard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The current regulation making authority provides sufficient authority for amendments to wildlife prevention and preparedness plans to be made and for engagement to occur on those plans. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. So can someone point out to me where that's found in the can they give me a specific section? Thank you.
Thank you, Member. Go ahead, Ms. Bard.
Sorry, Madam Chair, could the question be repeated, please.
Member for Frame Lake, can you repeat.
Yeah. Thanks, Madam Chair. So where what specific section of the regulation making authority where what section am I going to find this authority to deal with what happens if someone wants to change their wildfire prevention and preparedness plans, and what happens with any change to plans with regard to how communities might be involved in reviewing or offering comments on them? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Bard.
Thank you. So in the substance of the bill, section 45(3) covers the ability for a plan that is not satisfactory to be resubmitted. And then further, the regulation making authority that exists in section 127(z.01) covers the broad ability to regulate requirements for wildfire prevention and preparedness plan. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bard. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Look, I don't want to prolong this. Where is the provision found in the bill for an industrial operator to make changes to a plan once it's approved? Because I think it's going to happen. You know, they're supposed to submit the plans at the beginning of the season. Sometimes people don't if they want to change their activities out there, they may want to move somewhere else or do something differently. Where is that found in the bill if someone wants to make a change to the plan? And how is it going to be reviewed and who gets engaged and so on? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
For that detail, I'll turn to Mr. Wheler, please. Thank you.
Mr. Wheler.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. The Indigenous government representatives on the technical working group did review this motion and discuss it, this issue, at the standing committee stage. It is the position of the technical working group that this detailed process requirement like, this should be dealt with in the regulations under the umbrella regulation making authority that Melissa just mentioned. And we understand that when developing the regulations, the department and the technical working group intend to work with partners and the public to carefully consider how processes can best meet the needs of all parties in conjunction with their requirements. Mahsi.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
