Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So, okay, I've tried to ask the question I think three times already. I got answers from staff, from the Minister, from the technical working group representative. Nobody can point to a section in the act that provides regulation making authority for when a wildfire prevention and preparedness plan is going to get changed. I haven't heard that. Nobody can point to a section, because it doesn't exist. There is no provision in the bill for that to happen. That's why I'm trying to bring this well, that's why I'm raising this issue. There is no provision in the bill for this to happen. There's no specific regulation making authority for this to happen. So that's why I'm raising this because I think it's going to happen. And I think I want to make sure that the Minister has the right tools in place to make sure that regulations can consider that. So, Madam Chair, I'm going to move a motion if I could.
I'm just going to let the Minister if he wants to respond before you move a motion. Minister.
Thank you. For clarity of what the Member's asking for, I'll go to the deputy minister. Thank you.
Thank you. Deputy minister Kelly.
What we've already discussed is where that occurs. The authority to amend the plan is the same as the authority for requiring it. An industrial operator can propose an amended plan at any time under the same regulation making authorities. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks. Yeah, that's not what the bill says. But if that's what the department wants to do, I'm okay with that.
What I want to do, Madam Chair, if I can move the motion is to change that so that the department the Minister actually has explicit authority to do that, to set up regulations that deal with changing one of these plans once it's already in place. So with that, Madam Chair, can I move a motion?
Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I move that paragraph 127(z.01) of Bill 74 be deleted and the following substituted:
(z.01) respecting requirements for wildlife prevention and preparedness plans under subsection 45(2) and the amendment of such plans.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is defeated.
Defeated
Clause 127, does committee agree? Member for Kam Lake.
That's Frame Lake.
Yeah, I'm kind of tired too. Thanks, Madam Chair.
So I guess there's one other matter that I think could be clarified here. And the current wording of the section we just discussed, z.01.1 of the regulation making authority really doesn't provide any specific authority for what the timelines might be for this review. And part of that is important because industry wants certainty. You want to know if I submit a plan, how long is it going to take to get it approved before I can go do my stuff. You want to know that. That's a reasonable expectation. So there's no specific authority here to set timelines. So where's that specific authority found? I wanted to ask that of our witnesses today. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
For that detail, I'll turn to deputy minister Kelly. Thank you.
Thank you. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Specific authority is not required. There is sufficient authority in the bill to regulate time periods for these plans without this addition. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks. Can someone, then, point me to which specific section of the bill provides that authority? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For that sort of detail, I'll turn to Ms. Bard, please.
Ms. Bard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Section 127(z.01.1) includes the authority to make regulations respecting the provision of, which is broad wording to allow for all aspects related to the provision of wildfire prevention and preparedness plans to be regulated, including time periods.
I'll also mention that the details of the processes to engage on industry plans and how those processes work are intended for regulations and the collaborative development with the technical working group.
I'll further note that because these are industry plans, that engagement with industry is an important aspect of regulating this space which is why it's on the regulations work plan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So I don't want to prolong this. I just haven't had any specific identification or identification of a specific authority within here for making regulations about time periods. So I'd like to move the following motion if I may.
Go ahead, Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you. I move that paragraph 127(z.01.1) of Bill 74 be amended by
(a) striking out ",and" at the end of the English version of subparagraph (i) and substituting a comma;
(b) striking out the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (ii) and substituting ",and"; and
(c) adding the following after subparagraph (ii):
(iii) respecting time periods within which plans must be provided.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, Madam Chair, I mean, I'm opposed to this, and I also just think it's very problematic what the Member's doing here. He keeps finding kind of weird hypothetical situations and saying there's no specific regulation making authority in an act that has one of the largest regulation making authority sections I've ever seen and, as the Member said, he's ever seen. And if this is how we're going to interpret legislation, it's highly problematic because most acts don't say oh, and you can make regulations in relation to this plan for the timelines of it, the ability to amend it, where it's submitted. Sometimes it just says, you know, there's a plan and then there's a general regulation making authority. And to think you have to add every single specific section into an act just leads us down this path where we are here for two and a half hours passing motions that, frankly, no one cares about. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Well, I guess yeah, I think a lot of this can and should have been fixed before the bill got here. This issue was raised to us in the NGO submission. And I guess I take my job seriously. When people bring forward concerns and issues, I think we really, as MLAs, as committees, have a duty to try to find solutions. So the issue was brought forward to us. I'm trying to do my job. And, you know, I regret that we have to spend this amount of time but I still think that this is an important public debate, and that's one of the reasons why I got elected and came here to serve. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Member for Thebacha.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, take my job very seriously. You know, I've been I work very, very hard for the constituents of Thebacha. And I also ensure and I'm sure every one of my colleagues do too. We take our jobs very seriously. When you put your name forward on a ballot, you take things seriously. And you do everything in the best interests of your constituents and the people of the Northwest Territories. I do not take things seriously when we have to start putting things in the bill to start telling people how they have to do the operations of a bill, okay. That's a no no. If I start getting involved in all the operations, I mean I'll never be able to get anything done here. I try to be, you know and like I said, I think Rylund said it eloquently. Four years, it took me to say that for him. So I mean, that's a big plus and, you know what, I will not be going into this kind of discussion like this because I think that we have people we have people that work on our behalf, and we expect them to do the best job they possibly can. And I'm sure that's what they're trying to do. And as a Member from Thebacha and an Indigenous person who was in leadership 14 years on that frontline, okay, making these kinds of decisions with IGC I was sitting on the IGC, because this is the part with the with the devolution agreement. You know, it's hard to get things done and when you have something in front of you that has been worked on by that group, I respect that. And I respect everybody who put the time in because I'm sure that they made sure that both sides were protected, including our side which is the government who represents all the people, and also respecting the rights of Indigenous people. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is defeated.
Defeated.
Clause 127, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clause 128? Member for Frame Lake. Sorry, 128.1. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. There's nothing in the bill about any form of public engagement on regulations. So earlier in my remarks, and I think in the committee report as well, at least a couple of the submissions said that the public engagement undertaken by the department was inadequate, that it was delayed, and it was for a very short period of time. And I'm just wondering what the department's learned from the public engagement on the bill and how they intend to apply that in the regulations? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For that detail, I'll turn to the deputy minister. Thank you.
Thank you. Dr. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Public engagement took place from November 22nd, 2022 to January of 2023. And the public engagement input was considered by the technical working group. Much of the input that is being discussed here today, it was deemed valuable and to be looked at while regulation development was occurring. So I just want to be clear that we welcome public engagement and much of the public engagement was more geared towards regulations, which makes sense, because it's from people who are actively going to be dealing with some of the things that come from this Act.
I think it's really important to communicate here that the GNWT has a broad policy based approach on determining how and to what degree the public is engaged on regulations. And this approach includes a commitment to conduct public engagement as part of the normal course of their development. Potential exceptions could include emergency orders, minor corrections to existing regulations, names or title changes, and consequential amendments required by changes to other legislation. Even with an exception to public engagement for emergency orders, there could be unacceptable delays from a process to apply the exception. This could occur, for example, if the Minister's role to waive the requirement if it is the Minister's role to waive the requirement for public engagement. The bill delegates the exercise of emergency powers related to wildfires to the forest superintendent and any changes to that, or reassigning that, would cause delays.
Further, adding separate requirements for engagement into individual Acts runs the risk that public engagement requirements will differ for different Acts, fail to evolve with technology, and lead to different approaches and potential confusion across different acts.
The Forest Act cannot come into force without the regulations. The regulations will be developed with the Intergovernmental Council secretariat, and there will be various stages where the public and other stakeholders may provide input. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate that explanation. But I don't think I heard anything about what lessons were learned as a result of the public engagement on the bill and how those will be applied on the regulations making forward. So would someone like to respond to that, please. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, I'll turn to the deputy minister Kelly and then to Mr. Wheler. Thank you.
