Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to follow up on the Premier’s/Minister’s statement yesterday on devolution as well. The Premier updated us on the status and process for devolution or assumption of authority for land and resource management. This government and our public are on record for decades as serious concerns over the federal legislation now in place. But the Premier said we are considering two approaches of taking down the legislation. We have to weigh the pros and cons. Could the Premier lay out some details on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches he alluded to yesterday? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The advantages of one over the other is with delegated authority, we can assume responsibility very quickly; with the mirror legislation, it would take more time. So it’s a question of time and control. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I enjoy receiving more detail if the time permitted on that, but quick versus slow, easy versus thorough… In his statement the Premier said that devolution is about having more accessible, accountable and responsive government making important decisions around land and resource management will bring those decisions closer to the people most affected by those decisions. Would the first one, a delegated authority imposing the existing legislation that we have complained about vociferously for the last several decades, be consistent with his stated goal of bringing decisions and responsiveness to our people? Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I guess we normally look at what is done previously on devolution, so a lot of times we look at what happened in the Yukon. In the Yukon they had delegated authority. The delegated authority certainly appears to be working in the Yukon when you look at how they are operating there.
With regard to mirror legislation, that will take a little more time. Also, the MVRMA is something that has been legislated through land claims and so on. It would be something that devolution could not change. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I think certainly I am all for taking the time necessary to do a good job, and easy is easy. You usually don’t get what you really want. I would encourage the Premier to give a lot of weight to that consideration within the restrictions of the MVRMA, which I am not suggesting we change.
The Premier said yesterday that this government shares the Government of Canada’s objective, as he put it, of improving the regulatory system, and Ottawa is being receptive to receiving our suggestions on changing that regime. But meanwhile, Ottawa is gutting the Fisheries Act. They are imposing straightjacket restrictions on time requirements and so on. Minister Miltenberger said last week that the federal proposal to collapse the regional water board differs from our position. I question the Premier how do federal actions square with our priorities for responsible resource management and full public inclusions in environmental review processes. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories shares Canada’s objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Northwest Territories regulatory system and one only needs to look at how long it took for the Mackenzie pipeline to obtain regulatory approval. We know how important it is to have a regulatory system that protects the environment while supporting economic development but providing certainty to industry.
As far as the Government of Canada being receptive to what we are proposing, we are looking at making appointments and also protecting the administrative centres that are already here in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have to know that the environmental review of the MGP did not follow the process that we laid down on the MVRMA. It was cooked up completely separate from the processes that we established. Had we followed those processes, I think things would have happened a lot more effectively.
Let’s consider some concrete examples of the environmental protection we will consider essential once we take on resource management. Yesterday over 150 citizens turned out to express their revulsion at the regressive agenda of the federal government on the social environmental front. I had mentioned the Fisheries Act. I would like a response from the Minister. Does the gutting of the Fisheries Act fit with his view of this government’s approach to environmental protection? Does straightjacketing the MGP, the largest infrastructure project in Canada, into a two-year process if it requires more, and I would say it would have fit with the sort of approach that this government is pushing forth? Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Member’s opinion on the federal government actions. Adversely the federal government is saying that they are making the process more effective and efficient. They’ll be providing for protection of the environment, improving the protection of the environment and also providing for Aboriginal participation. So I guess we’ll have to look into the details more and square the differences between the Member’s opinions and the federal government information. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. The Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
