Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 39 be amended by:
(a) renumbering clause 18 as subclause 18(1), and striking out "Minister of a department or" and substituting "Minister of a department referred to in paragraph 17(1)(a) or the" in that renumbered subclause; and
(b) adding the following after renumbered subclause 18(1):
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in considering whether a decision might significantly affect the environment, the Minister or deputy head shall consider the factors set out in paragraphs 9(2.1)(a) to (h).
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. What this does is say that, in deciding how to implement the statement of environmental values that is adopted by Cabinet, Ministers and I believe it's deputy heads shall consider the factors that the Minister has already agreed to use in determining whether an investigation is going to be carried out. So this is not saying that they have to make a decision in a certain way. You just have to consider these things in determining whether something has the potential to significantly affect the environment, so I think this is helpful guidance. It does not restrict how a Minister or deputy head carries out their duties with regard to implementing the statement of environmental values. I think this is helpful guidance on how they can carry out that work. I do not think this takes away from anything that they have to do. It just helps them make those kinds of decisions in a systematic way, so I hope that the Minister and the department will accept this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When ENR reads the proposed clauses together as worded, the clauses would require the Minister or the deputy head to apply the criteria provided in the motion when considering all decisions the GNWT makes. This would include large decisions as well as minor decisions. If on the basis of the criteria it is deemed that the decision would significantly affect the environment, the Minister would then have to consider the statement of environmental values. For example, prior to making any decision, including every meeting requiring duty travel or every purchase of paper, the criteria in the proposed motion would have to be applied, and, if it is concluded that the decision might significantly affect the environment, the statement of environmental values would need to be considered. This would affect the timelines of actions, which is not conducive to efficient and effective business or emergency response, such as medical travel or deploying fire retardant.
As currently stated in the reprint of Bill 39, the GNWT would be required to consider the statement of environmental values in relation to decisions that might significantly affect the environment. Criteria do not need to be applied to all decisions for this to occur. No other corresponding legislation or bill in any jurisdiction requires all decisions to be assessed with legislative criteria. Requiring every Minister or deputy head to consider a list of criteria for every decision they make or that is made within their departments creates an unnecessary burden on all GNWT departments and several agencies. The GNWT does not have the capacity to carry out this motion, and, as such, we will not be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think the Minister has misunderstood what the amendment is all about. As I understand it, this is not about making these criteria apply to any decision or action; it's about how the statement of environmental values is applied. Something has to be determined to significantly affect the environment; this is not about applying those criteria to every single decision that the government has to make. So I guess I would like to seek the advice of the law clerk in understanding how this amendment can be interpreted, whether it would apply to all decisions that the government makes, or is this method of determining significance and how the statement of environmental values would then be applied? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. Chair, just to respond to Mr. O'Reilly's question, the intention of the motion as drafted, in my understanding, is to assist in the identification of decisions that might significantly affect the environment, and it is expressly linked to section 18, so it is intended, as drafted, to provide guidance in the identification of decisions for which the statement of environmental values would need to be considered. Thank you.
Okay. Next on the list we have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So I don't want to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I think what the Minister was saying was that these criteria, in the Minister's view, would have to be applied to any decision or action taken by the government. Is that the case? As I understand it, these would help determine what decisions might significantly affect the environment, and only then would the statement of environmental values come into play. Would these criteria apply and be required to be considered for every single government decision and action undertaken in the future? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you, committee. We will just take a two- to three-minute break here and resume shortly.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, committee. We decided to double check a couple of things here, but we will continue with a question by Mr. O'Reilly to the clerk, law clerk. Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly. With all the commotion there, could you restate the question, if there is one for the law clerk?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for this. Would there be a requirement for every GNWT decision, action, to consider all of these criteria? Sorry. Would these criteria require their consideration the way this has been drafted in every single decision, action, taken by GNWT? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Law Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What the clause is intended to do is to help identify those types of decisions that might significantly affect the environment. Whether it would apply to every single decision made by the Government of the Northwest Territories, I mean, I think it is pretty fair to say that some decisions would just clearly have no significant environmental impact at all. I would have difficulty seeing why a Minister would need to have to apply the criteria in every case. I think the intention of the clause is to assist in identifying those types of decisions where there may be some doubt as to whether there is a significant environmental effect, and the criteria in 2.1 are intended to assist the decision-maker in identifying what those decisions might be.
Thank you, Mr. Law Clerk. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks. I would like to close, if I could, then. The intent of this was to try to be helpful.
Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly. We just had one hand up. We will let Mr. Nakimayak go, and then, you can do your closing. Mr. Nakimayak.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sitting here and I am reading this, and I am thinking: what about forest fires or other types of emergencies that will occur around the Northwest Territories? I am just using that as an example. I think adding something like this would just be another layer and likely slow the process if it involves infrastructure around some sensitive areas. I have an issue with this. For that reason, I won't support this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Next, we have Mr. O'Reilly closing.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I accept the interpretation from the law clerk about how this would be applied. This would, in my view, not be applied to every decision. This is meant to be helpful guidance in determining those matters that would significantly affect the environment where the statement of environmental values would come into play. I don't think this takes away from anybody's decision-making authority. It is about trying to provide some assistance in how the statement of environmental values will actually work in practise. Using the criteria that the Minister has already accepted in another part of the bill. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you.
Thank you, committee. The Member has requested a recorded vote.
Question.
