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.
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.
