Merci, Monsieur le President. I have been waiting patiently for almost eight years for this government to do something, anything, to prevent and better manage contaminated sites that have cost us literally tens of millions of dollars. With little to no fanfare, Environment and Climate Change has finally released a new environmental guideline for contaminated site remediation with a public comment period of about six weeks less the evacuation period. While the steps and process laid out in the document appear to be sound, there are some critical admissions and failures. It is hard to believe that it is the best that we could do nine years after devolution.
It's not clear whether this guideline is legally binding or enforceable. It has no specific legislative authorization as cited. It's also not clear whether it would apply to contaminated sites on privatelyowned lands. Once again, the department has completely forgotten any role for the public in the process other than as a recipient of some vague notice if a site is found to be contaminated. The document is completely silent as to whether any of the information and approvals generated would be publicly disclosed. It is not clear to me whether the department is attempting to set up a parallel unlegislated process for contaminated site management when some sites are under active remediation and are regulated by the land and water boards. This could be a parallel GNWT system for contaminated sites with no role for the public and no public information. There is also no mention of working with Indigenous governments in the document. The guideline is not consistent with Cabinet's socalled open government policy, but it is what I have come to expect as a pattern of Cabinet not acting as a public government.
A few other problems with the guideline: Site restoration is completely optional but no one will know anyway. Under this guideline, the department can accept sites with known liabilities and perpetual care requirements without any public knowledge. There are no provisions, or even consideration in the document, of an institutional control program like Saskatchewan's where owners could put up money and GNWT would assume liability for sites, something that standing committee recommended but was ignored.
I am frustrated and disappointed that after eight years, I have failed to move this government towards any meaningful legislated or policy approach to prevention and better management of contaminated sites. I will have questions later today. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Members' statements. Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes.
