My comments are very similar to those that my colleagues have already expressed. I, too, believe that this clause is probably not necessary, but until we have the proposed amendment to the Interpretation Act passed through this House so that we have a clause which is consistent and which covers all of our legislation, I feel that it is only fair that we include it in this particular act as a whole.
I am struck by the response of the Minister and Cabinet relative to this particular suggestion that they have denied including these clauses in this act but have seen fit to include it in the Wildlife Act which is before the House. That doesn’t make sense to me. I do support having a blanket application of this clause in the Interpretation Act and I think at the time that that amendment to the Interpretation Act takes place, that we should also make amendments to every act that we have and remove it from all the acts that we do have, so, as is pointed out by the Minister, we have a consistent application of the intent of these clauses. I think it specifically needs to be here, as well, because community governments will use this act in their community planning and development.
There’s a sad lack of education of the NWT residents on the impact that land claims negotiations has. Many of our community government staff and/or councillors may not be fully aware of the implications of a land claims agreement. The fact that this clause is in the act, if they are looking at the act for specific information relative to community planning and development, they will then be...it will be highlighted for them that they need to also look at land claims agreements to make sure that they’re not contravening something which has already been established in a land claims agreement. Until the Interpretation Act is amended and we have these clauses in the Interpretation Act so that it applies to all of our legislation across the GNWT, I support adding it to this particular bill.