This is page numbers 1859 – 1898 of the Hansard for the 17th Assembly, 4th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was work.

Topics

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Blake.

Frederick Blake Jr.

Frederick Blake Jr. Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this motion forward. I do strongly believe in protecting our environment but, as Mr. Hawkins has stated, I believe that this motion has come forward a little too late. Also, I do not support this motion because I feel that this will jeopardize the priorities that this government has set on building a partnership with the federal government. I strongly believe that this territory needs to adapt to those changes. One way we could do that is to get our Devolution Agreement in place. I believe that is where we can ensure we work with the federal government to protect our territory, through sustainable development.

With that, I’m not going to support this motion. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Bob McLeod

Bob McLeod Premier

Mr. Speaker, the government will be voting against this motion. This motion takes issue with decisions made by the government that they had every right to make. It then calls upon the Government of the Northwest Territories to take action in areas of federal jurisdiction. We cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. Allowing this motion to pass would create false expectations in the public about our government’s legitimate role and responsibilities in the areas noted in the motion. Rather than let that impression take hold, we think it is important that Cabinet vote on this motion instead of abstaining.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is focused on managing the business of the territory. That has to be our primary objective here, not telling the Government of Canada how it should do business.

We aren’t the federal opposition. We are a government in our own right and we need to concentrate on managing our own affairs. While federal decisions often have impacts on provinces and territories, it is important that we respect the distinct roles and responsibilities Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories has. These changes are the law of the land. It is better for us to decide how to manage the impacts than to rail against the process. Respecting the jurisdiction of Parliament doesn’t mean we have to agree with its decisions. We aren’t here to defend federal

legislation, and we aren’t going to say that we support the changes that have been made. But respecting the jurisdiction of the federal government doesn’t mean that our government will stop advocating for the interests of our residents.

We will continue to work with the federal government and raise issues that matter to Northerners. Where we have differences of opinion, we need to respect those differences, find ways to rise above them and keep working together.

This motion suggests our government has not been diligent in managing the affairs of the territory. That’s simply not true. Many of the issues that have been raised publicly in conjunction with C-38 and C-45 have been identified and raised by the Government of the Northwest Territories before. Our government is committed to sustainable development that balances economic development with concern for the environment. We identified the need for regulatory improvement in the last government and have been working on it since 2008.

Devolution is another part of our ongoing efforts in this area and it will enhance our ability to manage land and resources according to northern priorities and principles.

I also have to take issue, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestions in this motion that the responsibilities the Government of the Northwest Territories is pursuing through devolution will be compromised by Bill C-38 and C-45. This is not correct. Indeed, nothing in the proposed legislation referenced in the motion diminishes the regime we will be inheriting through devolution. The MVRMA reflects a system promised and constitutionally protected agreements, as do screening and review processes under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We need to be clear that these are not being addressed in Bill C-38 and C-45 and will not be diminished through devolution.

Environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley is governed by the Gwich’in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claims. This will not be affected by the federal changes proposed in Canada’s Bills C-38 or C-45. The system of environmental regulation in the Mackenzie Valley will continue after devolution.

In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region there are also environmental protection measures guaranteed in a land claim. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement establishes an environmental screening committee and an environmental impact review board that has been designed with and takes into account the views of the Inuvialuit. Nothing in the proposed federal legislation will lessen those roles and responsibilities, and we look forward to working with the Inuvialuit after devolution to develop complementary territorial practices.

Devolution will give this Legislative Assembly greater ability to manage lands and resources. We have to be clear, though, that not all federal responsibilities in this area are going to be devolved. Canada will continue to be responsible for environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, as Members already know.

We must also be clear that Canada’s jurisdiction over fisheries will continue after devolution, just as that jurisdiction applies in the provinces. Canada’s jurisdiction over navigable waters will continue after devolution, just as it applies in the provinces, and Canada’s concurrent jurisdiction over the environment will continue after devolution as well.

Suggesting that Canada will simply download responsibility for a broken regulatory system on our government is wrong and misleading, as our suggestions that our government will somehow bear the costs for this. Canada will continue to have responsibilities in the Northwest Territories after devolution, and we expect they will continue to fulfil their ongoing responsibilities. It doesn’t make sense for this Legislative Assembly to appropriate resources for something Canada will be responsible for. We must accept that Canada has the authority to make changes to its own legislation and will continue to be able to do so after devolution.

When this government has questions or concerns about federal decisions or legislation, we prefer to raise them in a mature dialogue with Canada. The rules of engagement between governments are informed by traditions of diplomacy and respect for each other’s areas of jurisdiction, and mature governments communicate with each other professionally and with respect, particularly in areas of disagreement.

NWT Days was a great example of how our government can constructively and proactively engage with the Government of Canada. I think all Members who were in Ottawa will agree with me that we made a positive impression that will help us advance our priorities and strengthen our relationship with Canada and other stakeholders in the capital. I was very proud of how all members of our delegation, both Cabinet and Regular Members, conducted themselves in the best traditions of statesmanship and collegiality. That should be our model for engagement with another government, Mr. Speaker.

The principles of courtesy and respect in our relationships with other governments are very much in line with traditional Aboriginal values and the principles of consensus government. Ill-informed and misleading motions about the actions of another government, the parliamentary equivalent of stamping our foot and hold our breath are not the way we want to do business.

We have much better ways of communicating our concerns to the federal government. We had

concerns about Bill C-10 and we raised them through respectful dialogue with Canada. We are doing the same with Bills C-38 and C-45.

Members and the people of the Northwest Territories can rest assured that we will always raise our voices on behalf of our territory as required and whenever indicated. We have done it before and we are well engaged in doing so now on Bills C-38 and C-45. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add a few words, as well, to this debate.

For 46 years and 17 Assemblies we have been working together on a foundation of very, very fundamental principles, the protection in accordance to the land, the water and the animals. We need to work together, Aboriginal governments and public government. Our common desire to control our own fate is to eventually achieve self-government.

Every Legislative Assembly has built off the work of the previous Assembly, and this 17th Assembly is

no different. We stand on the work of 16 previous Assemblies, and I would say, without any hesitation or equivocation, there should be no doubt, in this Assembly or in the public that are listening to this debate, that any one of us MLAs cares any less about the land, the water, the animals, sustainable development or the question or Northerners to finally control their own destiny. That’s not the debate here today.

I would suggest to you that what we should be talking about and what the focus is, is this motion, as it is worded, appropriate at this particular time. I would suggest to you that it’s not. We have many other issues at play and the motion itself tries to address a whole host of issues. It is clear from the debate and those who are supporting this bill that there is strong unhappiness with the federal government in the bills they’ve passed. Be that as it may, our job as a government, as the Premier has said, is to manage our way through this. The recommendation and the therefores that speak to the territorial government are not clear and they are not especially helpful. Tell them we are unhappy and, oh, yes, we want more money.

We are within a hair’s breadth of devolution, resource revenue sharing, $65 million; A-based transfers, another $65 million – the culmination of a dream to control the levers of our destiny. We have to focus on those things. The work we do in the environment in this territory, I would hold up for comparison to any other jurisdiction in this country. In fact, I would submit to you, that in spite of the burdens of some of the regulatory millstones we have to carry that are not ours and that we are soon

going to be rid of, is the fact that we have done enormously good work. We are going to negotiate an orderly transfer with the federal government. We are doing work on water, wildlife. We have been preparing ourselves for decades for this time and we are just about there.

This motion, as it is worded, is not particularly helpful. It gives voice to the unhappiness with what the federal government has done, but we are legislators. We have to take the broad view. We know that we can balance resource development and the environment. We know that we can do a better job as Northerners and has ever been done before. We will do that and we will demonstrate that. We have demonstrated it in a whole host of other areas.

We know that in our small communities, there are enormous employment challenges, challenges with cost of living. Those are things that are driving MLAs every day. Let us not lose track of that.

Forty-six years, we are just about there. We have to manage our way through this. This is similar to global warming and climate change. There are things happening to us that we didn’t necessarily initiate or that we don’t control. But as we have done time after time as a government and as a territory, we will manage our way through this. As we sign those agreements, we will be better off tomorrow than we ever were today or in the past.

There should be no concern about people’s commitment to the environment here. All we are talking about is this motion is not the time and there hasn’t been the time for the discussion to have it thoughtfully fully worded out address the concerns of all the Members and be put forward in a more constructive way. That is not how we do business in a consensus government.

I, as well as Cabinet, as the Premier indicated, will be voting against this motion. Let us not lose track of all the things that we have in common and there should be nobody leaving here today thinking that somehow those that voted against or for or abstained are any less concerned about the North, the land, the water, the animals, how do we have a productive life for our people. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I will go back to the mover of the motion for final comments.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for all of the representatives in the House today that spoke and shared their perspectives. I kind of disagree with the recent comment that this is not the way things should be done. I think this is the way things should be done. We should be bringing these things into the House and debating them and casting our votes. I very much appreciate this democratic approach.

Many have raised the point that this is a democracy. A fundamental issue that, of course, causes these sorts of dilemmas is when we don’t follow a democratic process.

All of the changes addressed in this motion have been perpetrated by the Government of Canada through omnibus bills in which these are hundreds and hundreds of pages, thousands of pages over two. C-38, hundreds of pages, many, many pieces of legislation, not one amendment, Mr. Speaker. No debate. There was not one Canadian idea that was worthy of consideration in that omnibus bill with all of these regulatory changes.

We heard from the Premier today that this will jeopardize our relationship, and we heard that concern from several people. I would say that the Premier’s comments today will certainly solidify our relationship with the federal government, but I am asking the question, is that the kind of relationship we want when we cannot speak our piece, when we cannot raise concerns.

We have seen dramatic changes, the undermining of legislation developed over decades, with good debate and consultation with Canadians throughout the country, completely removed without debate and not expressing our concerns, not being able to have our Premier step out publicly and say, we disagree with this.

Not only that, but we know you’re only half done. My colleague, Mr. Yakeleya, has mentioned the MVRMA which the Premier says can’t be changed, but we know there are changes coming. He mentioned the NWT Act. He mentioned a number of other pieces of legislation, all of which we know there are changes coming, and we have a record of not being consulted here. Are we still not going to speak out? Are we going to continue to let our voices be repressed rather than knowing there is more coming, that we’re not being approached? Let’s get our perspectives out there now. Let’s talk to them. Let’s assure our citizens that we hear their voices. My e-mail box is full. They are not negative things; they are supporting the direction this motion takes.

The Premier has assured us we have, in fact, not given up on taking over authority for the MVRMA. It may happen sooner, it may happen later, but that is the authority that we are looking for. Fisheries is a federal authority. I haven’t said it is not and I haven’t said it shouldn’t be, but all provinces have jurisdiction on fisheries. How do they do that? They put fish in their Wildlife Act and they have authority over fisheries. So there can be shared participation.

We don’t have authority. We know that there are major gaps and, in fact, I know that Cabinet is aware that there are major gaps in the Northwest Territories created by the changes to the Fisheries Act. I hope we are speaking out on that to the federal government behind closed doors

apparently, but one way or the other, I hope we are speaking out as the Premier says we are in some areas. Here we are left with these gaps, not speaking out on it and with no recourse to fill those gaps as most of the provinces have.

The Premier says we must accept the authority of the federal government, but again, what kind of relationship is it when we can’t comment on their actions, especially when they affect us and largely us and often only us? It is affecting legislation that governs the people of the Northwest Territories.

The Premier talks about a respectful approach. Again, what is a respectful approach? To me it’s a democratic approach where full debate is heard, Canadians’ voices are heard and points that they raise are considered.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and Members in the House have raised many issues. Again, there is much other legislation that will undoubtedly be changed, and not necessarily favourably to our situation. We need to be putting our voices out there now so that we can start to try and minimize that.

I know that the recent effects on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board have been mentioned. I haven’t dwelled on that because that’s a funding issue rather than a legislative issue, but certainly it’s an indication of the sorts of things that I don’t think Cabinet wants to see happen. Not having our voices out on this is not helping the situation.

The lack of consultation has been raised by a number of people and certainly there are special considerations with regard to Aboriginal rights there.

Many people have said they are torn and I can completely understand that. I speak out so strongly for the environment because there are so few others that do. It’s always being trumped by economic development, so we are left with these huge global, stale problems that are getting worse and affecting people everywhere, but I understand being torn. I appreciate this process in that it’s an opportunity to focus our considerations, and experience the dilemma, and trying to bring our best deals and our best information on resolving that dilemma.

Something else that was recognized was the leadership opportunity we have here. I’d say that’s largely been usurped, but the vote is still to be had and I hope the Premier does recognize the opportunity that we do have to provide leadership here and will, in fact, let his Cabinet Members have a free voice.

Some have said this is looking back, this is focused on looking back. That’s not the case. I think the motion does say let’s comment on the current situation, but mostly let’s assess where the damage

has been done, figure out how to fix that damage when we have the authority to do that, find out what the costs are and figure out how to come up with funding those costs. That’s a pretty straightforward-looking aspect to this motion.

Again, we frequently heard that it might endanger the prize of devolution. To me, that’s sort of a sad comment and certainly does comment on the maturity of our relationship – speaking of maturity – with the federal government.

The omnibus nature of the bill certainly does have that aspect to it and it is simply a reflection of the approach that the federal government is taking in perpetrating these changes to environmental protection.

There were a couple of quotes from some letters, the outrageous changes and the future, and people care greatly about how we treat our land. I don’t doubt that we all care, but there are people who are willing to speak up, at some risk apparently, politically, but they are judging that that’s a fair risk. People want to have their voices heard. They want to see their governments speaking out, because they care very deeply and they see these changes in legislation as outrageous and impacting the future of them and their children.

So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line was the debate was not had in coming up with these regulations. Many have said they’re torn and so on, but thoughtful engagement and debate can be uncomfortable, it’s a necessary step and, once again, I appreciate this House being willing to engage in that debate and bring their very point forward.

Once again, I don’t know about my colleagues, but my e-mail box is full. It’s clear that our people are clearly concerned about the situation addressed by this motion. I’ve seen widely distributed expressions of these concerns about a broad range of individuals, groups and governments. This is democracy and the democratic debate being held today is appreciated. I am listening to the people myself and I look forward to the support of my colleagues in the motion before us. Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member is seeking a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.

Tim Mercer Clerk Of The House

Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Menicoche.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

All those opposed to the motion, please rise.

Tim Mercer Clerk Of The House

Mr. Blake, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod - Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod - Inuvik Twin Lakes.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

All those abstaining, please rise.

Recorded Vote
Motions

February 13th, 2013

Tim Mercer Clerk Of The House

Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Moses.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

All those in favour, 6; all opposed, 8; all abstentions, two. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Item 19, first reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 9-17 (4 ), NWT Main Estimates, 2013-2014, and Bill 1, Tlicho Statutes Amendment Act, with Mr. Dolynny in the chair.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

The Chair

The Chair Daryl Dolynny

Welcome, colleagues. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Menicoche.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

Kevin A. Menicoche

Kevin A. Menicoche Nahendeh

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee wishes to deliberate Tabled Document 9-17(4), NWT Main Estimates, 2013-2014, with the continuation of ENR.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

The Chair

The Chair Daryl Dolynny

Does everyone agree?

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

The Chair

The Chair Daryl Dolynny

Good. Minister Miltenberger, do you wish to bring witnesses into the House?

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

The Chair

The Chair Daryl Dolynny

Does committee agree?

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

The Chair

The Chair Daryl Dolynny

Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please bring the witnesses into the House.

Minister Miltenberger, if you could introduce your witnesses to the House.

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Ernie Daniels, deputy minister of Environment and Natural Resources; and Nancy Magrum, director of shared services of ITI and ENR. Thank you.