Merci, Monsieur le President. I wish to speak to the process that resulted in the bill. I will also provide some comments on the bill and concerns with what is there and what is missing.

This is a much anticipated bill and should be the spring board for building opportunities for public and private investment into a conservation economy. This law will help build strong and sustainable communities and promote cultural survival and economic diversification. I recognize that a lot of hard work, blood, sweat, and tears have gone into this bill and thank everyone involved for their efforts. This is the means of implementing Thaidene Nene, Edehzhie, and other protected areas that are in the queue.

The Process

ENR's approach on the development of its environmental legislation appears to have been similar to other departments in the post-devolution world, but there were some significant differences. ENR created a two-level approach for consultation. A large Stakeholder Advisory Group consisting of NGOs, industry, and others was invited to a series of three large workshops that were held October 12, 2017; February 28 and March 1, 2018; and May 9 and 10, 2018. Participants were promised a chance to review the draft bills before introduction into the House, but this was not done.

There were broader public engagements for four of the five bills under development in November and December 2018. Bulleted lists of possible principles and content were posted to the ENR website. "What We Heard" reports were promised but never delivered publicly. Submissions were also not posted. Public consultation and engagement appears to have ended in late 2018.

Technical working groups were also established for each of the five ENR bills being considered. Indigenous governments were invited to participate in detailed discussions and exchanges of proposals and drafts, at least as I understand it. Co-management bodies were eventually allowed to participate in the technical working groups, as some of them would be expected to implement parts of the bills. Indigenous governments who were not members of the Intergovernmental Council and some NGOs without paid staff were provided some limited financial assistance from ENR, and that was a good step.

As I understand it, notes were kept for all of the Stakeholder Advisory Group and technical working group meetings. ENR did not share any of its research, best practices, or cross-jurisdictional analysis publicly. Despite repeated attempts by standing committee and Regular MLAs, the Minister did not share anything substantive from the consultation and drafting process with Regular MLAs. The Minister said in writing in March 2018 that he was "committed to provide SCEDE with updates on ENR's legislative initiatives and the technical working group and Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings." That never happened, despite several reminders to the Minister and even the Premier.

The standing committee had no idea what the actual bills would contain or what stakeholder and Indigenous government feedback that ENR had received. This is much worse than the ITI bills, much worse, and will make the job of standing committee that much more difficult. To be clear, I don't fault the hard-working ENR staff in any way for not sharing the consultation work that they undertook with very limited resources. It was the Minister who did not share the information, and this is not how consensus government is supposed to work.

ENR does not seem to have had access to the bottomless pit of communications funding that ITI had in developing its very slick, plain-language materials for the mineral rights legislation. It is not too late for ENR to produce some plain-language materials to explain what it is proposing in its legislation. This is complicated stuff, Mr. Speaker, and the public needs help to participate democratically in its review. Plain-language materials would help with that. There are lots of lessons we can learn about the development of these bills, and there is a need for formal review across departments of how we did with our first steps in the post-devolution world. I will now turn to the principles and merit of the bill.

GNWT has a Territorial Parks Act, and four regulations under it. This legislation allows for the establishment of various classifications of parks by regulation. Indigenous peoples may hunt and fish in territorial parks, and consultation may be required for the establishment of parks, changes to boundaries, and repealing regulations. Permits may be issued for park users, and entry may be controlled or prohibited. The positions of superintendents and park officers are created. Offences and penalties are set out, along with regulation-making authority.

Modern parks legislation should establish a park planning and management process, and the bill largely does this.

The Protected Areas Act sets out a rational approach to the establishment and maintenance of a network of conservation areas for the Northwest Territories. Some more work may be required to make sure we adequately protect wetlands. A public registry is to be established. It will contain information on areas nominated for protection, and the movement of those areas through the process of notification, evaluation, and public engagement that leads to a candidate area becoming of protected area or not. An establishment agreement between public and Indigenous governments will be required for each area, and the formal step of setting up each protected area will be through a regulation. There is provision for notice to be provided to relevant co-management bodies established in the lands rights agreements at some points in the process. The administration and management of protected areas is covered in the bill, with a potential to establish management boards, advisory bodies, and management plans. The activities that are and are not permitted in protected areas are also set out in the bill. There is a lot of detail around enforcement, offenses, and penalties. A report of the Legislative Assembly is required at least every five years. There are sweeping powers for regulation-making. Lastly, there are some consequential amendments to the Territorial Parks Act to allow it to focus on smaller recreational and historic sites.

There are two main issues with this bill, as I see it. Again, there is a very troubling pattern of extensive and sweeping Ministerial power and discretion without many checks or balances. I will highlight some of these matters a little later. The bill does acknowledge and recognize Indigenous rights and the prevailing co-management system established under constitutionally entrenched land rights agreements. It does not fully embrace or support the role of the land use planning boards or renewable resource boards and councils. Notice to the co-management bodies of candidate areas, establishment, and potential changes to protected areas is a start, but hardly the kind of incorporation of their true jurisdiction and roles. Why would the Minister not want to seek the views of, and consult with, relevant co-management bodies with regard to nomination of candidate areas for consistency with existing land use plans, seek the views of these bodies with regard to park management plans, and more? The Minister may actually be obligated to make joint management proposals to the renewable resources boards for protected areas establishment and management. In any event, I recognize this is a complex area and that the bill likely represents a compromised position that was met under tight timelines. I certainly look forward to hearing from Indigenous governments and co-management bodies about the way in which they had been built into this bill, or not.

I strongly support the concept of protected areas public registry. The problem is that it is not clear what information will actually make it into the registry. In my view, all the correspondence among the GNWT, Indigenous governments, and other interests regarding the nomination of areas, candidate area evaluation, public engagement submissions, final and amended establishment agreements, management plan development materials, and any changes to protected areas should be documented on the public registry. This should be available to everyone and made available online, similar to the public registries of the land and water boards of the Mackenzie Valley Review Board.

There appears to be very limited ability to expropriate land for protected areas. Such an arrangement is already in place for the mining industry, whereby rights holders can effectively expropriate, with compensation, surface rights holders.

Earlier, I mentioned the overwhelming Ministerial power and discretion found in the bill. The Minister appears to have unbounded ability to reject areas that may be nominated, without any appeal or dispute resolution, or even public notice with reasons and a public comment period. We may also need to consider if others should be able to nominate areas for protection. While I can appreciate that regulations could help clarify public engagement around protected areas establishment, there should at least be an onus on the Minister to seriously consider and provide reasons publicly for any decisions on the nomination and evaluation process. Those decisions should be placed on the public registry to build transparency, accountability, and confidence.

Cabinet can only reduce the size of a protected area or de-register a protected area with the consent of Indigenous governments. This reduces one of my greatest fears about what might be in the bill. This is a strong and necessary provision to ensure that there is permanency and clarity. However, I am alarmed with the provisions in the bill that would allow the Minister total and unfettered discretion to establish transportation and transmission corridors through and within protected areas. Now, that is expropriation and needs to be fixed.

This bill is a good start, and again, I acknowledge all of the hard work that went into it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment to hear what Indigenous governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the public have to say about improving this very important piece of legislation. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. If Members could turn their attention to the gallery, we have been joined by two constituents from Nahendeh, Ms. Valerie Lamalise and Ms. Norma Jumbo. Welcome to the House. To the principle of the bill.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 38 has had a second reading and is referred to standing committee. Second reading of bills. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 39, the Environmental Rights Act, be read for the second time. This bill takes steps to modernize and broaden the existing Environmental Rights Act. It updates language use in the current act to make it consistent with more recent legislation. It broadens existing rights under the act to request an investigation, prosecute an offence, and bring an action. The bill provides correspondingly broader protections for employees who engage in those and other processes.

With respect to the right to request an investigation, the bill provides clear timelines and responsibility around the Minister's obligations to report. The bill requires the executive council to prepare a statement of environmental values and requires department and select public bodies to consider that statement in their decision making. It mandates the tabling of a state of the environmental report for the Northwest Territories, sets timelines around the report, and provides for public comment on that report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I will not speak to the process that got us here with ENR, as I covered that in my previous remarks on Bill 38, but I will also provide some comments on the bill and concerns with what is there and what is missing.

The original Environmental Rights Act was passed as a private Member's bill by the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly in 1990. The bill was sponsored by former Yellowknife Centre MLA Brian Lewis, who modelled his bill after a similar statute in the state of Michigan. I wish to recognize his important contribution to the public interest. The preamble to the original act sets out the special relationship we have with the land and establishes the right to a healthy environment, including ways to protect it as set out in the legislation. A process is set up for the public to request investigations by the Minister into the release of contaminants into the environment. The public automatically has standing for environmental prosecutions and civil suits to stop the release of contaminants into the natural environment. Whistleblower protections are also established under the act. The Minister is required to table an annual report in the House.

Two Yellowknife citizens, my friend Chris O'Brien and myself, requested the first investigation under this act on April 22, 1991. We asked the then-Minister of Renewable Resources to investigate the stack emissions from Giant Mine and impacts on the environment and human health. The initial response from the territorial government was to ask for more evidence of arsenic emissions, so we sent back a report generated by the government itself.

More than two years after the request for an investigation, a report was released in July 1993 confirming that trees were being damaged by sulphur dioxide around the Giant Mine. A human health assessment was conducted by the federal Department of Health and Welfare that concluded that there was no imminent health hazard from the sulphur dioxide but that arsenic is a known human carcinogen, and exposure to arsenic levels should be reduced to the lowest possible level. Unfortunately, government moves very slowly, and nothing was accomplished on controlling sulphur dioxide and arsenic air emissions before Giant Mine eventually closed in 1999.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that we can fix this and do much better. That is what I hope for in this new bill, but I can assure everyone that there has not been avalanche of investigation requests.

For the current bill, the scope of the "Have Your Say" consultation was limited to the following general objectives:

• Extend the right to protect the environment;
• Reflect numerous well-accepted developments in land claims and Aboriginal and treaty rights, environmental law, human rights and international law;
• Ensure consistency with provisions and approaches in other NWT legislation;
• Clearly acknowledge what is meant by the right to a healthy environment; and
• Clearly acknowledge and emphasize the obligation of the GNWT to act in accordance with the public trust.

Mr. Speaker, this was an ambitious set of key components for the bill. Unfortunately, we have no idea what anyone said during ENR's consultation process because the Minister refused to share any of this information with committee, and there was no "What We Heard" report produced from the very limited final consultation.

What is in the new version of the Environmental Rights Act, which repeals and replaces the old statute? On the whole, it is very similar, perhaps too similar. Investigations can be done, prosecutions and civil court action can be commenced, whistleblower protection is still there, and there are two new features. A vague statement of environmental values is to be prepared, and some new reporting requirements are added.

The preamble is strengthened but, as we will see, there are very few ways in which environmental rights are clearly defined or made enforceable. For example, the right to healthy environment is not clearly defined, and there are no actual ways to force compliance or provide remedies. In the current version of the legislation, paramountcy is established over all other legislation, but that is removed in this bill.

Investigations under the current legislation can be requested by any two adults who are of the opinion that a contaminant has been, is being, or will be released. Under the new bill, investigations can be requested by one person, an adult resident in the NWT, but only on reasonable grounds that an act or an omission has caused or is likely to cause "significant" harm to the environment. No definition is provided for the word "significant".

Clearly the bill establishes a higher and much more difficult standard for investigations to be considered legitimate. Sworn statements are required, with names and addresses required of anyone who might be able to give evidence. We can expect these higher and more costly requirements to reduce access to investigations and create a barrier to enforcing this sort of environmental right. Likewise, the Minister will have the broad discretion to conduct or discontinue an investigation if the alleged action or omission is not likely to cause significant harm to the environment. Some appeal mechanisms should be built into the bill, in my opinion. In the bill, the right to begin a civil action against any person for an act or omission also requires proof of the significant harm to the environment.

Whistleblower protection is expanded to include employees who comply with or seek to enforce any legislation, regulation, or authorization, or who provide information for an investigation review or hearing, or who refuse to carry out an order or direction that would contravene legislation, regulation, or authorization. These are good things, but the only remedy seems to be a prosecution with fines increased from a maximum of $5,000 to $250,000 and imprisonment from up to 90 days to up to one year in the new bill.

Under the bill, Cabinet shall prepare a statement of environmental values, including the right to a healthy environment and explain how those values will be integrated into decisions made by a department or a number of public bodies, including Aurora College, the Business Development and Investment Corporation, the NWT Housing Corporation, and the NWT Power Corporation. Ministers or the head of the additional listed bodies are to take every reasonable step to ensure that the environmental values are "considered" whenever decisions are made that might significantly affect the environment. There is that test again. No reporting on implementation of the statement of environmental values is required, and there does not appear to be any consequences for non-compliance.

A new requirement is created in the bill for State-of-the-Environment reporting within three years of coming into force or four years after the first report. The State-of-the-Environment report seems to look a lot like the cumulative impact monitoring report under the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act. While there is to be a period of public notice for this new report under the bill, the Minister is also required to prepare a written response to any public comments within 90 days. This looks interesting, but I am not sure that this really will amount to much in terms of environmental rights or changes.

That is all that there is in this bill, Mr. Speaker: some minor changes to what is currently in place. The higher standards for many of the elicited environmental rights appear to restrict access to the ability to exercise those rights that are set out. The only areas of improvement appear to be a longer preamble, including some additional whistleblower protection coverage, the unenforceable statement of environmental values, and state-of-the-environment reporting. No other means to enforce the vague rights alluded to in the preamble are found in the bill.

What is not in the bill is any kind of novel or even radical means of setting out environmental rights and means to exercise them. The federal Auditor General Act creates a requirement for sustainable development strategies for each federal department and agency. Those strategies are to be monitored and reported on. There is also a petition process established, whereby a resident of Canada can raise any matter related to sustainable development, and the Minister or head of the relevant departments or agencies are compelled to respond publicly.

Some other ideas that the bill could have considered include:

• The ability for the public to propose new policy;
• Non-court-based dispute resolution;
• Independent investigations of environmental complaints;
• Creation of government obligations to protect the environment;
• Specific procedural rights, such as public notice of changes to policy, regulation, and legislation, with opportunities for comment; and
• Restrictions on or even prohibitions against strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Lastly, many countries have begun to create constitutional environmental rights or even recognize the rights of nature as enforceable. It is not clear whether ENR seriously considered any of these approaches.

This bill needs a lot of work to improve access to environmental rights, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment to hear what Indigenous governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the public have to say. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

To the principle of the bill.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

Bill 39 has had its second reading and is referred to standing committee. Second reading of bills.

By the authority given to me by Motion 7-18(3), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider the business before the House.

Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters. I will hand the chair over to the birthday boy and Member for Mackenzie Delta.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee would like to consider Tabled Document 322-18(3), Main Estimates, 2019-2020, with the Department of Health and Social Services. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, committee. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. We have agreed to begin consideration of the Department of Health and Social Services. Minister of Health and Social Services, would you like to provide opening comments?

Yes, please, Mr. Chair.

Okay, proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present the 2019-2020 Main Estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services. The total proposed budget for the department is $495,934,000. Overall, the department's estimates propose an increase of $34.4 million, or about 7 percent over the 2018-2019 Main Estimates.

Highlights of the proposed estimates include:

• Forced growth of $3.98 million;
• Funding for initiatives totalling $7.87 million; and
• Sunsets and other adjustments of $16.5 million, which includes operationalization of the new Stanton Hospital.

These estimates continue to support the priorities of the 18^th Legislative Assembly. Specific support of these priorities includes:

• $3.28 million to increase capacity in Child and Family Services;
• $863,000 for the public awareness and education campaigns in response to cannabis legalization, and another $234,000 to monitor and act on health impacts of cannabis legalization;
• $400,000 to increase support to Indigenous governments in proving land-based mobile addictions treatment;
• $352,000 to improve the chemotherapy program at Stanton Territorial Hospital;
• $373,000 to expand the Midwifery Program;
• $972,000 increase to combine the Yellowknife day shelter and sobering centre in one location, with improved programming;
• $500,000 to support family violence shelters; and
• $2 million to continue with the establishment of school and community child and youth care counsellors this year in the Beaufort Delta and Sahtu regions.

Mr. Chair, that does conclude my opening comments, and I'm happy to answer any questions that committee may have.

Thank you, Minister. Would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Minister. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Minister, please introduce your witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to introduce my witnesses. On my left is Bruce Cooper, who is the deputy minister of Health and Social Services, and on my right is Jeannie Mathison, who is the director of finance. Thank you.

Thank you. Committee, you have agreed to forgo general comments and proceed directly to the detail for the Department of Health and Social Services. Does committee agree?