Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment's Report on Bill 38, Protected Areas Act.
INTRODUCTION
Bill 38, Protected Areas Act, provides the framework for protecting, conserving and maintaining biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural continuity of the NWT through the creation of a network of permanent protected areas that are representative of the ecosystems and cultural landscape found in the territory.
The bill received second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment on February 26, 2019.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The committee held public meetings in Fort Smith, Hay River, K'atlodeeche First Nation, Fort Providence, Behchoko, Inuvik, Norman Wells, and Yellowknife. Numerous representatives of Indigenous governments, Renewable Resources Boards and non-governmental organizations made public presentations to the committee, either in person or via written submission, including:
- NWT Metis Nation,
- K'atlodeeche First Nation,
- Tlicho Government,
- Inuvialuit Game Council,
- Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated,
- Lutselke Dene First Nation,
- Dene Nation,
- City of Yellowknife,
- Wek'eezhii Renewable Resources Board,
- Sahtu Renewable Resources Board,
- Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board,
- Yamoga Land Corporation,
- NWT Chamber of Commerce,
- NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines,
- Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society - Northwest Territories Chapter
- Ducks Unlimited Canada,
- Nature United, and
- A joint submission on behalf of Alternatives North, Ecology North, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, and Council of Canadians - NWT Chapter
The committee received 20 written submissions. These submissions are attached as Appendix 3. The committee heard broad support for the bill from every presenter, and heard from the Indigenous governments that they were mostly pleased with the drafting process used by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, although some concerns were noted, which will be addressed later in this report. The committee has decided that it will issue a separate report on the issue of the co-development process used for the post-devolution environmental and resource management legislation.
The committee appreciates the plain language materials supplied by the Minister's office for the public hearings.
The work of the standing committee to amend Bill 38 is set out in this report. The report contains recommendations to government on the development of devolution related legislation, as well as the implementation of this legislation. It also provides a rationale for the motions moved by the committee to amend specific provisions in the bill. These motions are listed in Appendix 1 in order of their appearance in the bill and are referred to in this report by the number assigned in the appendix.
WHAT WE HEARD
This part of the report is organized around the key themes or subject areas raised during the committee's public hearings and in the written submissions received.
Public Registry
Clause 9 of Bill 38 establishes a public registry for protected areas. The committee heard concerns across the territory that the proposed items for inclusion on the registry were too limited in scope, and would not meet the public's expectation for openness and transparency. Several presenters spoke at length about the need for an expanded registry to be included in the bill, and not left to regulations.
While the views of what should be included on the registry did differ, there was broad consensus that what was included in the bill was not adequate. These concerns were raised by not only environmental advocates but also by representatives of the mining industry and business community.
The committee had lengthy deliberations on what to include in the registry to address these concerns. The committee felt it was important to ensure that any official document related to a protected area is included in a registry, including establishment agreements, management plans, formal correspondence to or from a management board and any report on the state of protected areas. The committee also recognizes that there may be some issues of sensitivity, and ensured that some information could be kept off the registry, in accordance with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any changes to the size or status of a protected area will also be recorded on the registry, including any reduction in size and any establishment of a transportation or transmission corridor.
The committee appreciates the Minister's timely responses to committee's questions, and consequently moved Motions 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, and 27 to expand the information that will be included on the registry.
Integration of Co-Management Bodies
In several of the verbal and written submissions received from Indigenous Governments, there was a general concern that the bill must respect any existing land, resources or self-government agreements that have overlapping provisions regarding the conservation of land, cultural sites or ecological areas.
Specifically, there were concerns that the roles of Renewable Resources Boards and Land Use Planning Boards, established under these agreements, were not always clear in relation to the Protected Areas Management Board. Further, Renewable Resources Boards and Land Use Planning Boards were not treated consistently in being given notice or engaged in the review and management of protected areas throughout the bill.
To address these concerns, committee moved the following motions to ensure that Land Use Planning Boards were treated in the same manner as Renewable Resources Boards: 2, 11, 14, 21, and 34.
The committee also found that there were sections of the bill that did not adequately provide for the involvement of Renewable Resources Boards or Land Use Planning Boards in the development of establishment agreements and management plans, as well as being consulted on any transmission or transportation corridors. Accordingly, Committee moved the following motions 13, 18, 19, 25, and 26.
While the committee is confident that these concerns have now been addressed in the relevant sections of the bill, it is evident that better awareness of the paramountcy of the land claim agreements needs to be developed. Therefore, the committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 1
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that when employing a Technical Working Group for the development of future legislation, the Government of the Northwest Territories include co-management bodies in the process to resolve any conflicts between a provision of that act and a provision found in a land, resources or self-government agreement.
Reports
The committee heard some concerns on the reporting provisions of the bill. While the committee understands the desire to be less prescriptive in the legislation, the committee does recommend that, at the very least, the management boards of the protected areas established under this act be involved in drafting those reports.
Therefore, the committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that any required reports on protected areas should be developed in collaboration with the management boards established under this act.
Furthermore, the committee supports the need for flexibility and coordination with other reporting that falls under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The committee also notes that there are similar efforts in relation to public reporting on environmental and resource management that have the potential to overlap with the public reporting contemplated in section 97 of Bill 38. For example, the state of the environment reporting proposed in Bill 39: Environmental Rights Act, the state of the environment reporting under section 147(3)(a) of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, and similar efforts. To help prevent duplication of efforts, the committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 3
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that any required reports should be coordinated with reports required under other legislation, notably the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act and the State of the Environment Report pursuant to Bill 39: Environmental Rights Act, if and when it is passed.
Public Interest
The committee heard from many members of the public that Bill 38 establishes protected areas not just for the benefit of the current population but for future generations as well. There was broad support for this bill, but many comments focused on the importance of protected areas for the future, and that the bill as originally written did not adequately reflect this need.
The committee appreciated hearing from all members of the public who made submissions during the public hearings, and worked diligently to address the broad range of concerns. The committee discussed at length how best to incorporate these issues. The committee felt amending the purpose statement was the most effective way to ensure that the future generations would be considered when decisions were made under this act, and accordingly passed motion 3.
The committee also moved motions 12 and 17 to broaden what could be included in establishment agreements and to ensure that the effects of climate change be considered in management plans.
The committee also wanted to ensure that any area nominated for candidate status be considered in a timely fashion, so as to provide certainty to all parties as to the status of that land. Accordingly, committee moved motion 7. In the event of any reduction in size or delisting of a protected area, committee moved motion 20, to ensure that any adjacent community be consulted.
Transmission and Transportation Corridors
The section of the bill that received the most comment dealt with the establishment of transmission and transportation corridors through a protected area.
Some submissions asked for amendments that would entirely restrict any corridor through a protected area, while others would have allowed for nearly unfettered access to support industrial development. The committee debated these proposals numerous times, and tried to find a balance between them. To that end, the committee moved motion 22 to ensure that prior to any approval of a transmission and transportation corridor, any potential mitigation of potential impact on the biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural continuity of the protected area be considered. The committee also moved motion 24 to ensure that the public would have an opportunity to comment prior to any corridor being established.
Regular Meetings on Protected Areas
The committee is pleased to see the beginnings of a cooperative and collaborative relationship develop between the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Indigenous Governments and organizations and co-management bodies which have a role in preserving protected areas. The committee would like to see this relationship continue to grow. Therefore, the committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 4
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that the Minister convene regular meetings with Indigenous governments or their designated representatives, protected areas management boards, and relevant co-management bodies for the purpose of promoting cooperative and collaborative working relationships for the effective management of protected areas.
Regulations
The committee heard from numerous Indigenous Governments and organizations that they appreciated the co-operative drafting process that was used on Bill 38, and that they want to see a similar process used for the development of regulations. Accordingly, the committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 5
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that the Minister develop a process for engaging Indigenous governments in the development of regulations under this and other devolution related legislation.
Clause-By-Clause Review of the Bill
The clause-by-clause review of the bill was held on June 3, 2019. The committee thanks the Honourable Robert C. McLeod, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, and members of his staff, for their appearance before the committee.
At this meeting, the committee moved 30 separate motions to amend Bill 38. These motions are set out in Appendix 1.
Minister McLeod concurred will all of the committee's motions.
Conclusion
The committee commends the Minister for his willingness to work with committee to expedite the review of Bill 38 in response to public interest and support from Indigenous governments and non-governmental organizations, and working collaboratively with committee on the amendments.
The committee thanks all those who took the time to appear before committee to share their thoughts on this legislation.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 38: Protected Areas Act, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the standing committee's review of Bill 38. However, two Members of the committee prepared a dissenting opinion of the report. I will now hand it over to Mr. O'Reilly, the Member for Frame Lake, to read this dissenting opinion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.