Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am proud to support this motion for a second time. I just wanted to clarify, at least, where I am coming from on this. Ministerial discretion is an important feature of all governments, and it is really required for the good function of government as well. That doesn't mean that it can't be guided by very clear criteria.

In this case, when this question was raised by the committee, the Minister's office came back with some very specific examples of where the concerns came out if discretion was completely taken away. As a result, we got a better understanding of where the government's concerns are, and that is what is enumerated in this amendment through subclauses (i) through (iv).

Further, number (v), it reads: "The nomination does not meet any prescribed eligibility criteria." The eligibility criteria will be set by regulations. The Minister still has broad powers. They just need to be spelled out, transparent, and available for nominating parties to see. That's what we're really talking about here. The Minister can prescribe any criteria, including things like mineral values. Mira could be one of its eligibility criteria. Any number of pre-assessments and values taken, those could all be part of eligibility criteria. The Minister still has a great deal of flexibility to exercise discretion under this, but it's just a reverse onus. Instead of the Minister just making a decision and writing it down, the criteria needs to be spelled out clearly.

We're also only talking about the nomination phase, and this is a closed process. The public doesn't know that these nominations are occurring. It is a nomination by Indigenous government or the public government, and that's it. For this period, the only time the public is going to become aware of it is when the candidate phase starts. That's really where you're going to work out whether or not this protected area should be finalized. This just ensures that we get to the public process as quickly as possible, and the reasons; and the Minister's discretion is guided along a path that really spells out what could kibosh a nomination. If that candidate phase, the public weighs in at that point and issues significant concerns around how this thing is working, well, it could be adjusted because that's what determines the establishment.

This doesn't impact the ability of the Minister to effectively use that discretion. It just guides it in the way that's very purpose-specific to both the act, the principle of the act, the principle of the bill, the principle of the nomination period, and I think it's a useful improvement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It feels like we're hitting rewind here for a second time. We went through these motions in committee last week and they were voted down. Today, they're brought up again.

Mr. Chair, this imposes on government-to-government relations, especially with Indigenous governments in my area. Just in my home town alone, there's a national park and there's a marine protected area. That was developed with the community and co-managed between Inuvialuit and the Sahtu, and the territorial and the federal governments. All of these mechanisms are working and they're in place.

To take away the Minister's discretion on this, I think anybody could come from outside the territory and develop an area of interest, and to me, that's kind of scary from what's already working. The biggest thing for me is it imposes on the very things that we do. We're stewards of the land, as Inuvialuit. For other Indigenous people, I see that they are, and this proposed motion would take that away. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I'm not going to support that motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Next, we have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are a lot of additions on the recommendations that are not necessary. I believe that I would be satisfied that the Minister has discretion for the simple reason that, if the Minister has discretion, then this House has a discretion. This House here, we are elected Members. We are put in here by our Indigenous governments, the people we represent. We represent Indigenous people. We represent non-Indigenous people. Things like vexatious, frivolous, malicious, I don't think those type of words need to be put inside an act. I think that this is too descriptive.

I like the idea that the Minister has a discretion, that we're able as elected Members by the people of the Northwest Territories. I'm elected by people from the Akaitcho and I'd like the opportunity to sit in front of a Minister, whether it's this Minister or another Minister or a different MLA, have an opportunity to sit down with the Minister and discuss these things about the Minister's discretion. This will be necessary if we thought the Minister would go rogue.

As the clerk said, the Minister has certain rules to follow when he's exercising discretion. Some of those rules are including all Cabinet Members and a decision.

I feel that the way the act is written now, it's not too descriptive. It doesn't pin us into a corner, that these areas, where the Indigenous governments make under the (i) in the case of a nomination by an Indigenous government or other organization has no asserted or established Aboriginal right or title in a nominated area. Well, the Indigenous governments think they own title to all the land in the NWT, and that's why there are negotiations. That's why some of these lands had been negotiated. That's why there was a settlement in the Gwich'in. There was a settlement in Inuvialuit, and the Sahtu, and now, we're looking forward to settlement with Dehcho and Akaitcho. I feel that this restricts that, so I would be voting against this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next, we have Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have much more to add other than, first of all, I do want to say that I appreciate the efforts of the Minister's office in working with the committee in what we came to; that is outlined in the current version. Originally, there was, in fact, a lot less, call it, prescribed eligibility, and there was a lot more Minister's discretion in the original version, so we did come to some compromise. I want to appreciate the efforts that the committee and the department put in getting to the version you see.

However, that said, I also do recognize that the Minister did share with us some of the other outstanding concerns, and what the committee is trying to do. Sorry, not the committee in this instance, what the Member is trying to do, is outline some of those concerns. We can see here in the current version it says, if the Minister is satisfied that the area meets the purpose of this act and any prescribed eligibility criteria, what the Member is trying to do is give a little bit more definition to those prescribed eligibility criteria. It's based on essentially hearing from the department and what their concerns were. In this regard, I will be in support of this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have an understanding of the protected areas initiative, and having worked on it from a community perspective for some time, understanding the PAS, in some communities, believing the process, and committed that there was a positive outcome. My understanding of the process is that it used to be in my time, maybe it would be about 10 years ago, a seven-step process. About 10 years ago, some communities were trying to advance areas within their traditional lands. In the interim of a land claim settlement, they took the steps to involve both levels of government. It could be the federal government. It could be representatives from the GNWT solely, of course, led by the First Nations government. Sometimes, in instances for funding resources, bringing along third party NGOs. As an example, Ducks Unlimited has a common vision with Indigenous people to take on conservation initiatives. Out of memory, there were a lot of candidate protected areas that were waiting approval by governments, and that was 10 years ago.

I think with the proposed amendment, it brings some clarity in terms of the possibility of perhaps Canada's protected areas sitting on somebody's shelf and collecting dust or else perhaps maybe bringing upon negotiations between First Nations, industry, and government. I think it's good to be clear, and I think, with the proposed amendments, it brings the level of clarity in terms of the idea of perhaps, you know, yes, we could make a decision on a timely basis, but I think, with the proposed amendment, it brings the level of clarity in terms of how decision-making should happen. So, with that, I will be supporting the amendment. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I know, in my riding right now, I have a community that is looking at trying to get an area protected. They have gone through hoops, and Mr. Nadli is well aware of it and the challenges to move forward. People want clarity. They want to be able to understand exactly what it is, and so, at this point in time, I think we need to be respectful of that. I think this motion does help that.

As for the process, this is part of the process. It is. It was brought to committee. I sat back, and I listened to the committee. It did not pass committee, but it was moved back here. This is what the process is. The motion was defeated there but was brought here so people can speak and debate on it, so I want to make that clear so people understand where it is.

I have reached out to my leadership and told them what was being proposed, and I have not heard anything except that, moving forward with this, they have asked me to support this bill, so I am going to be supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion. Minister McLeod.

[Microphone turned off] ... get a chance to before. I do want to acknowledge the work that went on between committee and the department. We had 34 amendments that were proposed by committee. We accepted 30 of them. There were four we did not accept. Again, they were defeated, and they were brought down to the floor of the Assembly to have further debate on it, which is the right of this Assembly, and I respect that.

The act as written already ensures that the Minister will make transparent and accountable decisions on whether a nominated area can be considered by Executive Council for approval as a candidate area. The act now states that a Minister shall consider an area for approval as a candidate protected area, and those decisions regarding nomination must always be made in accordance with the act and in good faith. If the Minister rejects a nomination, they must provide written reason for that rejection to any nominating Indigenous government or organization.

The proposed list of exclusions was assembled in a matter of hours by departmental staff as examples for committee and by no means was put forward as an exhaustive list. It is simply not possible to have an exclusion list within the act that can reflect all possible scenarios. In the future, as we move into implementation, more guidance to the Minister can be made through the development of regulations to prescribe eligibility criteria. Such criteria shall be based on learned experience for implementation of this important piece of legislation. This is an appropriate and responsible path forward.

An example of a nomination that could not be rejected if this provision was accepted is a nomination made by one Indigenous government or organization that is not supported by another Indigenous government or organization with asserted or established rights in that nominated area, so, for that reason, we will not be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. To the motion. Seeing no one further, I will allow the mover of the motion to close debate. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote are: six in favour, 10 opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is defeated. I will call clause 10 again. Clause 10. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have another amendment I would like to propose. I move that subclause 10(6) of bill 38 be deleted and the following substituted: "(6) The Minister shall make a decision to accept or reject the nomination within 90 days of receiving the nomination," and the Minister shall provide written reasons or a rejection to any nominating Indigenous governments or organizations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I will keep this quite brief. I know our time is getting tight.

The effect of this motion is to remove the Minister's unfettered discretion as it currently reads in 10(6) and also put in a timeline for making a decision of 90 days. We heard one of the Minister's staff talk about how they accepted a decision to be made within months, and I think this just makes sure that we have a timely process by inserting a time frame for doing that. This is becoming common practice in a lot of decision-making, or sorry, a lot of legislation, including the Access to Information, the Protection of Privacy Act, where there are a number of timelines that are set out. There are a bunch of timelines set out as well in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, so this is just about ensuring a timely decision is made and that the Minister's unfettered discretion is removed. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.