Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, we have Mr. McNeely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the whole area of consultation, engagements, feedback, publication and awareness, environmental protection, it leads me up to a few comments and highlighting some of the initiatives undertaken by the Sahtu Regional Organization in the area of just recently preserving the Rampart Wetlands. There is a stewardship training program under way, and the recognition of the Great Bear Lake biosphere is another initiative.

The jobs related to preservation and environmental stewardship give me comfort that it's a collaborative effort. This department has engaged with several organizations, including the PW Technical Working Group. That venue is being utilized and exchanging of information and incorporating concerns moving ahead for environmental rights protection. I am confident that this work has done its job in collaboration with stakeholders. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McNeely. I'll take that as a comment. General comments? Does committee agree that there are no further comments?

Thank you. Can we proceed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill?

Thank you. Committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. There are 24 clauses in the bill. We will consider the clauses individually. Please turn to page 5 of the bill. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 17 inclusive approved

Clause 18. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have some questions that I would like to ask the Minister on clause 18.

This is the part of the bill where a statement of environmental values would be created by the Executive Council. Section 18, though, provides that a Minister of a department or an agency shall take every reasonable step to ensure that a statement of environmental values prepared or amended under section 17 is considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made by the department or body. Can someone explain to me how that determination of significantly affect the environment will be made? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.

Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate the response, that is not what I actually asked. I said: how will the decision be made? Is there a set of criteria? How will a determination be made, whether something significantly affects the environment? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.

Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is interesting, because there is now some significance criteria actually incorporated into the bill as a result of an amendment that the Minister accepted during clause-by-clause review. Clause 9 has now been amended, providing some criteria for the Minister to consider when determining whether something is likely to cause significant harm to the environment. They include, as now provided for in the bill, magnitude of the effect; geographical area of the affect; duration of the effect; degree of reversibility of the effect; nature of the effect; likelihood that the affect will occur; sensitivity of the receiving environment; and any other factors that the Minister considers relevant.

This was not something that the committee itself had cooked up. These were developed by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board to help guide them in making significance determinations, and they have been in use now for a while. We felt it was helpful to have some kind of criteria to help make that kind of decision. The Minister has now accepted those criteria in making a determination about whether there is going to be significant effects, harm to the environment, and whether an investigation should be carried out into it.

I guess what I am hearing, though, is that the Ministers and the heads of departments, in deciding whether something significantly affects the environment, there are no criteria. It is all going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure that that is a great place for us to be.

I am not sure if my friends at the witness table have anything else that they would like to add. I am hoping that we can probably move beyond just a case-by-case decision. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Kelly.

Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I don't agree, and I'll be bringing forward a motion, if I may, then, with regard to clause 18.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 39 be amended by:

(a) renumbering clause 18 as subclause 18(1), and striking out "Minister of a department or" and substituting "Minister of a department referred to in paragraph 17(1)(a) or the" in that renumbered subclause; and

(b) adding the following after renumbered subclause 18(1):

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in considering whether a decision might significantly affect the environment, the Minister or deputy head shall consider the factors set out in paragraphs 9(2.1)(a) to (h).

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.