Thank you. Minister.

Yes.

Member for Frame Lake.

Sorry, I got caught short there for a second. I'm trying to gulp down some water. I want to thank the Minister for that because there was a much longer list than what would have been -- what appears now in the bill.

But with that, Madam Chair, I do want to move a motion to amend clause 14.1, and I'd like to move it as follows: That clause 14.1 of Bill 74 be amended by

(a) renumbering that clause as subclause 14.1(1);

(b) deleting paragraph (d) and (e) of that renumbered subclause and substituting the following:

(d) any forest harvesting agreement entered into under subsection 25(1);

(e) any extension or variation of the wildfire season declared under subsection 28(2);

(f) all wildfire prevention and preparedness plans submitted to the forest superintendent under subsection 45(2), any such plans resubmitted under subsection 45(3), and any hazard assessments conducted under subsection 45(5);

(g) all permits and licenses issued under subsection 48(2), other than those that authorize the holder to undertake activities set out in that subsection solely for personal purposes;

(h) any prescribed information.

(C) adding the following after that renumbered subclause:

(2) Before publishing a forest harvesting agreement under subsection 1(d), the Minister may remove from the agreement any of the following information, the disclosure of which would be prohibited pursuant to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;.

(a) any ecologically or culturally sensitive information;

(b) any information harmful to the financial or economic interests of a party to the agreement.

(3) Information is not required to be published under subsection (1) if the information

(a) is prohibited from disclosure under an Act of Canada or an Act of the Northwest Territories; or

(b) is provided, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence to a person or body exercising powers or performing duty or functions under this Act, and is consistently treated as confidential information by the party providing the information.

Mahsi, Madam Chair.

All right. Members, because 14 -- clause 14 is its own and then 14.1 is a new one, we have to go back to clause 14. If Members agree with that one, then we're going to go to 14.1. I'll go back to you, Member for Frame Lake, and you can read your motion. So clause 14, does committee agree?

Clause 14.1, Member for Frame Lake.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, this is a motion that was moved in committee. The Minister at the time said that he was not able to concur with it because we had basically run out of time. If people have views about this, I would appreciate hearing them, but it was supported by committee in -- during the clause-by-clause review.

What this essentially does is add a few items to the list of information that is to be made public, and those are the forest harvesting agreements, and permits and licenses that would be issued for nonpersonal use.

We heard from the department that they didn't want all the permits and licenses issued because there was a lot for personal use, so we came back and said well, let's just -- we won't ask for those to be made public. We'll just ask for other kinds of permits and licenses to be made public. So that's the purpose for adding that one.

And on the forest harvesting agreements, I think the rationale from committee -- and I certainly supported this -- was that these are important agreements where we're giving rights to harvest lumber or timber to private interests, maybe even Indigenous economic development corporations, whatever, and because this is, you know, an agreement for harvesting that the public should probably know what is in that agreement because the government's negotiating isn't giving away those rights to some extent. At the same time, we recognize that there might be some information in those agreements that needs to be kept confidential, and that's the purposes of clause -- the second and third parts of the amendment I'm bringing forward here today. So it's really to expand that list of information that would be required to be made public.

And I think these are reasonable additions, and I think they're consistent with the kind of approach that was used in the last Assembly to create, in some cases very extensive public registries under the Mineral Resources Act, under the Public Land Act a lot more information is being made public. The public -- or sorry, the Protected Areas Act as well also has an extensive list of items that are being included on a public registry. So that's the purpose in bringing this forward, is to expand that list in the interest of transparency and accountability. And the argument might be made that this could happen later through regulations but I'm of the view that it should actually appear in the act because there's no certainty that it will actually happen in the regulations. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Member said, this is essentially the motion that was moved by committee. I supported it then, and I understand the Member's going to move to a couple motions that were already essentially moved by committee. I don't want to speak to the details of them. We spoke to them at committee, and the Minister responded. I guess I want to talk a bit larger about the process we're in now.

All of these motions and the motions we move, I don't think affect Aboriginal rights in any ways. I don't believe they go to the heart of what the technical working group tried to accomplish in the Forest Act. I do view them as kind of minor amendments putting obligations on a public government to be more public.

That being said, I can't find myself supporting them because I think it kind of undermines this entire process. We were fortunate to have a technical working group and a Minister work with us on committee to respond to a number of motions and make a number of amendments to the bills. And then I think now if the legislature essentially vetoes that process and says thanks for the negotiation, we're going to do it anyway, it kind of undermines everything we tried to accomplish here. And I think it puts the Minister in a tough spot where then at third reading, he has a bill that was not the bill negotiated at the technical working group and may, in fact, if, you know, these were substantive enough, just withdraw the whole thing and say I can't vote in favour of a different piece of legislation that I didn't concur with and I got instructions not to concur with.

Now, I know that in some way is kind of limiting the powers of this House, but to me it becomes a political calculation of when we should move motions that fail that committee again at third reading or Committee of the Whole. And to me, that is in very rare circumstances should we, as Regular Members who hold the majority, kind of usurp the negotiation process in committee. If that's what we're planning on doing, I think we're better off just reporting the bill not ready instead of kind of going around. And so that's my concern with passing all of these, is it then puts kind of an emergency meeting has to happen with the Minister and technical working group and say hey, you know those things you didn't concur with are now in the bill; where did you stand? Should I still be doing this? And god forbid, we then don't pass the Forest Act for the third Assembly in a row.

So I am very hesitant to move motions that did not get concurred with at the committee stage if the Minister was cooperative and if the department worked with us, and that is exactly what happened today. We had a lot of back and forth. We heard the reasons they didn't concur with them. I didn't always agree, but they were rational enough that it didn't cause me to think that we had to bring this motion and potentially undermine the entire process and all future negotiations on bills like this. So I can't be supporting these. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo what my colleague from Yellowknife North said. I want to respect the process of the intergovernmental working group in this. I think this is the exact example of where we did run out of the time at the end. I know that the Minister was open to having it go back, but we were just not able to have that fulsome conversation. It does speak to some of the motions we made -- or recommendations we made to have the conversations start sooner with the standing committee and having that be a lot more sort of fluid in that conversation back and forth between the three groups. And I think in the next one, we'll see that be even smoother and, as such, I won't be supporting this motion either. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As well, I agree with my colleagues as well that, you know, we -- if we can't have an emergency meeting on this, then -- to iron out the last details of this, I'm aware of what was being discussed on this bill. So as well, I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.

Well, this is a first process convention that we're doing with the working group of these various organizations and, at the 11th hour, we get this amendment. And for clarity, too, I'd like to know if the amendments were discussed with the working group? They were?

You just need to speak to the motion. So Member for Thebacha.

I don't have any comments on it.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question has been called. Oh, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not support this motion. The GNWT previously agreed to a standing committee amendment that enhanced Bill 74 by including mandatory provisions to make forest management information publicly available on a website. This motion proposed to add more details, or more items, but further analysis and engagement with stakeholders is needed to ensure that appropriate information is posted publicly. I recognize it's maybe appropriate to post more information publicly, which is why the bill allows for additional items to be prescribed in regulations. With the Chair's permission, I would refer to Mr. Brett Wheler to provide IGC's technical working group's perspective on this motion. Thank you.