Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of comments on this document. It’s a very complicated process that has been undertaken and I understand that the Minister of ENR, who is our responsible Minister as described in this process, is in a difficult position. He’s bound by several acts and the very contradictory provisions in them in regard to the whole Joint Review Panel process.
The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act certainly does not consider the animal that we call consensus government and that’s made it very difficult, I think, and it hampers the Minister’s, our NWT Minister’s potential to receive input. And it can’t be easy having to work with another party -- in this case the federal government -- to prepare a joint response. I would say that it’s difficult to work with another party at any time, but I don’t envy the Minister having to work with the federal government. They’re not my favourite partner. I imagine that it probably would be much easier to write a response by one’s self rather than having to find common ground for responses. It’s kind of like consensus government, I think. But it makes it all more important for our responsible Minister, the Minister of ENR, to fight for the best result on our behalf.
I don’t have the depth of understanding of the proceedings and of the recommendations that my colleague Mr. Bromley does, and I don’t believe I can articulate as detailed and considered analysis, but I believe that my comments have merit nonetheless.
At the outset, for me, it’s important to note that the exhaustive and, in my view, comprehensive Joint Review Panel report states that for the Mackenzie Gas Project to proceed and be successful, all 176 of the JRP recommendations must be accepted. I agree with that assessment. But the interim response that was posted on Environment Canada’s website on Monday, the overview of that response says, and I will quote, “While the governments’ endorsement...” -- governments meaning NWT and federal -- “While the government’s endorsement of the overall objectives of the recommendations submitted by the JRP in their report only 10 of the 115 recommendations directed to government can be accepted as written.” I was really very surprised when I learned of that information. I am pretty much shocked and dismayed.
The governments of Canada and the NWT further state that they propose to accept the intent of 77 of the recommendations that directly refer to these two governments, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada. They state they cannot accept them as written. Again, I have difficulty with that. So we have 115 recommendations, less 10, less 77, and that leaves 28. Well, what of those 28 recommendations? Well, the governments propose not to accept them; 28 because they are out of scope of the JRP mandate in their opinion, and eight are rejected outright, I feel really strongly that we should be -- we, as a GNWT government and we as Members of this government -- pushing hard to have all recommendations accepted.
I think the future of our Territory is at stake here. The impact of the Mackenzie Gas Project will affect the NWT for a very long time and we’re duty bound to get the best possible result from the JRP and the National Energy Board hearings both for our present residents and for our future residents, our children and grandchildren. The JRP recommendations are written to protect our people, our land, our communities, our Territory, and I really truly believe that.
So what of the statement that they accept the intent of 77 recommendations? It sounds pretty positive, Mr. Chair, but what really does it mean? I have no idea. Will there be language in the response which indicates actions on the part of our government? Language and resulting actions which are strong enough to accomplish the objective of the recommendations as it’s proposed by the JRP? I, unfortunately, have to doubt that that’s true. If the
government really was about to take some action relative to those recommendations where they’re accepting intent, then I think they would have said, yes, we accept the recommendation.
The interim response has a number of reasons why they can only accept the intent. They say that some recommendations fetter the discretion of future regulators, that some recommendations hinder future development, that many require financial resources for them to be implemented and that several recommendations impose unattainable guidelines. So if we look at these one at a time -- fetter the discretion of future regulators -- if a future development related to the Mackenzie Gas Project comes forward for approval, this is a related development, and it’s quite possible we’ll have that.
Don’t we want the applicants to be bound by the principles of this original project? I would say yes. Hindering future development, the scope and the pace of future development should be controlled. Why would our government not want a say in what affects our Territory down the road? That is what I hear this interim response saying: we don’t really care what happens in the future.
This is a huge project with huge impacts. The National Energy Board is going to approve the project for capacity for 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of gas. But these hearings only contemplated details for 0.83 billion cubic feet of gas per day, so there is a discrepancy of some 0.4 billion cubic feet of gas. Who is going to consider the implications of an expansion from 0.83 to 1.2? In my mind, it is a significant development, the impact of which is yet to be considered. The NEB is approving a project for 1.2 billion cubic feet, so any recommendations to the project should consider the total extent of the development at 1.2. I have to ask the question: do we want to leave it to somebody else to decide our fate? That is what I see we are doing by not accepting recommendations relative to future development.
The third one talks about requiring financial resources. Absolutely there is a need for money to implement these recommendations, particularly those recommendations that are related to potential social issues for our people and our communities. Yet our government is basically saying no to those recommendations and they are saying no because they are too expensive. I feel we should be using this process to negotiate for better financial resources to implement the JRP recommendations. They are not out of this world. I believe they are things we should be doing anyway. They are certainly things that we say that we want to do. We need to recognize the needs of our Territory and use this opportunity as leverage to get the resources we need to accomplish our goals. I believe those recommendations are part of our goals.
Impose unattainable timelines. That is another reason for not accepting. I would ask the question: don’t we all need a target? By not accepting these recommendations, the government is telling us that they are not important. So in not accepting them as written, will the NEB rewrite them with new timelines and targets? It is unknown. But if they are not rewritten with timelines and targets, the issue will no doubt fall off the table. No timeline, no target; there is no incentive for action.
Some of the recommendations which I believe are the most important are many of the ones in chapter 15 which is titled Economic Impacts, particularly ones about resource revenue sharing and transition planning. They speak specifically to things that will benefit our Territory if implemented. All of those recommendations in chapter 16 of the JRP report, Social and Cultural Impacts. The recommendations in chapter 18, which is Monitoring, Follow-up, and Management Plans, and chapter 19, which is Sustainability and Net Contributions, are also extremely significant.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the lack of opportunity for input by Regular Members on the NWT government’s response to the JRP recommendations I consider somewhat shameful. I hope that our Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, who has said that he will listen, is actually doing that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman