Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t attempt to repeat the title. I want to begin by pointing out that we are reviewing the Joint Review Panel’s letter of response today in Committee of the Whole only because the letter was tabled by a Regular Member, permitting this limited opportunity for public debate.

This government has again failed, first, to provide Members with regular updates, leaving Members to rely upon public registries to receive information. Second, it has failed to proactively provide opportunities for debate of this matter by Regular Members in this Assembly. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is not the spirit or the letter of consensus government.

The Joint Review Panel’s severe criticism of the interim government response is too lengthy and too detailed to present here in the time available, but I want to highlight a few of the most significant criticisms and observations in the JRP response letter.

The Joint Review Panel says in their letter, “Governments have qualified their acceptance of some recommendations to such an extent that the

difference between accept the intent and outright rejection is not easy to discern.” This speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman, but it is a particularly worrisome condemnation as it undermines any lingering hope for confidence in the government on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, further, “In the panel’s view, the generic wording of the government’s response with respect to funding is non-committal and provides no certainty that, where the intent of a recommendation has been accepted, there is any demonstrable commitment to implement it.”

Another quote, “The panel has reconsidered all of the recommendations that the governments are proposing to reject on the ground that they were ‘outside the scope of the JRP’s mandate.’”

“In each case, this panel disagrees with the government’s conclusions in this regard in each case.”

Another quote, “In the panel’s view, the argument that certain of the panel’s recommendations would fetter the discretion of future decision-makers is groundless. The panel reaffirms its recommendations directed to regulators with responsibilities for reviewing future facilities applications.”

Another quote, “there is little if any evidence to indicate the cumulative impacts on areas of ecological and cultural importance can be effectively mitigated as they occur.”

Again, if the panel’s recommendations are not implemented, then the panel cannot be assured that the GNWT will be able to fund its health, social and policing services and programs to address project impacts sufficiently or to plan for or fund a transition to a sustainable future.

Mr. Chairman, the panel says, “In the absence of further regulatory review of future developments that are not the subject of current applications but that would be required to support throughput on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline at a level of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day and above, the panel is of the view that the adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts of such developments could be significant. I should note that this is in direct opposition to the public submission made by the GNWT in the National Energy Board’s consult to modify proceedings in Inuvik.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, “...the panel cannot reaffirm its previous conclusion on the likely significance of the adverse impacts of the Mackenzie Gas Project in the Northwest Alberta facilities and their contribution towards a sustainable northern future.”

Mr. Chairman, these are just the headlines from the 16 pages of categoric and detailed dismissal of any confidence in the government’s interim response. What is the result of all of this? The JRP sums up

what the government’s failure to commit the recommendations means with a scathing statement. Again I quote, “The panel has concluded that, in the absence of implementation of its recommendations, and in particular those recommendations directed to the governments, the adverse impacts of the project could be significant and its contribution toward sustainability could be negative. In that event, the opportunity for the project to provide a foundation for a sustainable northern future would be lost.”

I want to call again on this government to take the Joint Review Panel’s criticism to heart and radically alter the context of its response from the positions outlined in the interim government response, but there is another side to this, Mr. Chairman. This situation is an enormous practical demonstration of where we are in philosophy and capacity when it comes to the resource agreement-in-principle and the devolution of resource management responsibility. We are proposing, through the agreement-in-principle, to become the stewards of our own resource birthright. We want to take on the responsibility for managing non-renewable and additional renewable resource development. We talk a lot about our commitment to sustainability and environmental protection. Let’s hold this response to the JRP report up against those aspirations. After almost five years and $20 million in community-based consultation combining the best in traditional, scientific and resource management knowledge, this government has decided that this process was largely meaningless. I don’t want to ignore the opportunity to change that interim position.

Mr. Miltenberger’s Minister’s statement of yesterday laid out the rationale for acting mirror resource management legislation to federal legislation and turning later to necessary tune-ups if the agreement-in-principle proceeds and is added to the final agreement. That is a statement of good faith and intent for what will be a detailed and, actually, laborious process. Here in the response to the JRP report, we have the biggest possible test case of what that good faith and commitment to process is all about. For the many people who committed their time, energy and faith to the joint review process, it hasn’t turned out to mean a lot. Now the government is poised to move from a specific project to all development and, as an example, the government’s review of the Mackenzie Gas Project is far from providing us with a good feeling about this proposal.

Again, I call upon this government to take note of the drastic criticism levelled by the Joint Review Panel upon its interim response and ask for radical revisions that uphold in letter and spirit the vast majority, not the least minority, of the Joint Review Panel’s recommendations. Please provide us with some evidence that the Government of the

Northwest Territories has the maturity and responsibility to seriously consider devolution of federal responsibilities to this government. Thank you Mr. Chairman.