Thank you, Mr. McLeod. A motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Bill 15 has had second reading and stands referred to a standing committee.

---Carried

The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Dog Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Dog Act to:

•

prohibit a person from causing a dog distress;

•

enable an officer to take custody of a dog in distress or an abandoned dog;

•

enable an officer to apply for a warrant to

search a place, premises or vehicle where he or she has reason to believe a dog in distress is located, and in exigent situations, to enter a place, premises, other than a dwelling-house, or a vehicle without a warrant;

•

enable an officer to inspect a place, premises, other than a dwelling-house, or a vehicle for the purpose of enforcing the act;

•

increase the penalties for contravening the act and provide for other remedies the court may impose;

•

make consequential amendments to the

Charter Communities Act, the Cities, Towns and Villages Act and the Hamlets Act to provide authority to municipal bylaw officers to enforce the act; and

•

renumber provisions for convenient reference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. A motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the principle of

the bill. Bill 16 has had second reading and stands referred to a standing committee.

---Carried

The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Income Tax Act to facilitate a child tax benefit that is also applicable for shared custody arrangements. It also adjusts the dividend tax credit and deductions for corporations with foreign investment income. Minor amendments are made to update or otherwise improve terminology. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. A motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Bill 17 has had second reading and stands referred to a standing committee.

---Carried

The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Bill 18, An Act to Repeal the Settlements Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill repeals the Settlements Act and makes consequential amendments to other statutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. A motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Bill 18 has had second reading and stands referred to a committee.

---Carried

The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Monfwi, that Bill 19, Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Charter Communities Act, the Cities, Towns and Villages Act and the Hamlets Act. Amendments are made to clarify the process involved when the voters of a municipality, by petition, require council to either

make or not make a specific bylaw, including determination of the number of voters who must sign a petition, requirements for a petition and the exclusion of names from a petition. Amendments are made respecting the making of municipal grants. The bill also makes minor amendments to improve the expression of the three statutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. A motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Bill 19 has had second reading and stands referred to a standing committee.

---Carried

The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Evidence Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Evidence Act in respect of the use in legal proceedings of quality assurance records and information about the proceedings of quality assurance committees that examine health services. In addition, a number of minor improvements are made throughout the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. A motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Bill 20 has had second reading and stands referred to a standing committee.

---Carried

Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters. Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project; Tabled Document 30-16(5), 2010 Review of Members’ Compensation and Benefits; Tabled Document 38-16(5), Supplementary Health Benefits – What We Heard; Tabled Document 62-16(5), Northwest Territories Water Stewardship Strategy; Tabled Document 75-16(5), Response to the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project on the Federal and Territorial Governments’ Interim Response to “Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future;” Table Document 103-16(5), GNWT Contracts Over $5,000 Report, Year Ending March 31, 2010; Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act; Committee Report 3-16(5), Standing Committee on Social Programs Report on the Review of the Child and Family Services Act; Minister’s Statement 65-16(5), Devolution Agreement-in-Principle, Impact on Land Claims and Protection of Aboriginal Rights, with Mr. Abernethy in the chair.

I would like to call Committee of the Whole to order. Today in front of us we have Tabled Document 4-16(5), Tabled Document 30-16(5), Tabled Document 38-16(5), Tabled Document 62-16(5), Tabled Document 75-16(5), Tabled Document 106-16(5), Bill 4, Committee Report 3-16(5), and Minister’s Statement 65-16(5). What is the wish of committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The wish of the committee today is to deal with Tabled Document 75-16(5), Response to the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project on the Federal and Territorial Governments’ Interim Response to “Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future.” Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Is committee agreed?

Okay. With that, we will take a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I would like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Prior to the break we agreed to review Tabled Document 75-16(5), which is the Response to the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project on the Federal and Territorial Governments’ Interim Response to “Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future.” First on my list is Mr. Bromley.

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.

Thank you Mr. Bromley. General comments. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. In reviewing the report and the government’s rejection of the 28 recommendations, I think it is like anything else; it is just like reading a book and you take out 28 pages and you say continue to read the book and you’ll get the whole story, but I don’t think you can get the full story with these 28 recommendations being rejected by governments. I think, if anything, it basically eliminates the whole process of due process, allowing people the opportunity to speak their minds, raise their issues, and more importantly, ensure that the public would have an opportunity to make sure that the government, who will be ultimately responsible for the final outcome of this project, will make sure that those responsibilities are carried out and the obligations that we have by way of regulatory responsibility, and more importantly, obligations from governments.

I think the area that basically alarms me the most is the area that we have by way of land claims obligations. Mr. Chair, I think the thing that very much alarms me is the land use planning processes that are underway are being developed and ensuring that those plans under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act clearly stipulates that the land use plans will be the fundamental basis for management and development in the area of consolidating information and to allow compliance of those plans.

But yet, Mr. Speaker, one thing that we see in the agreements is that there is an area that has been extracted from those arrangements. More importantly, when we talk about sections of the agreements, especially in Section 11, which talks about those special management requirements and arrangements under land claims agreements, such as special management areas in the Mackenzie Delta, protected areas in the Sahtu, land use plans for the Sahtu, Gwich’in Land Use Plan and also the Dehcho Land Use Plan, in regards to the approval of those plans as the basis of any future developments in the North and taking them into consideration of how those developments are going to happen.

The area that alarms me is the whole area of harvesters' compensation agreements under Section 12, 12(2) to 12(3), 12(4), which very much is on the minds of most harvesters in the Northwest Territories. What will that do to their livelihood? What are we going to do when we continue to see the downgrade of the caribou? Where are we in regards to issues such as the protection of the

Woodland caribou under Section 10(6), the future development in regards to Woodland caribou? What we are seeing in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories in regards to our barren-land caribou should be sending alarm bells to the rest of the world, but yet that is one of the items that was taken out of the response to the report under 10(6). Again, especially when the Government of the Northwest Territories is saying it is responsible for wildlife management and wildlife responsibilities, to take that out of a document in regards to a recommendation in regards to the report clearly illustrates the reluctance to ensure the protection of endangered species in the Northwest Territories, and more importantly, the protection and well-being of the people in the Northwest Territories.

Again, falling back to the suggestion and recommendations of wildlife harvesters agreements, or harvesters compensation agreements, and under Section 12, it clearly illustrates the importance of harvesters compensation agreements and the effect that pipeline will have on the harvesting areas of aboriginal people up and down the valley and exactly what is going to be in place to ensure that these harvesters will be compensated for the effects of that pipeline, but more importantly, the mitigating effects that will come with it.

Again, I think it is important to realize that through the 28 recommended changes that this Government of the Northwest Territories, on one hand, is asking for devolution and saying give us the responsibility so we can show you exactly how we are going to manage the repairs of the federal government, and again under Section 15, 15(11), it talks about revenue sharing agreements and the recommendation of the report basically says that the Government of Canada sets aside 50 percent of the non-renewable resource revenues received from the Mackenzie Gas Project and hold it in trust for the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal authorities until such time as resource revenue agreements have been concluded among the three parties. It talks about the three parties, but yet right now we are only talking a party of two. The same thing applies to Section 15(12), in regards to translation plans.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I get an extra 10 minutes for that?

---Interjection

What? Five? I was just getting started.

Again Section 15(11) and 15(12) talks about resource revenue sharing agreements which they talk about setting aside 50 percent of those royalties.

The other issue that people have raised is the issue of what happens to the $500 million that the federal government was going to set aside for training for the duration of the pipeline and into future years. What effect would that have with the exclusion of the 50 percent set aside in royalty revenues for those type of royalty trust so we can fund those types of programs? More importantly, the transitional plan in regards to the responsibility of how we will see the transition from development, post-development and also in regards to future developments. Also in regards to the area, the royalty revenue sharing arrangements, Section 12(13) talks about the Northwest Territories identifying and allocating specific portions of the share of the non-resource to fund the mechanisms established pursuant to the panel recommendations in 12(15) in regards to how those are going to be. Again, that has been excluded from this report and by excluding that, it takes away the understanding that people have had that groups and territories will have a system of sharing of resource revenues and, more importantly, ensuring that they are able to benefit from these types of developments, but more importantly, protect the future well-being of the people of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chairman, moving on to Section 18(21) in regards to future developments, I think that is another one that has been excluded and also looking at the potential of other resource potential areas in the Northwest Territories to tie into this pipeline and also ensuring that there will be specific audits done in the future to audit this development and, more importantly, to ensure that there is a public process in place to ensure that there is an oversight of those responsibilities. The one that alarms me the most is Chapter 19, it talks about sustainable and net contributions from this pipeline and also the requirements of governments in regards to the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories to file these reports in regards to the general public in regards to the general recommendation ensuring that the recommendations that have been put forward will have an audited system by way of annual reports to the Parliament and also to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. I think that it is important that we do find ways to mitigate this arrangement, but more importantly, ensuring that the well-being of the groups are protected.

Again, Mr. Chairman, one of the other areas that I know they excluded the part dealing with the woodland caribou. As we all know, woodland caribou are presently being classified as endangered species. But also in Section 10(15), which again was taken out of the report, it talks about the future development of polar bears. I think we realize the threat the polar bears are under in

regards to climate change and future oil and gas developments, either in the offshore or Beaufort Sea will have on polar bears and the affects that will have with regard to this report.

Again, Mr. Chair, I think my quick oversight of some of the recommendations that have been identified, it clearly illustrates... I don’t think the public really understands the importance of these exclusions or rejections of these 28 recommendations. Just touching on a couple of those recommendations clearly illustrates the importance of these recommendations to the people I serve and, more importantly the harvesters, the people who do make their livelihood through harvesting off the land, the importance of the caribou, the importance of the waterways and the importance of the future developments in light of what’s happening in southern Canada with the major overhaul of the Fort McMurray requirements and what’s going on with the oil spill.

Again, it’s important to realize that we have not done justice to this report by simply gutting it and taking out the aspects and important elements of this by removing 28 recommendations. That really doesn’t do justice to the work that has been done, the public’s involvement in consultation and making their issues heard and not really taking them serious. Thank you.