Question has been called.

---Carried

Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends that the guidelines governing the use of laptop computers and hand-held electronic devices be set out in a document entitled Direction Regarding the Use of Electronic Communication Devices in

Committee of the Whole and that the document be attached as an appendix to the rules of the Legislative Assembly.

That’s the final motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Does committee agree that we have concluded Committee Report 2-16(5)?

What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report progress.

---Defeated

Mrs. Groenewegen, what is the wish of the committee?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry. We had indicated we would like to deal with Committee Report 1-16(5) and 2-16(5) and also Tabled Document 4-16(5).

Okay. We’ll continue with Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Ms. Bisaro.

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

Thank you. General comments in regards to Tabled Document 4-16(5). Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because the scope of the JRP is so broad and detailed and because this Cabinet has failed in its duty to provide the Members with adequate opportunity to provide input into this response, I will confine my comments to specific remarks on the most major recommendations and general comments on broad subject areas in the report.

I would first like to quote from the JRP report’s observation in the section Public Confidence and Government Preparedness. “Many participants in the panel’s review expressed a major concern about the readiness of governments to respond to and adequately manage the impacts of the MGP. As a result, many of the panel’s recommendations are directed to governments. The panel is generally satisfied that if these recommendations are adopted and implemented, governments would be effective in addressing the concerns to which the recommendations are directed.” The panel report went on to say, “The panel was provided with documentary evidence of criticism from independent sources of government shortcomings and delivering on its legislative obligations and its existing commitments and meeting the spirit of those commitments.” However, the panel did express its confidence in the potential for

government to act by saying, “The panel is also satisfied that if governments accept and act on the recommendations that are directed to them, governments would be ready and prepared in the sense of being able to respond to the challenges that the project would present. The panel is satisfied that implementation of its recommendations would address the issue of public confidence.”

Regarding government’s intention to step up to the plate on the JRP, I am extremely disappointed, as is Ms. Bisaro, by the statements in the two governments’ overview of the draft interim response stating that a mere 10 of the 115 recommendations -- that is less than 10 percent directed at government -- will be honoured. The overview emphasizes the intention to respond in a modified way to many recommendations. I will be looking for details to ensure the spirit and effect of the JRP recommendations are not diluted to meaninglessness through equivocation.

Again, however, Cabinet’s refusal to fully involve Regular Members in the review and in the development of responses is unacceptable. Without input into the acceptance, rejection or modification responses, Members have been locked out of one of the most important pieces of business ever considered by this Assembly.

Then there is the issue of the government’s NEB response. There are numerous recommendations in the JRP report dealing with the general issue that the proposal under review is for the development and shipping of 0.83 to 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The JRP recommendations repeatedly make the point that this is the extent of the review and no authority should be issued beyond these production levels without a later comprehensive review. The presentation of the GNWT legal counsel of the Inuvik NEB hearings contradicted this approach. I want to emphasize that this position is completely unacceptable. In all areas where the JRP recommends a limitation of authorities and approvals to a project for 0.83 to 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas per day, this government should heed that direction.

As I stated in my earlier general remarks, I also reject the government’s position regarding what is described as fettering of future discretion. The JRP is simply serving the requirements of the MVRMA and claims agreements that provide for Northerners to have their say in controlling the pace and scale of development and the necessity for addressing cumulative effects.

My next major comment deals with the issues covered in chapter 16 of the JRP report, Social and Cultural Impacts. This chapter, while the longest in the report with 26 recommendations, is a catalogue of the mostly negative social and cultural impacts anticipated to result from the project without

mitigation. These include the needs for closed work camps; measures to minimize negative interactions and spillovers of effects into communities; alcohol and drug abuse prevention; policy addiction and treatment measures; increased resources for policing including drug and alcohol enforcement; increased and coordinated health care services; the availability and expansion of homelessness, family and women’s shelters and seasonal weekend and day child care spaces; mental health and suicide prevention programs; elders’ care availability and service expansion.

Sections of other chapters also point out the need for financial arrangements with communities to offset the upsurge and demand for community infrastructure and resources. Clearly the JRP report anticipates a vast increase in the demand for critical social, family and human need services. What the JRP report is saying is that without a huge ramping up of both regular public services and the critical issues services and measures required to mitigate negative social impacts, the project will have disastrous social consequences for many citizens and our communities. In this area, government will not meet its responsibilities without taking on the full weight of these recommendations which means huge increases in costs. Unless the sources and amounts of these funds are assured and programs underway well in advance of project start-up, it will be irresponsible to allow these impacts to begin.

Environmental impacts are a huge area of concern dealt with largely in the recommendations of the report, chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18. The scope of these recommendations is too vast to be dealt with meaningfully in the short time available to us here. They are the product of detailed, expert and analytical consideration by the JRP and stretch across the interdependent web of our ecosystems.

In speaking to these recommendations, I want to again emphasize a single main message of the JRP in delivering its report; the project should only proceed if all these recommendations are met. This counsel is critically meaningful in matters affecting the project’s basin-opening impact upon fragile northern ecosystems, much of it in a precious, pristine state. This is our birthright held in trust by our governments for our citizens and, indeed, the world. This project must not proceed without thorough implementation of all the environmental protection measures outlined in the report. We have the opportunity and the JRP report has given us the detailed direction to try to write a new page in sustainable, environmentally responsible resource development. We have the opportunity to do it right.

I am calling on this government to meet its responsibilities and insist that all other parties meet their responsibilities by implementing the recommendations of the report dealing with the protection and management of such matters as

environmentally safe construction standards, air, water and soil quality, spill prevention and management, and environmental emergency plans, wildlife protection including management plans, critical habitats, endangered species and species at risk, fish and marine mammals, land use planning, habitat offsets and protected areas, and cumulative impacts monitoring and assessment.

Greenhouse gas issues are another major concern. I point specifically to the report recommendations 8.2, 3, 6 and 7. Recommendation 8.6 is critical, saying, “If federal regulations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act are not in place by the time the proponents make the decision to construct the MGP, the National Energy Board, as a condition of any certificate or approvals it might issue in relation to the MGP, require the proponents to establish, in collaboration with Environment Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories prior to the commencement of construction and in sufficient time to perform the final decision a greenhouse gas emissions target or series of targets basic program.” The report states the details of this program. Does the government’s response give notice that new NWT reduction targets are to be established this coming April? I point to the critical recommendation, 8.7, that before issuing any approval or certificate, the NEB, “require the proponents to include greenhouse gas emissions from their facilities in the Mackenzie Gas Project’s ongoing monitoring program and to report annually following the commencement of construction on the project’s achievements with respect to greenhouse gas emission targets.”

As a general counsel to government, I could not agree more to recommendation 8.8 that, “the Government of Canada develop and implement as soon as possible legislation and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada to meet or exceed existing national targets in the Climate Change Plan for Canada.” The recommendation involving transition to and increased reliance upon lower greenhouse gas producing natural gas directed to replace other fossil fuel sources is also essential. In all these cases I urge this government to fight for these measures as mandatory steps in its development of a joint response.

Mr. Speaker, I note the clock is running down. If there are others, I’m happy to give way. If not, I would ask permission to finish my statement.

General comments with regard to... Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, I want to say how important the economy is in the Northwest Territories and the opportunities and benefits that this project will bring directly to the people in the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories in terms of moving the economy and that

we certainly need, through this process, a need for a balance between the water, air and land and extracting resources from our land.

Mr. Chairman, this whole process is like a big octopus, there are so many legs all over you have to pull things together. What is more important, in terms of coordinating all these different boards and agencies and the different needs of the people down the Mackenzie Valley, they certainly spent a lot of money putting a report together, they heard a lot of people. I believe the budget was over $20 million for this stage here.

One of the most important things that I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that the people want to see our land use plans completed in the Mackenzie Valley. That’s very important. That’s very key to this project here. So I would support a strong implementation of all the land use plans that were developed through the Mackenzie Valley here and that first and foremost that our culture as people is protected, which I make note, Mr. Chairman, that our culture is our land. So that’s number one in the hearts of the people here.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we’ve come a long way from the 1940s when the CANOL Pipeline was constructed from Norman Wells to Whitehorse. It took 30,000 men and 13 months and it was done. In the 1980s we had a pipeline being built even though there was opposition. The pipeline did go through. There were certainly missed opportunities in terms of training and business for the people along the valley. Now, today, I think we learned enough to know what things are important to us; for example, as it’s stated in the recommendations. So I look forward to seeing how these recommendations are going to be moved along.

There are some tight deadlines in terms of working with the aboriginal governments, looking at some of the boards and agencies. Certainly, looking at the land claims, the land owners, and areas that need to be protected.

Mr. Chairman, the lessons we learned are right in our backyard in the Sahtu, in the Norman Wells oil and gas field with the Enbridge Pipeline. You can count on your hand how many people have been hired over the years with Imperial Oil, or maybe two hands, I should say, and what type of a record they have in terms of employment, training programs, environmental issues that we still face today in terms of the monitoring and the quality of our water and our air around the areas. We should really look at that in terms of getting a little stronger in terms of going forward with this initiative here.

I want to say that I look forward to this government here working on some of the recommendations. They are under a tight time frame in terms of some of the recommendations, but I will be supporting this government and the Minister in terms of moving this forward. The pipeline is an important economic

initiative for the people in the Mackenzie Valley; however, we need to make sure that our land use plans are done, they’re finished, and they’re enacted and implemented as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to continue my comments. I’ve listed a number that I’m hoping the government will fight for as some of the mandatory steps.

Regarding cost to government, the mitigation of social and environmental impacts resulting from the project will involve huge costs. I have urged our Ministers for some months to supply their estimate of the increased program costs that would result from the project and I ask for this again now. I’m sure the people of the Northwest Territories would love to hear this; they’ve been asking too.

The lack of participation, real participation and response of this government is incredible on this issue. I’ve also urged this government to enter into immediate negotiations with the federal government to identify and secure the major new sources of funds that will be available.

For the future, this government must vigorously support and pursue immediate negotiations on recommendation 15.11: “The governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories and the Aboriginal Summit continue negotiations towards settlement of an NWT-based resource revenue sharing agreement on a priority basis, and that such an agreement be finalized in advance of the National Energy Board granting the proponents Leave to Open. If an agreement is not concluded by that time, the panel recommends that the Government of Canada set aside 50 percent of the non-renewable resource royalty revenues it receives from the Mackenzie Gas Project to be held in trust for the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal authorities until such time as a resource revenue sharing agreement has been concluded.”

With this recommendation, the JRP has expressed the need for and desirability of the future assumption of resource revenue sharing by the territorial government. It is powerful recognition in support of this government’s aspirations and must be insisted by this government and in its full detail.

My time is brief and I’ll make short closing comments on the economic benefits and workforce development matters dealt with in the report and on this government’s completion of a socioeconomic agreement with the proponents. The SEA, in short, is not good enough by a long shot. It is, for example: not linked to a larger vision of sustainable future for the NWT; it does not contain even a general statement of support from the proponent on

devolution or revenue sharing; it does not contain hard and fast guarantees of economic benefits for citizens of the NWT; contains no sanctions or penalties if the proponent does not meet its voluntary employment procurement, training or other commitments; is unclear how the proponents’ targets apply to contractors and subcontractors; contains no firm residence requirement or commitments to affirmative action for women; contains weak, under-resourced and ineffectual monitoring provisions; and is little more than an update of commitments made by the proponents themselves in 2004.

Now that the details of the JRP report are known, we can proceed more intelligently towards negotiations of a meaningful specific agreement for ensuring socioeconomic benefits for our residents. We should do this in light of today’s announcement, as I understand it, that the Beaufort-Delta Health Board has been disbanded today reflecting once again our capacity challenges. And we’re going to ramp things up?

I agree. There are major, major challenges here. We should forget this agreement, this socioeconomic agreement, so called, and start from a new page now that we have the JRP’s excellent insights into our needs.

I also want to comment on the transparency and peculiarity of this public process. Well before these governments’ initial responses were drafted, the National Energy Board held its final public hearings to gather the comments of others with a critical stake in this outcome. These groups had to do that without knowing how governments would react so their comments could not be informed by the critical input of governments’ response. Worse than this reversal of process is the fact that we don’t know whether the government responses will be made public before they are sent to the National Energy Board so the public will have an opportunity to comment. I urge this government to ensure that its final response to the NEB is publicly released, preferably before it is... And just because the Premier is busy speaking to somebody else, I’m going to repeat this. If I can have the attention of the Premier for just a minute. I urge this government to ensure… Thank you. I urge this government to ensure that its final response to the NEB is publicly released, preferably before it is supplied to the National Energy Board. And most especially, I urge aboriginal governments, through their critical review of the joint government response, to help ensure the rigorous and comprehensive response the JRP indicated is required, is indeed put in place. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Krutko.

I’d like to move a motion to report progress.

---Carried

I will rise and report progress.