Mr. Speaker, after determination is made whether we should go new construction versus renovating the existing facility, of course, it goes without saying that we will be consulting with the community of Aklavik on possible location and what they might like to see in the facility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s good to hear that the community will be consulted on any new facility.

The existing Joe Greenland Centre has a common area and a specialized bathing room that allows the Aklavik disabled seniors the opportunity to look

after their personal hygiene in a safe manner, with assistance from the home care workers.

Can the Minister tell me whether a new facility would have the same features in this plan? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we do need to build a new facility, we’d have to look at some of the options related to space for Health and Social Services. Obviously, we would be having discussions with the Minister and his department. We need to realize that this type of space would add to the overall cost, and again we would have to have discussions with the Department of Health and Social Services.

This is a service that’s being utilized in the community right now. Of course, the community, I think, would like to see this particular part of it carry on. We would like to do what we can to have the community residents stay in the community as long as possible without having to leave. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister tell me when he would expect construction to commence on the replacement of the Joe Greenland Centre? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are just doing the preliminary work and we are reviewing our options right now. Our plan would be, and it should be, to have a decision made very shortly here on renovation versus new. If we decide to go new construction, then I think it would be in the best interest of the community that we begin construction possibly next summer. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 8, written questions. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. Please provide:

1. the most recent information on caribou

populations for each NWT herd, including the status of management plans and the status of population surveys, both underway and planned;

2. information on the status of caribou harvests for

each NWT herd, including the actual take of animals according the harvesting quotas for each herd and including the sex ratio of animals

for each herd taken in relation to targets for harvesting;

3. information on who is measuring the harvests

for each herd and how this is being accomplished; and

4. information on what categories of hunters are

being provided with hunting tags for each NWT caribou herd.

Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have spent the better part of three to four months, with the help of research, trying to do a post-mortem analysis of the second largest capital project on the books of the GNWT. That is the Inuvik E3 School. This proved to be a daunting task and one that spawned much resistance, resentment and personal attack on my character.

The role of the MLA is not easy and at times we uncover or unearth some truths that happen behind the four walls of government. We have a duty to expose such findings, even at the risk of persecution by special interest groups, businesses and some members of the community governments.

I want to say on record, who wouldn’t want to congratulate the people of Inuvik and surrounding area, the community leaders and members, education administration, teachers and students, with the announcement of the new school? How would someone question the need for a proper facility to enhance our culture, provide endless possibilities for our students and give every opportunity to our children?

These are not the issues anyone is challenging, as there is not a soul in this House that is questioning this premise. I can tell you that everyone here is proud to be opening this new facility. I, for one, am one of those in support.

So if we’re not asking the aforementioned questions, then what questions should we be asking? What should we be asking now at the completion of this project? Did we act on this project in a way that was transparent and accountable? Were we good stewards of the public purse? Did we protect the public interest? Did we use the proper competitive procurement guidelines? Did our Negotiated Contract Policy stand up to the rigors of a large-scale project design like this? What did we learn to prepare us for large upcoming projects like the Inuvik-Tuk

project, the fibre optic project and the Stanton Territorial project, just to name a few?

These guiding principles or questions are what were used as a baseline for the analysis of the E3 School project. In fact, my past dealings with any project in this House has been with the same measuring stick or lens in design, and I would treat every project, large or small, with the same careful analysis of detail and design, and in doing so, I believe I have been thorough and fair in all of my assessments.

In this House we have undoubtedly heard many times too numerous to count, that this project was “under-budget and built one year ahead of schedule.” In fact, it’s almost with a degree of sarcasm that if you are presented with a claim or statement often enough and with such repetition that it must be true. Right? So it is only fitting that I start my journey with this repetitive statement, which many of us have heard in the past couple of weeks. The term “under-budget” is a very broad statement used in the industry and its definition of sorts can be used to validate almost anything you desire. To prove this point, let me walk you through a brief chronology of this school project.

In 1999-2000 year, the Sir Alexander Mackenzie School was approved in the GNWT’s capital plan with a total budget of $6.3 million. It was identified even back then that the foundation of this school and most of the building had reached its end of service life and that a simple renovation was not feasible. So at that time, ECE began to develop and plan for the school’s replacement. During the next five years, there were over eight attempts of project designs, options, schematic details and construction cost estimates that propelled the original estimates from $18.5 million to $25.3 million, all the while with limited information on the overall scope or approach to the project. Then in 2005-2006 both schools were included as one project in the capital plan at $35.3 million. On October 25, 2005, then-Premier Floyd Roland introduced a supplementary appropriation in the Assembly with reference to advancing “a joint design for the two schools.”

By the 2006-2007 year, the combined costs had risen to $64.1 million. Then in the 2007-08 year, the costs, of course, were forecasted at $76.3 million. In the 2008-2009 year, the expected cost rose to $79.9 million. One might want to pause for a second to ask why did we see such cost escalation during this period of time when really no construction work was being undertaken. This is a good question.

Actual construction costs use a type of agreed upon escalation or market escalator during every construction season. This is used as an estimate for construction and is based on information provided by northern building contractors,

researchers, market conditions, availability of raw materials, review of bank analysis on lending rates and consultations with surveyors across western Canada.

So in other words, the GNWT would forecast these expected costs during the design and build of this project to not exceed an inflationary increase of blank percent over a said construction period. This is what forecasters could also conceivably call a buffer of sorts. Although there is a bit of science to this number, it is by and large a direct result of actual construction comparables within a closed market environment. In other words, the GNWT will base a number of similar projects, square foot, type and design, and crunch a comparison number of a guess on price increases in that market.

It was important that I spend a moment to define market escalation, as we will come back to this market escalator a little bit later in my presentation.

So getting back to the chronology, in September of 2008, the Infrastructure Acquisition Plan showed that the two schools to be combined into one project with a total cost of $115.4 million. Then in Hansard for October 8th of 2008, of that year, the

deputy minister of Finance informed the House that a request for a negotiated contract had been reviewed and approved and that the GNWT was working with the contractor. The public was informed then that just the construction cost was brought down from $110 million to just under $100 million. This new announcement came on the heels of the new capital planning process for new projects, which we learned then to be called Class C estimates. In essence, this new Class C estimate was supposed to be, in the words of the deputy minister of Finance on October 16, 2008, “…so that we have an understanding about what the scope of work is and what is it going to cost…to get a really good idea about what it is we are building and how much it’s going to cost.” However, this was the first time Public Works and Services was to use the Class C estimate process for such a large-scale project. So there were many areas of concern whether or not it was truly going to pass the smell test.

What the Department of Public Works and Services told many was the most critical elements in pricing for a good C class estimate strongly depended on the market prediction or escalation used by the GNWT. In this case, the awarding of the contract for construction of this new school, the cost escalation for its various components used was a colossal 50.5 percent over the three years from the 2005-08 seasons. Let me repeat this number again, 50.5 percent.

So to put that in perspective, let’s say I was getting a wage of $50,000 in the year 2005. By virtue of this market rate escalation writer, by definition the GNWT proposed that I should receive a wage of

over $75,000 by the year 2008. Nice as this would sound, it defies the premise of consumer price index for any inflationary statistics that we know to be true. The sound and rational person would have a hard time believing how the price of a 2 by 4, electrical tape or cement can go up 50.5 percent in three years. Mr. Speaker, many of us have a hard time fathoming this number.

Then again, were there other mitigating factors that could have conceivably affected this so-called huge increase of market escalation that could have affected the estimate awarding and a negotiated contract for this new school? The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Remember what I indicated what also affects market escalation? The answer is the use of comparative buildings or similar design. In this case Public Works and Services did provide a comparison of costs for various new schools that were used in this market escalation calculation. It may be relevant to indicate that three of the five new schools listed for market comparison were built by the very same proponent that was awarded the negotiated Inuvik school contract. Of the three schools built by the same proponent, Tulita was an open tender with two bidders, Ecole St. Cyr was a tender with two bidders, and Fort Good Hope was an RFP with two bidders.

So all I’m saying is, here we have five new schools that uses a comparison in which three were built by the same proponent that received the negotiated contract. Out of the three schools used, they only had two bidders. So did the GNWT have a good database of comparative and competitive similar schools to make a sound market escalation calculation? Some would argue no.

So if the waters weren’t muddied before, the mere suggestion of a 50.5 percent market escalation comparison in coming up with a final price for the East Three School should boggle the mind of the average person. The question bears asking, did the lack of real solid tendering artificially raise the market escalation in favour of an out of control, heavily priced product in the negotiated process? We will never know the answer to this question.

If the waters aren’t muddy enough, for some strange reason we see a supplementary appropriation No. 2 for 2008-2009 for Education, Culture and Employment for a negative amount of $6 million for what we refer to as a reallocation towards Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Samuel Hearne Secondary schools in Inuvik. This was, in essence, for a site remediation of these two schools that was to be included in the 2009-2010 budget. I must admit, when this term was brought up by myself and discussed recently with the Department of Public Works and Services, I have yet to receive a rationale for their reallocation of this money into the project and whether or not this amount has been truly factored into the costs of the overall

budget and project. I will leave it to the department to explain to the public what this negative supplementary appropriation was used for, where the money flowed from and how this affected the total whole project cost.

I’m nearing the end of my chronology of this project and, again, I want to stress the ever important terminology that we’ve heard time and time again from many in this House, and that term is “under-budget.” Now, with the explanations that I have brought before this House today, can one really say, with any degree of certainty, that the taxpayers received a product that was under-budget? I guess we would have to agree first what was the budget to begin with, as it is clear that it was truly a moving target for almost six years. However, even if we begin to believe this under-budget claim, the market escalation also used begs scrutiny. At over 50.5 percent in the three years of design-stasis and the perceived over-weighted aspect of one proponent used in the calculation, how is one able to believe that fairness and transparency were indeed used in a market escalation? Again, we may never know the true answer to this question.

Let’s return, shall we, to the other claim of this building being built one year ahead of schedule. To do so, let’s take a moment to review the contract reporting for the main construction contract that was awarded for the Inuvik E3 School. Now, the information on the awarding of the construction negotiated contract to build the Inuvik E3 School is not available on the GNWT’s contract opportunities website. It is, however, listed at $92,277,197 in its 2008-2009 contract report. Unfortunately, details and the data of the contract are not available in this contract report. However, upon further investigation, I as a Member have been granted access to information that sheds new light on this contract, timelines and the original contract of established dates and substantial completion and a revised construction schedule.

While since the GNWT has never tabled this document, we cannot discuss such findings. Too bad, Mr. Speaker, as I think many would find this information enlightening. Therefore, until the department tables the negotiated contract that was used for the construction of this project, we will never truly know what terms were used for the date of substantial completion of the building, nor will we truly know the revised construction completion date that was negotiated behind closed doors.

So again, Mr. Speaker, the term completed one year ahead of schedule is a great term to throw around, but until this document emerges, how can one validate this claim?

Mr. Speaker, colleagues and citizens of the Northwest Territories, I want to thank you for your patience as I tried to reveal the story of this project through the lens of a Regular Member. Even after

the proposed Inuvik-Tuk highway, this school infrastructure will still be the second highest cost project on our books invested by taxpayers. So it was important that we take a minute to review and evaluate it for what it was and not dismiss some of the obvious questions many still have.

Again, this investigation was never meant to diminish the need for proper learning facilities in our various communities, but does use the appropriate measuring stick showing there could have been savings and design used for other school infrastructure or programming needs for our residents.

Mr. Speaker, in the end, I truly hope the Minister and the Department of Public Works and Services are listening today, and I hope, for the sake of all residents, that this Minister and this department open this project for a formal review and table a complete forensic audit for everyone to see. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Colleagues, I have two more Members that have their names forward for replies to opening address, but I will call a five-minute break. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to use this opportunity to highlight a couple of topics important to my riding.

Firstly, I just wanted to let our government know to continue to pay attention to Nahanni Butte as they rebuild from the flood and patiently wait for their community to get back together.

I spoke in this House how important it is to repair the access road to the community, and I again ask the Department of Transportation to ensure that all contracts and planning are prepared beforehand so that repair work can begin as soon as physically possible. This is a critical role for Nahanni Butte and we must take it seriously. Several years ago when Yellowknife did not have a bypass road and the highway got shut in for about six hours, the panic was huge from the residents. They were actually getting stir crazy. That was only for six hours. My constituents have been shut in for six months. I pride their patience and, once again, ask Mr. Ramsay, the Minister of the Department of Transportation, to ensure that repairs to this vital access road happen sooner than later.

As well, by virtue of our involvement in the Business Development Investment Corporation, we technically have responsibilities for the replacement of the store that’s in Nahanni Butte. Be assured, it must be replaced or repaired. The community

needs certainty as to when that store will be replaced.

Also, the school children and schooling was very concerning to me as the school was the temporary band office there. I’d like to see this space be returned to the school.

Another way the community was impacted in one small way was that they still don’t have a radio in Nahanni Butte. No CKLB, no CBC. In future disaster planning, how can we reach out to communities when radio access is part of our emergency planning? That’s a communications aspect of it. I’d like to see some work being done in that area as well.

Also, sadly, there has been resistance by our government and government departments to allow some claims. This is concerning. Residents lost skidoos and other small engine equipment, chainsaws, et cetera, that may not be allowed a claim because they are not classified as a trapper. This is a disaster, an act of God, a flood that affected everybody. Replacing our residents’ losses should be a priority, not giving them a no. It is bad enough that they were impacted.

Another huge topic for residents is they really do want to begin discussions on relocating the community. We as the government have always known it was in a flood plain. Floods have occurred before, but not as severe as this latest one in June. Residents do fear that it can happen again. They do want to see some relocation plans, options and strategies. I believe we must continue to take the community seriously and it’s a long-term solution, as well, that will require some financial resources dedicated to it. Floods cost money to repair, and planning for a relocation I think is money well spent. I believe the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs will be travelling with me to the community in December and I look forward to having a great discussion with the community about the seriousness of it. Not all residents want it, but I believe at least we should have a look at it.

The government has committed to do a post-mortem on the evacuation procedures and the disaster. I look forward to getting that and sharing that with the community. I don’t know if it can be done by our December visit there, but I would sure like to have an evaluation of how the disaster was handled. The community leadership did point out that I think it was the Housing Corporation did not have an actual disaster relief policy and I think that surely should be addressed as well.

Once again, in closing, I just wanted to say that the needs of the community of Nahanni Butte, it’s taken a long time to put their community back together, and I just want our government to pay attention and make those few small changes and address some of the concerns. People have lost things and it’s

even more hurtful for our government to say no because of some rule or guideline procedure.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re 13 months into the mandate of the 17th Assembly,

nearing one-third of our term when we meet next in February. Today I would like to expand on my earlier assertion that this is the Assembly that studies much and does little in hopes of reversing this fact.

On Friday the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation announced the beginning of consultations on a new Energy Plan. Once completed, this plan can be added to the Biomass Plan, the Energy Priorities Framework of 2008, the Hydro Strategy and, of course, Creating a Brighter Future, the 2010 report that culminated in a massive review of NTPC power rates. The new Energy Plan will, presumably, be complementary to the Greenhouse Gas Strategy which has yet to result in any rollback outside the GNWT’s limited operations in the increase of greenhouse gas production. Meanwhile, electricity rates are soaring, we’ve taken firm steps backwards from controlling our energy costs by cuts to renewable energy programs, and there’s a distinct lack of progress on the one pilot co-generation system promised in the Biomass Strategy.

We’re several years and one comprehensive study – at least one – on considering community midwifery services. Despite the benefits in patient care and cost savings demonstrated in our expensive ruminations, we have eliminated one of the two community midwifery programs we have, but we plan to introduce more sometime later.

Bulk drug purchasing. There’s another important area of study.

The Early Childhood Development Framework has been dragged forward through three budget cycles and we are still studying that one.

We completed a client satisfaction survey on income assistance but, as we heard Friday, we are still unable to put cheques in the hands of the impoverished with any dependability.

The Student Financial Assistance Review, also long overdue, is still being reviewed.

Our mental health courts and Mental Health Strategy are supposedly rumbling forward. That is, we are doing yet more planning and gathering of information.

In the area of addictions, an area where we of the entire country should have beaucoup expertise, we

have created another forum on addictions soon to start its work.

We are embarking on a study and consultations for a Land Use Sustainability Framework, even while the environmental management regime we will inherit is being mangled to nothingness by the federal government without so much as a by-your-leave from us.

We are embarking on the next Economic Development Strategy and the Mineral Strategy with consultations upcoming.

We are carrying out consultations on fiscal strategy even though that was set in stone last February and its strictures are now strangling needed program improvements that would save us money in the long run.

Looking into it, exploring, researching, considering options, reviewing – the list goes on and they’re rarely followed up with action verbs on what we will actually do. We have made progress in finally putting the Deh Cho Bridge boondoggle to rest, although the tower of death and lost opportunities will be with us for a long, long time. Unfortunately, any lessons learned there have been cast into the bottom of the next money pit: the Inuvik-Tuk highway for which we are now 13 months and almost $12 million into planning.

One-third of the way through our term as of February, and we have as yet not brought one substantial piece of legislation to the floor of this House. Several observations can be made on this state of affairs.

First, departments still seem to be struggling with attempts to break down silos.

We’re moving forward on development of an Anti-poverty Strategy, and that’s good. The basis of that effort is the need for a coordinated cross-government approach to program development, delivery and evaluation. It’s a lesson that can be applied equally across all our programs.

It’s taken a mighty effort to get our Education and Health department players at the same table on the early childhood work.

As I said, the linkages aren’t being made between support for renewable energy programs and the continuing hemorrhage of taxpayer money into buying down electricity rates all under the general topic heading of “cost of living.”

In this area what we are talking about is government – all of government – taking an entirely new and integrated approach to doing business. That’s a tall order, I admit. In this environment of supposed austerity, it is essential, if we aren’t going to continue putting off preventative measures that would save us money in future program delivery.

Here I hand it to our Cabinet, they are working hard to work with cross-departmental issues and

demolishing the long-standing silos that have resulted in opposing policies. Unfortunately, despite the effort, we are still floundering with our attempts to break these down and failing in our reach for effective results. The opportunity here is for management to deal with the situation. That is, for our Premier to step in and tune up integrated approaches to be more timely and effective. Often a lead Minister treats an issue with priority, while other Ministers, whose coordinated effort is required, do not. There is an entrenched reluctance and lack of traditional process to work in an integrated way across departments and in full cost-accounting ways. I am not saying this will be easy or that it can be done without resources, but something obviously needs to be done to capture the preventative approach we desire.

That’s the other big area to be emphasized. We are failing in prevention. In areas such as family violence, midwifery, mental health diversion courts, early childhood development, addictions treatment, cost of energy and increased renewable energy alternatives, we are not spending the money today to prevent continued and mounting costs later.

A lot of this I credit to the myopic view with respect to devolution. How many times have we heard that until a bounty of new funds flowing under devolution is in our hands, we can’t afford anything new? I always treat this explanation with extreme caution for two reasons. First, the money coming under the Devolution Agreement is too little for the programs we will be delivering. Rather than a blessing of new resources, we will be scratching around for funds once the reality of that underfunding sinks in. As I’ve said, the federal dismemberment of the environmental regime is going to see us even more desperate for funds when or if we try to shore up the damage.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the opening address. Almost one-third of our way through our term, we need to do a bit of critical navel gazing to assess what we are achieving in relation to our goals. I do not see big improvements for our people in today’s society and with today’s trends. In many cases I see their challenges mounting. We need to recognize their challenges and begin putting new policy in place and implementing it in a way that meets these concerns and that begins to undercut the key militant expenses that accrue when prevention is missing in action.

I will be seeking the support of my colleagues and Cabinet to get obviously needed and straightforward programs in place and implemented rather than continuing to study them ad infinitum. Let’s examine our performance and start implementing programs that will meet our public needs and expectations.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 5 on the Order Paper.

---Unanimous consent granted

Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to recognize my son Malachi Ramsay in the audience. It’s his birthday coming up on Wednesday and he’s going to be turning five years old, so I’d like to welcome Malachi. His little brother, Elijah, is with him, but I believe he just had to use the facilities and he’ll be back shortly. I’d also like to recognize my new executive assistant, Mr. Ryan Strain, as well.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to provide its Report on August 2012 Hydraulic Fracturing Study Tour: Towards a Policy Framework for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northwest Territories and commends it to the House.

Introduction

The emerging shale resource play in the central Mackenzie Valley has the potential to bring unprecedented economic activity and prosperity to the Sahtu region and the Northwest Territories as a whole. These oil and gas resources must be extracted through the use of the horizontal drilling process and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing, used to extract hydrocarbons from deep subsurface shale. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has attracted worldwide attention and continues to be the subject of much publicity and environmental concern. Northern regulators have recently received applications to hydraulically fracture exploratory wells in the Sahtu.

In August 2012, Members of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, and Sahtu Member of the Legislative Assembly, Norman Yakeleya, traveled to Calgary with the territorial Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment and departmental representatives on a hydraulic fracturing study tour. Members received presentations from the minerals, oil and gas division of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; Husky Energy; and all proponents in the central Mackenzie Valley shale play: TriCan Well Services, the National Energy Board, the Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta (ERCB), and the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission. The committee also visited a gas plant and well site in the Kananaskis area west of Calgary.

Prior to the study tour, the committee sought to establish a basic understanding of the hydraulic fracturing process and the status of drilling activity and regulation in the Northwest Territories and other jurisdictions. The committee met with the departments of Industry, Tourism and Investment and Environment and Natural Resources, as well as the Pembina Institute, to discuss the possible implications of hydraulic fracturing in the Northwest Territories. The goal of this research has been to gain an understanding of the technical, environmental and regulatory aspects of unconventional resource extraction in order to contribute to the development of a responsible policy approach to hydraulic fracturing in the Northwest Territories. The committee would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank all organizations and individuals for their significant time and effort in meeting with Members, engaging in meaningful discussion, and sharing valuable knowledge and expertise. The committee has discussed the findings of its research and prepared this report and recommendations for the Legislative Assembly.

It is well beyond the scope of the committee’s mandate and capacity to comprehensively address all aspects of hydraulic fracturing and its related regulatory processes. Although the committee highlights some areas of specific concern, the main intent of this report is to provide broad recommendations for policy development.

I would now like to turn over the reading of the report to my colleague Mr. Robert Bouchard, MLA for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Bouchard.

Regulatory Considerations

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as Aboriginal governments with settled land claims, have authority in areas such as air quality and wildlife. The Government of the Northwest

Territories is currently negotiating increased management authority for land and water. The committee recognizes the current Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act as a strong federal law, designed by Northerners, that allows for control of the pace and scale of development. A policy on hydraulic fracturing is needed to supplement provisions in the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act that respect cultural and ecological values.

Until a Devolution Agreement is reached, the National Energy Board and federally legislated land and water boards will continue to regulate the Northwest Territories’ oil and gas industry. Prior to devolution, it is important that the Government of the Northwest Territories has input into this process based on sound, publicly supported policy. There are strong signals that, post-devolution, the Northwest Territories will continue regulatory activities through a service agreement with the National Energy Board.

The future of the shale industry in the Northwest Territories largely depends on the regulatory system. The Northwest Territories’ current regulatory process is frequently criticized for various reasons. Through meetings with the National Resource Conservation Board of Alberta and the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, Members learned how industry activities can be effectively managed under robust regulations. Both British Columbia and Alberta demonstrated how single-window permitting accelerates regulatory time frames without totally compromising thorough review, industry oversight, consultation with First Nations, and respect for cultural values. The committee recognizes the importance of requiring industry to disclose its activities, establishing regulations for each step of a drilling operation, and the benefits of developing a lifetime regulatory system, from the time land tracts are granted to the time the last well is capped and abandoned.

Recommendation 1

The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories develop a policy framework on hydraulic fracturing that will guide interim input into regulatory processes and form the basis of a future regulatory system post-devolution, and further that the Government of the Northwest Territories consider the examples of other jurisdictions and adopt best practices where applicable.

I will now turn the floor over to my colleague Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Mr. Blake.

Environmental and Technical Considerations