Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just this morning our Minister of ITI was interviewed on the radio, stating that fracking is absolutely a safe practice, in spite of only being on the job of regulating our oil and gas industry for a couple of months, and in spite of a report commissioned by Environment Canada stating that we as a country do not know enough about fracking to determine if it is safe. He then said that his department needed some time to consult the public and develop new regulations.

First of all, this Minister is the regulator. As a regulator, it is his role to weigh the evidence presented and then make a decision. It is not his role to publicly speak about what is safe and what is not safe before he has seen the evidence. He is obviously not experienced in his new role, and a pause in the fracking application would give him time to get used to the idea that he is now speaking as a regulator and not a cheerleader.

Second, the Minister has stated that his department needs time to consult with the public as it develops new fracking regulations. This is exactly what this motion is asking for: time to properly consult the public, starting with the big questions and then getting to the details.

A thorough public review and environmental assessment are overdue and it shouldn’t have

come down to this. Unlike just about every jurisdiction I know, we are pushing forward without any attempt to seek a social licence through a comprehensive consultation of this controversial technology from our residents. All across Canada and around the world, governments are calling moratoriums positive, while they take more time to review the evidence and consult with the public. The cost of a thorough and public review and assessment is modest, especially when compared to the risks, but necessary for sound planning that puts a firm hand on the directions, face and scale of exploitation with backing from all residents, not just a few business owners that stand to benefit the most.

The ConocoPhillips project went ahead partly with the understanding it would be closely monitored and reported upon, but where are the evaluation reports we were led to expect? We all heard about the many close calls, the jackknifed trucks that produced water, the onsite accidents, the water and sewage spills. We know there is massive flaring of gas happening, but there is no inclination of what kind of gas, efficiency of flaring, how much greenhouse gas emissions and what type is occurring. How do we know that the wells are not leaking? What will be the long-term integrity of the wells? Were the lakes drained, and so on? People have many questions.

Currently, Husky has pulled out for the next two years and ConocoPhillips is applying for 10 fracked wells to be conducted in two or three years, so there is a timely lull in fracking activity for a year or two. This provides an opportunity for serious and comprehensive public review and environmental assessment. To be clear, we are not talking about a review of regulations. The issues to be dealt with first are bigger than this. People wish to learn more and have their questions clearly stated and answered and views considered before going ahead with fracking. We need to listen to the people.

We are currently dealing with a fourth application to conduct horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the NWT. The first has been referred to an environmental review before they went through the application. What changed? As far as I can see, the public has only become more concerned about fracking activities. Section 125 of the MVRMA, Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, states that an environmental assessment will be called for if there might – and I underscore “might” – be cause for public concern. I’d say there’s no question here.

Recently, a number of relevant events have brought forward new perspectives: a petition tabled here in March, a national report on the impacts of fracking in Canada in April, the Elders Parliament motion in May and, finally, the Yukon has established a select

committee to look at the costs and benefits of fracking in the Yukon. I will briefly review these.

A petition in the House in March, signed by 790 people from 24 communities, including every Sahtu community, expressed serious public concern about fracking and called for an environmental review.

In April a national report was published by the Council of Canadian Academies, urging caution and more study before wholesale commitment to fracking and outlined serious risks it entails. Entitled “Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada,” the author stated, “The North American energy landscape is undergoing dramatic change. Unconventional oil and gas resources are fuelling an energy boom that is having profound economic, environmental and social impacts across much of the continent, including Canada.” And further, it said this report comes at the request of Environment Canada, which asked the council to assemble a multidisciplinary expert panel to consider the state of knowledge of potential environmental impacts from the exploration and extraction and development of Canada’s shale gas resources.

The report reviews the use of new and conventional technologies in shale gas extraction and examines several issues of concern, including potential impacts on surface water and groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative land disturbance and human health. The report also outlines approaches for monitoring research as well as mitigation and management strategies.

“Overall, the panel found that well-targeted science is required to ensure a better understanding of the environmental impacts of shale gas development. Currently, data about environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor conclusive.”

The panel’s assessment focused on a number of environmental impacts. They include oil integrity, water, groundwater and surface, greenhouse gas emissions, land impacts and seismic events, human health, monitoring and research. In the executive summary they note: “…the rapid expansion of shale gas development in Canada over the past decade has occurred without a corresponding investment in monitoring and research addressing the impacts on the environment, on public health and communities. The primary concerns are the degradation of the quality of groundwater and surface water, including the safe disposal of large volumes of wastewater; the risks of increased greenhouse gas emissions, including fugitive methane emissions during and after production, thus exacerbating anthropogenic climate change; disruptive effects on communities and land and adverse effects on human health. Often, concerns include the local release of air contaminants and the potential for triggering small

to moderate-sized earthquakes in seismically active areas.

“Two issues of particular concern to panel members are water resources, especially groundwater, and greenhouse gas emissions. Both relate to well integrity.”

The authors note that there are many uncertainties, a lack of knowledge, an unavailability of knowledge – that’s knowledge that resists but will not be released – few baselines and insufficient monitoring.

In May, during the Elders Parliament right here in the House, a motion called for a moratorium on fracking and this was passed unanimously. Jean-Pierre Isore put forward a fracking motion and said, “We are balancing economic decisions with the life and health of our citizens and that is inadmissible. There is no such thing as an acceptable risk when it comes to the health and life of our citizens. There is no compromise with the life of the earth, of our children and our grandchildren.” The motion before us today has drawn, to some degree, upon the motion passed by the elders in this House.

In May 2013 the Yukon Legislative Assembly established a select committee regarding the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing. It was established just over a year ago. This is a comprehensive, all-party review of fracking that is developing a science-based understanding of hydraulic fracturing, which also provides for public participation. The select committee has been visiting sites of its own choosing and had experts in many areas of the field testify in a public hearing in Whitehorse, including witnesses from CAPP, industry, Pembina Institute, hydrogeologist, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, Mark Jaccard on the economics of fracking in the Yukon, the chief medical officer of New Brunswick, and the regional medical health officer from northeast BC, and it made a point of visiting citizen coalitions in places like Alberta where grassroots people have many years of experience and huge concerns about impacts of fracking.

The select committee note that Yukon First Nations have concluded that impacts of fracking far outweigh the benefits and, thus, have banned fracking on their lands. The select committee has heard many of the same concerns highlighted by our Elders Parliament, by the Canadian Council of Academies in their report and from expert witnesses in public hearings, and they just completed a second round of hearings with expert witnesses last week and they are now on the road visiting communities in the Yukon.

Not surprisingly, our citizens in the NWT, community groups, elders and so on are bringing up similar points, but so far this government has not exerted its authority to refer fracking applications to environmental assessment. This is upsetting,

especially so given the legislation that clearly states an environmental assessment will be conducted if there – and again I underscore – “might” be public concern.

Fracking is seen by many as gambling and, even worse, as government’s gambling on the health costs of their citizens and the land. People are asking, is this what we voted you in for? Is this what I get for putting my trust in government? The risks are great and it will only grow if we move forward without comprehensive and public environmental review from two wells to 10 wells to 100, and then thousands of wells with all its such development entails in costs to people, their communities, cultures, land, air and wildlife.

People want a meaningful opportunity to discuss and learn about fracking and the associated activities of exploitation and then to provide input towards our future direction. They have opinions, thoughts and insights, and values they want to present and have considered. To date, the only response from government is that they have confidence in themselves; that is the government has confidence in themselves and their ability to manage the situation. Government has remained mute on their responsibility to hear the public and to support a thorough review of what fracking means and whether our people feel the impacts outweigh the benefits.

Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians is also concerned, calling fracking in the Sahtu the next Giant Mine. The Council of Canadians opposes fracking because of its high water use, its high carbon emissions, its impacts on human health, the disruption it causes to wildlife, and the danger it poses to groundwater and local drinking water.

Many residents have pointed out the fracking in the Sahtu could have horrible consequences for the Mackenzie watershed and for the communities through which trucks carrying contaminated water and toxic, potentially explosive hydrocarbon products will pass. They are also concerned that taxpayers and GNWT budgets will be heavily drawn upon for infrastructure, its costly maintenance and it’s even more costly replacement, worsened by the knowledge that these expenditures are taking away from other much needed infrastructure that could support truly beneficial development. These are concerns that provide insights into the territory-wide impact that fracking in one region can have. In this case, it’s not just a Sahtu issue. It affects everyone around the Sahtu.

In contrast to the government, the people of the NWT may see different paths for economic development. Choices that they are comfortable will provide for the values they have without impacting other people’s health or land or water or cultures. They want to bring these ideas forward into the light

for weighing against the government’s unilateral decisions on how to move forward.

I don’t think anybody questions that there might be public concern about fracking. There is public concern about fracking in Tulita, Norman Wells, the Sahtu, throughout the NWT, across Canada and around the world. The question is: Will this government listen to its people and follow the law that is in place requiring an environmental assessment when there might be public concern as per Section 125 of the MVRMA, or better still, calling for a regional review as per Section 144 of the MVRMA? This wise law was put in place by the people through land claims settlement legislation. Let’s listen to our elders and our residents and heed it.

To wrap things up, I call upon the words of elder Jean-Pierre Isore of the Elders Parliament: “Not one single independent study supports fracking.” This is based on an all-night study of several hundred studies and summaries of fracking research.

Further quoting: “The technical analysis shows that whatever you do today in terms of fracking is risky. In the military life, we learned to take risks, calculated risks. There must be a direct proportion between the risks you take and the result you get, and we don’t get that. We take all of the risks and we get no result, so at one point we have to turn to our government and say, will you listen? Of course, they will come back and say, you don’t know what you are talking about. Well, we happen to be in an area of the country where the term “elders” means something. Around this table I calculate that we have 1,200 years of wisdom. That beats the government, doesn’t it? And we say, no way. No way. Get back to the drawing board. We’re not crazy. We want prosperity but not at any cost.”

Mahsi, and I will be calling for a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’ll allow the seconder to the motion, Mr. Nadli, to speak to the motion. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bob Bromley, for moving this motion forward. I stand in support of this motion. What the motion asks for is refrain from supporting fracking until a full and public assessment, and if fracking could actually happen within the public scope of the existing regulatory system and public opinion.

It’s timely that the ITI Minister has committed his department to develop regulations on fracking. I would like to encourage him with his leadership to really think about how this would be done. It could be done within the regulatory framework or it could be done within a committee, a committee comprised of both Cabinet and Regular MLAs, with

a collaborative effort in setting the terms of reference similar to what’s happening in the Yukon.

Devolution has given the GNWT more powers and we need to practice those powers with a level of responsibility. The stage is set, the GNWT has the power and responsibility, the structure and system are in place, and now is the time for a real need to check with the public and do it right.

Like many constituents and Northerners, I want to understand what fracking is. Fracking, of course, is a practice of the oil and gas industry and it’s been around for a long time.

There is always a need to challenge the system and achieve a balance between environmental values and the need for jobs, also for business and also for the greater economy. Here in the North we are particular in terms of loving the beauty of the land and we want to ensure that future generations enjoy what they will inherit from us.

As First Nations people, we learned to respect our elders, and the motion from the Elders Parliament, obviously, we have to respect it in terms of their call for a moratorium on fracking.

I applaud our colleagues in the Yukon that have taken steps and are studying this very matter by striking up a committee to publicly assess the risks and benefits of fracking.

Again, I think the ITI Minister commitment to develop regulations is timely, the call to develop regulation, but we need to be clear in terms of creating a forum for public discussion.

I’ve always had my questions in terms of the practice of fracking. It’s been a practice that’s been around since 1947 when the first experimental drill holes were drilled in the United States. The whole practice creates fractures and fissures underground by pumping water or substances and extracting petroleum products. I understand there have been technological advances in terms of addressing a lot of the public questions in terms of the chemical composition of the substances they are pumping underground, plus the status of the effluence once that water is brought back up or maybe, perhaps, potentially affecting the water tables in the underground.

In all of this it’s kind of ironic because people have caution. We need to have a very rational mind and we need to have a clear mind and not let the better of our emotions take a hold of our thinking. What do we do in those cases? We rely on scientific knowledge that we’ve been taught in school. It’s to try and take a very scientific analysis of fracking. But the irony of it is that as we compensate the effects of fracking, the effects are greater than what we thought of as perhaps in terms of some of the studies and some of the testimonies from people that have experienced fracking first-hand.

I need to acknowledge that there are federal regulatory systems in place and we do have our very first experience. We’ve established, here in the North, land claims. Because of the land claims, we’ve set up the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That in place set up boards. With the devolution of responsibility for public lands and resources to the GNWT, that was a great achievement, but in the same instance what happened is that we’ve basically moved to eliminate regional boards in terms of ensuring our regional bodies have input into the overall regulatory framework for the environment.

I do know and I understand that at some point, projects are referred for environmental assessment. That gives an opportunity for the public and industry to engage and to ensure that the system that we have goes through a rigorous process and at the end we conclude with a decision.

I wanted to take the opportunity just to describe some of the values that we’re having, in our language, in terms of how we see the land up here in the NWT. Nahendeh…[English translation not provided.]

There are existing regulations. There are the federal regulations, we have the National Energy Board, we now have the responsibility for the oil and gas regulations and we have to look at other jurisdictions that have set in place a moratorium in terms of trying to assess and study this very matter.

At this point what’s called for is the need for leadership and to create a forum for public discussion on this matter, similar to what the Yukon is doing. If indeed one reflects upon the motion, it’s almost giving permission or support. Let’s have a couple of discussions and contemplate how fracking could be done within the existing regulatory framework. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the mover, Mr. Bromley, and the seconder, Mr. Nadli, for allowing this discussion to occur today here.

Given almost two pages of whereas within this motion it’s a bit hard to agree with all the points, but it’s easy to agree with some of the points raised, but I’ll try to attempt to take more of a reasonable step back from the specifics of the motion and evaluate the direction we’re asking this government to take and the overall message we’re trying to get through industry.

In preparation for today, I thought bringing back my experiences in science as a chemist, I wanted to maybe start quoting from mini scriptures of scientific journals and everything else, but I thought you know what, I don’t want to bore everyone to death here. So all I can tell you is what I know is

that science is riddled with many unknowns and I just want to leave it at that.

I did think I was going to take more of a perspective maybe as a hockey fan to bring more of a hockey analogy to my argument today, but the Habs didn’t win. So we’ll use that another day. Looks like we’ve got a lot of Hab fans here.

Which leads me to my final area to try to bring some reasonableness and that is that of a reasonable man’s perspective. So what does that really mean? There’s nothing hidden in the term. I think one has to look at fracking in a more fair and reasonable way and really what’s best for everyone involved. Being in health care for almost 22 years in the North and sitting for almost three years as a deputy chair on Social Programs committee, it has given me a unique perspective on the state of the social network here in the Northwest Territories. I can tell you that as much as I like to hear how great our health care system is, it does show many signs of stress and opportunity, and like the saying goes, the wheels on the bus have to go round and round. So does the need for proper funding for these social wheels to turn. So, we need to ask ourselves, how do we fund these health care dollars, poverty initiatives, income support, medical travel, job training, jobs themselves? I don’t think these entities self-fund and I can tell you that many around this table know they don’t as well.

So the reasonable man must look at the bigger picture to this motion’s ask. What is industry thinking when they’re listening to us here today? So when the industries have a choice in making an attempt for an investment to create prosperity in the North and to create hope for the people of the North, we as legislators are now asking to create barriers and almost a wall of worry. So we need to ask ourselves, what are we doing to ensure our future in doing that?

We’ve been given, recently, some newfound powers with devolution and we haven’t even taken this new car out for a spin yet and we’re asking, with today’s motion, to put it back in the garage. I say let’s manage our risks as being prescribed in our regulations, let’s set the rules and let’s enforce the rules.

With that, I just want to deviate a little bit here because it was just brought to our attention and it’s recently new. This is a CBC special report as of this morning of June 4th and this is an interview with

CBC interviewer Loren McGinnis and Minister Ramsay here. Again, I just got the transcripts, but what we’re seeing in here is that we’re still setting the rules and we’re still learning and we’re doing so in good faith, and I’d like to quote, if I can, from some of the transcripts very quickly. Mr. Ramsay is quoted, “We fully intend to consult all stakeholders in the development of regulations.” Another quote is: “It’s very important that people get a say and I

think that’s the most important thing here, is stakeholders, the public.” Finally, “We haven’t even announced yet how the consultation will work, the timelines.”

So it’s clear we’re still working on the rules, but like I said earlier, let’s set the rules and let’s enforce them. I believe we can move forward and develop our fracking initiatives safely. I also firmly believe we can reasonably navigate all fracking development reasonably and in compliance with the strict rules this government has said they would do. In the end, we have to give government a chance to make this work before we throw this whole initiative under the bus.

I would like to end by saying, I care about my environment, like everyone in this room. With our economy being so fragile, to balance questionable risk versus economics is not putting prosperity at any cost, it’s saying let’s be reasonable with this motion today. Let’s be very careful what we’re asking for.

Again, I do respect and I want to thank my colleagues for all their opinions and points of view in this debate today, and if it’s not clear by now, I have a hard time supporting this motion today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spoke these words some time ago, but they bear repeating, and I’m going to quote.

“Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard a lot about fracking in the last two weeks. I haven’t said much about it, but now feel the time has come and I must add my views. I’ve been following the statements and exchanges in the House, the media reports and so on. The Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee has been at the forefront of the fracking issue, doing the research, considering the pros and cons, monitoring Sahtu exploration and development. I’ve tried to stay abreast of the info flowing through the committee, but it’s a challenge with my other committee work.

“At this point, I’m not sure where I stand on this issue, not sure if I support fracking or oppose it. I know that the Sahtu and the NWT need an economic shot in the arm and I know that the proposed development will provide that boost. I’m not against development, but feel it should be controlled. The face of development must be considered and measured. The all-out/do-it-all/do-it-now approach that seems to be happening in the Bakken scares me. I do not want that for my territory. I have a major concern about our lack of knowledge about our subsurface environment in the area where fracking will occur, particularly our lack of

analysis of aquifers. Our water tables are unknown and unmapped. Fracking has two huge impacts on our water supply: the amount of water used in and needed for the fracking process and the potential contamination of our groundwater through the injection of the used fracking water back underground.

“Another major concern for me is just what regulations, contaminants and chemicals will be used in the fracking process. It seems that currently relations don’t require full disclosure of the products used. Will it be the same after devolution when we are in charge of fracking developments, or will we even have the authority to regulate it? I can only hope that the NWT will ensure strict guidelines or regulations are established to govern the environmental liabilities that can result from fracking.

“In my mind, there’s the potential for the Sahtu to become a situation akin to Yellowknife’s Giant Mine, ‘a monstrous environmental liability.’”

Mr. Speaker, I made that statement seven months ago and my views have changed very little in that time. I still feel we don’t fully understand what fracking will do to our environment, what legacy it will leave behind when all the drilling of wells and the removal of oil and gas is done. Do we have the strict guidelines and regulations I hoped for last fall? No, I don’t think so. Apparently they are coming. Have the public had an opportunity to provide input into the regulations that are advised by the government will be forthcoming? No, and apparently they will, but how will it be done? Do we understand what the impact of fracking will be on our lands and waters? I don’t think so.

Mr. Speaker, this motion asks not to stop fracking altogether, but to stop it while we figure out the answers to these questions. The timing is appropriate. The companies in the Sahtu have advised they are halting exploration for two or more years. What better time to fully assess the effects of the fracking process? What better time to develop guidelines and regulations with full public input? Regulations which, as the motion says, “demonstrate and manage this fracking technology in a way that ensures the integrity of our environment and communities.”

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We have only one chance to set things out right in regards to fracking. Let’s not blow the opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I think of fracking, I’m often reminded of the saying “you can’t unring a bell.” What that basically means is that once you’ve done it, you’ve done it and you

can’t take it back. As we all have come to learn, fracking is certainly not for everyone and not for every region where it could happen. So it puts the utmost importance upon each and every one of us to consider this problem.

Do we do it right or do we do it because we want it? I think this opportunity here is the chance to do it right. Everyone knows industry’s interests and industry wouldn’t be here in the Northwest Territories if they didn’t have an interest. Just because they aren’t fracking today doesn’t mean they won’t be fracking in the future. Just because industry wants to, doesn’t necessarily mean I want them to.

I understand the complexity around this problem. I think it’s a challenge we will never fully understand or appreciate all the information. Frankly, I don’t have the lifetime to imagine how much information one argument can propose at the same time another argument can propose. What I am finding is we have so much information, it gets meshed in there somewhere and we are doing the best we can. On that, I think we need to take the time to find out if fracking is right for the Northwest Territories.

Now, we know some of it has happened and we know it happens around other provinces, and even states, such as places like Alberta, Saskatchewan and North Dakota. I have had the opportunity to visit sites in Saskatchewan and certain places in North Dakota. I am deeply confident the Northwest Territories will never ever allow our land to look like North Dakota. I certainly don’t believe that will ever be the case. Under no condition I can imagine standing and allow this to happen, because frankly, I can’t believe what they’ve done and put the balance at risk in such a manner, that I’m deeply worried.

We must do fracking under the conditions that are meaningful and representative of the values of the Northwest Territories. In this case, that could actually mean no fracking. We need public input that tells us the right way to do it. I only support fracking under the principles under the immense – and I want to be very clear here, Mr. Speaker – the immense regulations that represents best practices used throughout not only Canada but the world. Let us take this opportunity to do things right. We don’t have an oil company pounding at our door, saying if you don’t approve this application today, we’re going to pull money out; we’re going to make sure people don’t work and we’re not coming back. We don’t have that pressure today. We are well aware of the most recent of a company deciding to pull out, re-evaluate its options and reconsider where they plan to go in the future. What better time than to pause and say to ourselves if we want fracking, under what conditions can we support it? As I said at the beginning, fracking is not for everyone.

Many people in the Sahtu – I wish to tip my hat to them – want these opportunities. I would be the last person to stand in the way of the aspirations of the people making their own decisions. At the same time, we do have people in the Sahtu who are worried about what decisions are being made. This type of pause, this type of reflection can benefit everyone, both those for and certainly those against. As I said earlier, immense regulation is the step that we need to consider if this is the right approach.

As a Member, I often hear from constituents very strongly. They either feel very strongly positively or very negatively about a particular issue. Interestingly enough, the people who were very positive about this tended to speak to the issue of making sure we have jobs for people. I want to ensure that the Sahtu has opportunity and I take every occasion to ensure that I do support that. Member Yakeleya knows I’m with him when it counts.

We always must balance the interests of the few, the oil companies, over the many. That’s why we must find ways to do it.

As I said earlier, I would support the principles of fracking under immense regulations and my support would have to be built around the fact that those regulations need to be transparent, available for full public input in a manner that makes sense. If the Sahtu wishes to proceed with this – and there may be other areas across the Northwest Territories – we must remember that there are communities, families downstream of these opportunities. We must never forget about those people, those families, those communities or those regional governments. In essence, they are just waiting for whatever comes downstream, so we must ensure that they are fully on our minds when we make decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this motion because I think now is the time, more than ever, to do the work, work that our committee and Members like myself have been looking forward to. I was completely elated to hear the most recent statement that appeared to be a shock and I never thought was coming. I’m glad the government is now considering looking at regulations, because frankly, up to a day or two ago, I never thought they would. So this is the time to do the hard work. This is the time to get the public input. This is the only time to get it right.

As I began my statement, I’m going to finish it. You cannot unring a bell. If you poison the well, you poison the river. You cannot fix it. So let us be darn sure we do what we do in a manner that takes care of the environment and people for time immemorial. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very big topic we are discussing today. I thank the mover and the seconder for this motion to come forward and discuss some of the hydraulic fracturing in the Northwest Territories.

In November 2012 the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure did a report to this House and indicated there were some recommendations we wanted done. We wanted some baseline studies to be accomplished. We wanted to adopt standards throughout the whole phase of the implementation, the monitoring of the land and waters, the monitoring of greenhouse gases. Public consultation was one of our recommendations, a thorough public consultation. These were the recommendations that came out of that and that’s what we’re debating here today. We have a motion to take a pause until we complete public consultation, yet we have, on June 2nd , the

Minister of ITI saying we’re going to introduce hydraulic fracturing regulations and we will do full public consultation at that time.

So I guess the debate that is being done here is what kind of public consultation will be done during that regulatory process, and the public consultation in getting the information out to the general public.

So, we look at what will be the impact of this motion. I guess one of the concerns that I have with this motion is the message that is being sent out throughout the country and to industry, is Hay… I say Hay River, sorry. The Northwest Territories. I mean, I’m a Hay River MLA. I apologize. Is the Northwest Territories open to the concept of hydraulic fracturing, open to the concept of the development of oil and gas? I think that I support that concept.

Obviously, I support that concept with some strict guidelines, regulations in place that the government has indicated that they’re willing to do and willing to have public consultation on that. I think one of the things that some of the Members have talked about is identifying the chemicals. These organizations are all part of CAPP, which indicate they have public access to the chemicals that are done.

I guess at this point I will not be supporting the motion, because I think the public consultation will happen in this hydraulic fracturing regulation review and that’s where the public is going to get their input, and we’re going to be able to get regulation put on what we are going to do in the Northwest Territories to control what happens in this industry. I am concerned that this motion will send out a message to industry that we are stopping development in the Northwest Territories, we are putting a moratorium… The word “moratorium” was taken out of here. I appreciate that. But the message still is that we’re taking a pause, that we’re not going to accept applications at this time, and I’m concerned that this is going to have

implications for the economy in the Northwest Territories for the future generations of the Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my colleagues here that this is a pretty big topic of discussion. I have to give points on both sides; there are a lot of pros and cons. I thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Nadli for bringing the motion forward and speaking so well to it and speaking about making reference to the Elders Parliament and respecting our elders and our land.

When I think about this, these are discussions that we’ve had almost since we started hearing about possible fracturing going on in the Sahtu. If you think, in hindsight, if we had started doing these regulations that we’re going to be doing through the Minister’s office and the department sooner than later, we wouldn’t be here debating the motion before us. But that’s in hindsight, and I think we could have made a lot of headway in the amount of time and not looking at this. But I do acknowledge that the Minister and his department are looking at developing these regulations and they’re going to go to public input and get that input from people in the Northwest Territories.

Being a representative for Inuvik and just living downstream from the Sahtu region, I want to make references to the CBC report from the fall of last year where it stated that Norman Wells leads the country in reported pipeline incidents. Some of the facts out of there were that there was 40.860 million litres of water put back into the Mackenzie River, and we’re downstream. There are people who live off the land and fish, who hunt and make their way of life off of that. There are many communities that are downstream from that. They also talked about 127,000 litres that had hydrocarbons in there. So those are things that, obviously, as a Member representing Inuvik and the Northwest Territories, those things are concerning, but I do understand that as we go through devolution that we’re actually taking on these new powers to manage our resources in a more responsible and sustainable way. I think that moving forward in this type of practice with hydraulic fracturing that as we speak to the public – and the public needs assurance that we’re going to do things the right way. I think that as we develop these regulations that we also need to find best practices and be a leader in Canada, and the world, actually, in terms of how we monitor and give public updates to our residents and people that are concerned about what kind of chemicals are being put into the ground here.

We’ve also talked about the two fracked wells that have already happened in the Sahtu. They were done safely and I think that shows that the GNWT is doing a good job in terms of moving this forward.

On the other hand, I’ve seen first-hand the economy struggling in the community of Inuvik. I’ve seen small businesses shut down. I’ve seen families go on income assistance. I’ve seen big companies struggle and people having a hard time making ends meet. Just through our budget system, the amount of income assistance that this government supports, the increase the amount of money that we’ve even had to do through a supplementary appropriation because we’re taking care of a lot more people that if the economy was stronger, they might have jobs. I know there are a lot of small businesses that invest in the Sahtu to create jobs for local people, but small businesses who invest, thinking there’s going to be prosperity and economic growth in the region. With the recent news of the companies withdrawing because of the environmental assessments that were needed, I can only think of the families, I can only think of these small businesses that are going to be affected with the lack of activity that’s going to be happening there.

There’s one section in this motion that refers to “immediately refrain from supporting any hydraulic fracturing proposals.” We all know how long those proposals take in approving them and the amount of work that gets in. The government is doing a good job right now in terms of looking at developing these regulations. I think as we move forward, it’s going to be something that will be, I guess, groundbreaking and can be leading for the provinces that actually put the moratorium through that. As leaders, we can make those decisions.

I think Mr. Nadli said it well when he said there is a need for leadership. I think this government is taking that leadership role on and looking at starting to develop those regulations. But we also have to be leaders for our people in terms of… We had two wells that were fracked safely, but we also have to be leaders in helping create the economy.

In the Sahtu region, I know not a whole lot has happened in many years. When I take flights up to Inuvik, when I go home, it’s nice to see that kind of business happening.

I am friends with some of the guys who own a small business and I can only imagine the effect that putting this type of motion in place would have on their businesses, their family life and their health and wellness and their well-being.

Because of that one statement in there, “immediately refrain from supporting any hydraulic fracturing proposals,” is just going to increase the time that we support it or support any kind of economic activity there. So with that one line there, I can’t really support the motion at this time. But I do respect the Members for bringing this forward, and I do respect the groups out there that do have this cause of concern, and I do respect the small business and the communities and the hard work

that they’re trying to do to survive. With that said, I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the mover and the seconder for raising this issue to this level here. In the Sahtu we’ve been dealing with this for some time. There are some inaccuracies, inconsistencies in the motion in the wording and I just don’t get it. I don’t believe in some of the whereases. There are some concerns that certainly we are talking about in the Sahtu and I want to speak on that today.

I want to hopefully give my interpretation of what’s happening in the Sahtu. Certainly, as we know, everybody has different interpretations.

In 1993 the people of the Sahtu reclaimed some of their land. They were not given this land. They reclaimed what has always been theirs. Under the land claims they own the subsurface rights to all oil, gas and minerals on over 1,800 square kilometres.

I respectfully say it is not this Assembly to infringe on any hard fought negotiation rights that the Sahtu have fought for. People of the Sahtu want to control their destiny. There is strong support in my region for strong, sustainable economic development. Ask any Member in this House who does not support economic development to think clearly and carefully about the signals we’ll be sending if we say we know better than you.

At the same time, we have accomplished devolution of so many aspects of governing from the feds to the GNWT. This government has also accepted – has accepted – the Aboriginal government must have and will have a greater say as to how we govern. That’s called respecting each government. We have fought for that in the Sahtu Land Claim, and any other land claims that have been negotiated have been settled. We have a government-to-government-to-government relationship.

The big picture has many facets and many angles, like an octopus, and I want to say that I rise to speak on the vision of our elders when we put together the land claim package as a young negotiator with a lot of other negotiators and our elders who have driven us, who have sat in meetings and listened to the elders. The late George Kodakin, the late Paul Wright, Alexis Arrowmaker, J.B. Gully. Lots of elders in our region. Fred Andrew and my mom, even my grandmother. There are a lot of elders that we sat and listened. We didn’t talk. We listened to what they were saying and tried to figure out what they were saying to us.

I want to speak about the pathway of economic freedom. We in the Sahtu have been working on

creating such a path for ourselves for many, many years. We know that we have to do this ourselves. People of the Sahtu are strong, and we negotiated a path to economic freedom with the completion of our land claim 20 years ago. We are now starting down that path. No one should be trying to set up roadblocks, because we will knock them down.

Our land claim is part of the Constitution of Canada, as are all modern treaties. Chapter 12 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement speaks to how we, the Metis and the Dene of the Sahtu, will be economically self-sufficient. We did not get land. We did not get land given to us in our land claim. We simply negotiated to get our land back. Let us get us to our promised land.

Long before contact, when the Europeans came in to our land, we controlled the land. We were sovereign in our territory. With our land claim we have regained some of our lost sovereignty so we can decide for ourselves.

The 1987 project by the Harvard University said five things. It said three things, actually. For a sovereign nation to be healthy and be successful, they need to have their sovereignty. Our land claim gave us that in 1993. We need to set up institutions. Our land claim gave us institutions and we need to protect and promote our culture. Our land claim, through our agreement, gives us this type of cultural institutions and promotion, but also we realized, later on with the Harvard project, that there are two other things that the nation of people need to have. One is leadership and strategic thinking, and we are working on that today. The Harvard project also said that this does not guarantee success, but it’s more likely to lead a path of success.

When I refer to Sahtu Land Claim, we have set up institutions like the Sahtu Land and Water Board. I was the chief negotiator for our claim when we negotiated for the board. Our elders insisted on the board so that decisions about economic development and strengthening our traditional way of life and about using our resources, using our water and land could be made in our region. It is not for this legislation to infringe on the ability of the board to do its work. We’re in the driver’s seat with the board. They can say yes or no, set the terms and conditions. Let’s leave them alone to do their work.

That board and how it works shows all of our people that we did our job. The elders wanted that board and we achieved that. The board and how it operates serves as a role model for our youth. It shows them that we have a big say in what happens in our region. More specifically, from our land claim, we own the subsurface rights, as I said earlier, to the rights to oil and gas and minerals. No one should think that taking away our rights to

decide what happens on and below our land is going to be acceptable. Again, no one gave us this land. Rather, in true Canadian fashion, we sat at the negotiating table for many years and we regained some aspects of our sovereignty.

I know every Member in this House knows that we must respect the Constitution. We must respect what has been negotiated in these documents that make up the Constitution, including the land claims. We must respect what each other’s land claims allows under the Constitution. We have the responsibility and duty in the Sahtu to develop an economy. We have the jurisdiction in the form of the Sahtu Land and Water Board to make important decisions. We own the oil and gas under some of our lands. We want to develop our economy. This is our pathway to economic freedom.

The people in the Sahtu that have this constitutional right are in a land claim organization representing just over 1,200 people. The entire population of the Sahtu is about 2,600. There is a small minority group that is voicing their opposition, and that will happen. We say to them, go to the land claims. They’re the ones that are making these decisions. We have a right in our land claims that says we will determine our own destiny.

I’ve been told by a reality show that a trapper from the Northwest Territories went to Finland. In Finland he had talked to some people who don’t understand trapping. One of the comments from one of the European people was saying there’s no need for trapping fur any more. That, I thought, was done with when the Greenpeace tried to kill the fur industry in the Northwest Territories. They wanted to have some say over our way of life.

Also, there are many reports that I’ve read that show that the conditions in our small communities, the environment is susceptible to high crime rates, alcoholism, addictions and violence because the violence breeds it. As Mr. Bromley has noted, there are many studies on the impacts and effects, and people are looking at these types of behaviours that are factors that are linked to low income, poverty, unemployment. When you look at the statistics in the Sahtu, we kind of fit some of that picture. We have a high unemployment rate. We have close to 250 people ready to work today. We have close to over 500 who want to work. We have needs there, training opportunities. Maybe this might be a blessing in disguise so that we can look and see how do we get our people ready. We are ready. There are conditions that the Land and Water Board puts on these applications like for pass and protection. Land claims are still clearly stated here where conditions will be put in place so that applications will be monitored very closely.

I guess I want to say that the Norman Wells issue of their licence, I think, who is Maude? Maude should be jumping up and down right now because

Imperial Oil is going to want to release 1.5 billion litres of reusable oil from the Mackenzie River for their operation. They’ve been doing that for years. There has been no evidence of fracking water being released underground. So when you talk about our evidence of our horizontal fracking, that’s what we’ve been saying in Fort Good Hope. The effects of Imperial’s water licence are going down the river, not the hydraulic fracking water. As a matter of fact, it uses less water than to operate a camp.

So I’m having a difficult time again, as to how the motion is reading. I think that we need to get the information out there clearly, and I guess the bottom line for me is respecting the Aboriginal governments and what they negotiated for, and understanding that we did this for ourselves to control our destiny and to have a say in our lives.

A few points before I close. For the last 60 years there have been 175,000 fracked wells drilled in Canada. To date there’s no evidence that there are any significant environmental problems that have risen as a consequence. Also, the head of the U.S. government EPA is on record saying she is not aware of any single event of contaminated groundwater as a consequence of fracking.

While we think that this would be something that is a horizontal fracking issue, it would be an issue, it has been, but let’s face the facts. In the Northwest Territories there have been fracked wells vertically in the ‘70s and ‘80s in the Cameron Hills in the Liard Basin. This is prior to any type of new regulations that we now see. They actually hadn’t had any injection wells on their Type A licence. So I’d like to look at some of this information. I think that if it’s an issue of impacting all the regions, we can say a lot about Giant Mine and the Giant mines in other areas, but we respect the guys who need to look after themselves. Look in your own backyard instead of pointing fingers in ours. Have respect.

So I want to say that I will not be supporting this motion at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.I know that all my colleagues went on at length and there are many positions to be taken on fracking. The motion does specifically talk about refraining from fracking and it is a controversial way to recover oil and gas from the ground, more specifically shale areas. I definitely know people in my riding, as I travel around my constituency tour, do want to know more about fracking, they want to understand it and our people should. For instance, I don’t believe people know that fracking has been around for almost 50 years. Only now people are afraid. It’s only because they think it’s new that there has been a big, massive campaign by concerned environmental groups and they do well,

they’re well-funded and they get out in the lead and they advertise it. So now people are afraid of fracking, but it has been here for 50 years. There was certainly no concern before that.

But just overall, the reality is that all forms of energy production have some environmental consequences and, yes, this new fracking technique should be held to the same standard as every industry when it comes to safety, when it comes to environment and water.

Devolution and those that were afraid of it was about not trusting us as a Legislature, not trusting us as a government in taking care of our NWT, in taking care of our land and taking care of water. I really think that the Minister wants to go public, travel our communities and create some new fracking regulations. I think it was far better if we stood here this afternoon and had a debate on those new proposed regulations, how to do it, what to put into it, how extensive it should be, and I think Mr. Bromley’s motion speaks to a lot of that as well. People want to know, everybody wants to do it the best way possible, and asking for a temporary ban right now for myself, it’s just not the way to do it. I believe in our consensus style of government. I’m confident that our government can work with our committees, they can work with our communities, they can work with our Aboriginal governments and work towards developing the best regulations.

That being said, there is a pause in new fracking right now, so here we’ve got a huge opportunity to do it. I don’t believe that going all out by saying that there is a ban or temporary ban is the way to do it. So at this point, I won’t be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to support this motion, but due to the wording in the motion, it made me refrain from supporting any hydraulic fracturing proposals as we already have some work that is to be done this winter.

I too, like Mr. Moses, have a lot of constituents in my riding that rely on this work that is being done, upwards of 30 to 40 people. In my communities I have a 35 percent employment rate. We have to have some sort of balance here.

I like the Minister’s stance that they’re going out, consulting with the communities. That is what our people wanted. I think a lot of the concerns that were happening earlier this year were because the work went through without consultation. That is what a lot of people had issue with. Moving forward, we need to come up with proper regulations and policies to do this properly. I know a lot of the oil and gas work that’s done in the Territories is all

monitored and we have to ensure that moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government of the Northwest Territories is committed to protecting the health of our people and the environment in creating prosperity for our residents by responsibly and sustainably developing our natural resource potential. We support the use of recognized best practices in making decisions about protecting human health, wildlife, land, air and water in the Northwest Territories. We share a vision of a strong, prosperous and environmentally sustainable Northwest Territories that provides opportunities for all our people, communities and regions. We cannot have prosperity without an economy that provides jobs and economic opportunities for our people and revenues to our government to invest in infrastructure and deliver programs and services.

We talk in this Assembly about breaking the cycle of dependency that traps individuals and keep them from realizing their full potential. We should aspire to be self-sufficient as a jurisdiction, not dependent on handouts from the federal government.

The reality is that responsible development of our natural resources is the mainstay of our economy and source of our prosperity. If the government were to accept the recommendations put forward in this motion, it would effectively mean the end of exploration and resource development in the Sahtu for the foreseeable future. That would stall economic growth not just in the Sahtu but in the whole territory, eliminate potential revenue this government could be collecting under our new Devolution Agreement and reduce opportunities for all residents to prosper.

Resource development is not new to this jurisdiction. We have seen the benefits that development can bring and seen some of the negative impacts. We have seen how projects were approved and managed in the past and have gained valuable insight and information that will allow us to better manage the potential risks associated with future projects.

Our government assumed new responsibilities for an already well-developed environmental protection and regulatory system as part of devolution. It is the same system that has overseen the development of diamond mining and other projects in the Northwest Territories. We have every confidence that this system will continue to serve the public interest.

Land and water boards continue to be responsible for reviewing project applications and granting and recommending approvals based on their assessment of potential environmental risks and

expected benefits for the people of the Northwest Territories.

The Government of the Northwest Territories continues to participate in review processes and decision-making, consistent with established legislative requirements and roles. The Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources and Land and the oil and gas regulator all have responsibilities for assessing projects and granting certain approvals in this system. They are guided in their decision-making by a legislative and policy framework that includes the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and territorial mirror legislation, the Land Use and Sustainability Framework, Sustainable Development Policy, Water Strategy, Economic Opportunities Strategy and our commitments under several land claims. That legislative and policy framework ensures decisions are consistent in the public interest and reflect northern priorities and values.

Guidelines developed by the National Energy Board prior to April 1st set out information requirements for

applications for projects that involve hydraulic fracturing. These guidelines currently apply to projects in the Northwest Territories and we have already committed to strengthen them by developing regulations under the NWT Oil and Gas Operations Act that will set out our own information requirements.

Our intention is to consult broadly on the development of those regulations. There will be opportunities for individuals, communities and regions to have input as well as Aboriginal governments, industry, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders.

Any regulations that government establishes will be based on current science, recognized best practices and will consider all the views presented during consultations. We will continue to review and assess our new responsibilities and refine and strengthen the system over time to ensure it serves the public interest and reflects the views and priorities of Northerners.

In addition to developing hydraulic fracturing regulations, we have already launched a public review of devolution legislation. Our government is committed to balanced responsible development that protects our people and environment at the same time as it creates prosperity. We do not believe that a blanket rejection of all projects that might include hydraulic fracturing before they even come forward or are described in project applications reflects the balanced approach.

Our system gives us the tools we need to manage development responsibly, creating sustainable benefits for our people and protecting our environment. We will continue to monitor and manage the pace of development and ensure that all project applications receive the necessary

review as set out in established legislation. The government will be voting against this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As oil and gas regulator, I am fully committed to ensuring that NWT petroleum resources are developed responsibly in a way that creates benefits for our people and communities and protects our environment. I am guided in my decisions by a well-developed framework of legislation, regulations and policies that includes the Oil and Gas Operations Act, or OGOA, and Petroleum Resources Act. I am responsible through OGOA for ensuring human health and safety and environmental protection for all oil and gas development activities such as seismic operations, drilling of wells, construction and operations of pipelines.

I am able under OGOA to approve authorizations like geophysical authorizations, operation authorizations, geological investigation authorizations and can refer applications to environmental assessment.

Our government’s commitment to environmental protection is ensured through provisions in OGOA and its regulations, particularly the spill and debris regulations which provide for the regulator to set additional security requirements for oil and gas operations which must be in place for the duration of those operations. It is important to remember that authorizations cannot be issued without appropriate security in place. This helps to ensure that projects will be well managed and the people of the Northwest Territories will not be responsible for potential liabilities.

Our government is confident that the system we have and our framework for legislation and policies will let us manage the kind of development we expect to see in the Northwest Territories and ensure it is responsible and our environment is protected.

We need to be clear about what we are talking about when we talk about hydraulic fracturing. We are looking at shale oil in the Sahtu. That is not the same as shale gas that was the subject of the Council of Canadian Academics report. Unlike some other developments that we hear about, the shale oil in the Sahtu is deep below the surface, well away from groundwater.

We also need to be clear about the scale of development we are talking about. The Northwest Territories is not the Bakken. We do not expect to see thousands of wells go into production. So far we have had applications for a small number of exploration wells. We can manage that scale of development with the tools and information we

have available. We have already committed to develop regulations that will set out information requirements for hydraulic fracturing. We will continue to refine and improve our approach to managing development to ensure that it is responsible in the health of our people and our environment is protected.

The Northwest Territories geoscience office is already collecting information to assist us in decision-making and responding to the activity. The geoscience office has installed stations to monitor seismic activity in the area, and we have the necessary tools and authorities we need to ensure the development of our territory is managed fairly and responsibly for everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. R.C. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Lands was established to ensure this government is fulfilling its new obligations and responsibilities for managing public lands in the Northwest Territories. We are responsible for implementing the Land Use and Sustainability Framework and coordinating GNWT participation in project assessments.

For fracturing projects, Cabinet has identified fracturing applications as warranting a coordinated government-wide approach at the beginning of the regulatory process. The Department of Lands project assessment branch coordinates technical advice to boards for preliminary screening on hydraulic fracturing applications. The GNWT has the authority to refer applications to environmental assessment. Cabinet has decided to make referral decisions collectively. As the Minister of Lands, I would participate in any such decision.

During environmental assessments, the project assessment branch of Lands coordinates technical advice to the review board. For most projects on non-federal land, the Minister of Lands has the delegated authority to sign the final EA decision after securing consensus from all territorial and federal colleagues who are responsible Ministers for the project. The Department of Lands staff issue tenure instruments such as leases and licences of occupation, conduct compliance and enforcement activities and inspections for land use permits and tenure instruments and hold securities for land-related instruments.

The Lands department is committed to a balanced, responsible development of the NWT’s natural resources according to northern priorities and values. I look forward to playing my part in developing decisions and ensuring that the North’s environment is protected and that our people benefit from responsible development.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to do two quick things. I’d like to just give a bit more context and then speak to some of the specifics of the work that’s being done.

In the last Assembly there was a recognition that we were moving towards devolution, and it was going to come and we need to get our thinking clear, and we started the work on the Land Use and Sustainability Framework, we started the work on the Water Strategy, we enhanced and increased our efforts to get the Wildlife Act done. We accomplished those things so that as we moved forward to take over the authorities we’re talking about here today, we were ready. That we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper trying to get our thinking clear at a time when people expect us to be productive and ready to manage.

When we started the 17th Assembly, we laid out

publicly that we were going to be working on a guidance document, what we saw as the best practices that needed to be done as we were going to take over authorities for oil and gas, and we had to deal with hydraulic fracturing. We said this publicly and we committed to timelines. There was some slippage, but the work was done. It was an intense amount of work. It was done in conjunction with working with SCEDI, and we went back and forth on the work. We resulted in what was released in this House earlier in this session by Minister Ramsay as it pertains to best practices, the commitment to go out and consult. The plan always was clear, this document with the Legislative Assembly, then we are going to go out to industry and the public, and that is what now we are intending to do.

In regard to specific things that are underway as we do this work, since we need to keep moving and we can’t put everything into neutral, I just want to lay out some of the things we are doing.

The GNWT has spent, committed or facilitated third-party funding of almost $4 million for monitoring activities focused on quantifying baseline environmental conditions in the Sahtu since 2013.

The Sahtu Environmental Research and Monitoring Forum provides a revenue for community research needs to be communicated to industry, the GNWT and Canada.

Wildlife research and monitoring is underway in the Sahtu. We have completed the first of a proposed four-year project to examine four research teams related to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Field-based studies were done in 2013 to collect information related to forest disturbance and biological diversity. Existing research will be consolidated into a geospatial database this year.

The forum will also convene an experts’ workshop and cross-cultural research camp in 2014 to

develop a database of regional traditional knowledge.

Funding was also provided for a project to consolidate all existing knowledge regarding surface and groundwater monitoring in these areas under consideration for increased oil and gas exploration activity in the Sahtu. This project will prepare a geospatial data management plan to integrate and provide the basis for mapping ground and surface water data. Traditional knowledge from the area will also be sought to gain local insights into key ground and surface water considerations. A contract has already been issued to conduct this work.

This is just some of the work being undertaken by industry, the GNWT and Canada to collect the needed baseline information for the Sahtu region. Data and information gathered through the exploration phase of shale oil extraction is vital in the collection of baseline data, which is important in determining the environmental impacts of shale oil extraction in the Sahtu. There have been, and will continue to be, numerous opportunities for the communities to engage in discussions with industry, regulators and government on hydraulic fracturing. We encourage people and need to have to be actively engaged in these discussions to ensure we are looking at the sustainable development of our natural resources for the benefit of all residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to all my colleagues here today for their participation in this debate. I think some really cogent points were brought forward. Certainly, with the major progress we’ve made on devolution, the development of the MVRMA land claims legislation, that was definitely a big achievement and it was noted that it also brings a big responsibility, and to some degree, therefore, this is a test, and it calls for leadership to call a public forum, so I appreciated that point.

I heard several Members concerned about what is industry thinking. What messages are we sending to industry? My response to that is: What about the public? What messages are we sending to the public?

The timing is appropriate here, as has been brought out several times. The Premier likes to highlight how desperate industry is. The richest corporations in the world, they’re going to leave and they really need to be here. I think the point is that there is a lull. They’re pulling out for a while. That’s not atypical. The boom and bust is characteristic of this industry. There is an opportunity here, and I suspect there would be a lot of jobs associated with a real comprehensive public review for those that

were looking for work, so what better time to do this.

I heard that there’s an opportunity to do it right versus quickly. To ask the question, is fracking right for the NWT, and if so, how? That’s what we’re talking about here today.

The concern for local business because of this lull, again, this is just a fact of life in this industry, but again, my response to that is: What about concern for the public generally? We’re hearing from the public. I hope I outlined in all the whereases that we developed here, we made clear that there is concern out there.

We know that these developments might be in one region right now, but clearly it’s very likely to be occurring in other regions, the fracking activity, and impacts will also be felt both upstream and downstream. Input from all residents should, therefore, be welcomed. Certainly, the claims that there is no evidence of some case of impacts needs to be publicly evaluated, and that’s what this motion is about.

I heard from a couple of Members, including the Premier, that there is a concern about people working there and that we need an economy. Well, our residents actually have many ideas about an economic path on which we can move forward to address that need, which is well recognized and which I support in ways, as I mentioned in my statement, that doesn’t have big impacts on other people, their health, their land and so on.

It would halt industry for years to come. Well, how have so many other jurisdictions managed to consult with their people, and we have a parallel situation with our neighbour right next to us. They’re doing a very admirable, comprehensive, public process. I do not understand the reluctance to do this at all.

So this is basically – and again, I don’t want to stress that we have the two-year window to do this – a motion to hear the voice of our public. We are calling for a role in our design for exploitation of resources. This consultation would be comprehensive and include all perspectives; business would not be excluded, industry would not be excluded. This would include all perspectives and respond to any concerns brought forward.

In other jurisdictions the government plays a real role in responsibly calling for public input. Without support for this motion, it is clear that residents will have to seek a response solely through the land and water boards, and if so, so be it. Again, I look to other governments and the examples they set, the Yukon and so on.

So I do urge Members to support this and respect the public’s desire to be heard. With that, I am going to stop and ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker. Thank you again for this opportunity.

Thanks to my colleagues for all those points they brought forward.