This is page numbers 4649 – 4690 of the Hansard for the 17th Assembly, 5th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was public.

Topics

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Bromley.

New Special Voting Opportunities

In the 2011 election, residents of 11 communities had only one opportunity to vote: on polling day itself. Residents of these communities are to be commended for the generally strong voter turnouts. However, all residents of the Northwest Territories should have comparable voting opportunity.

The committee requested that the CEO develop detailed recommendations for a new special voting opportunity to replace the provisions for advance polls in communities without a resident returning officer and populations of less than 500. The committee is convinced that provisions for all polls in these small communities can be replaced by a new voting opportunity that will allow electors in all communities, regardless of size, to vote before polling day if need be.

Recommendation 7

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Sections 152 to 162 of the act be repealed as well as all other references to an advance poll, and that the CEO provide the Assembly with detailed recommendations to establish a new special voting opportunity for communities without a resident returning officer, similar to voting in the office of the returning officer.

Campaign Finance Provisions

The CEO’s additional research on campaign financing in other jurisdictions was very informative despite the role of political parties in many instances. For example, partial reimbursement of candidates’ campaign expenses is done in all Canadian jurisdictions except Alberta, British Columbia and the three territories. Adopting such a system of public financing was proposed by Yellowknife resident David Wasylciw, who made both oral and written presentations to the committee. He pointed out that the cost to taxpayers would be quite modest.

While subsidizing the cost of running a campaign might lower a barrier for some candidates, reimbursing candidates’ expenses is not a simple matter in our system. Running as independents, candidates for our Legislature typically raise funds in their constituencies and must account for those funds as required by the act. Many candidates also contribute to their own campaigns in varying degrees. This raises the issue of how a reimbursement to a candidate would be administered and monitored.

Absent evidence to the contrary, committee members are not persuaded that the cost of campaigning is a significant barrier to potential candidates in the NWT as it may be in more populous jurisdictions. In addition, reimbursements would unnecessarily increase the complexity of administering elections, which affects both candidates and Elections NWT.

The system of campaign financing in the NWT is currently fair, transparent and independently regulated, as it should be. This does not mean there is no room for improvement. For example, to ensure full transparency and accountability, anonymous donations to candidates’ campaigns are not allowed in half of the Canadian electoral jurisdictions. Some that do allow anonymous contributions limit the total amount a candidate can collect. The committee agrees with this approach and suggests that a limit of $1,500 be imposed per candidate. This is equivalent to the maximum allowed by a single contributor.

Recommendation 8

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the campaign

financing provisions of the act be drafted in plain language, with a view to improving their logical consistency.

Recommendation 9

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the current limit of $100 remain for each anonymous donation, but that each candidate be limited to a total of $1,500 in anonymous contributions to his or her campaign.

Recommendation 10

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the types of expenditures that may be incurred by a candidate, rather than the official agent, be expanded to allow minor, practical expenditures.

Recommendation 11

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the act be amended to require candidates to include statements from accredited financial institutions for campaign accounts in their financial reports to Elections NWT.

Recommendation 12

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures directs the Chief Electoral Officer to provide additional research on the regulation of third-party election advertising for future consideration.

Additional Enforcement Powers

In the event of an investigation of an alleged breach of election law, the CEO currently lacks the power to summon persons to appear, produce documents and give evidence. This can be a serious impediment to thorough investigation.

In the past, the committee has several times called for more active or enhanced enforcement of the Elections and Plebiscites Act.

To address this, the CEO recommended amending the act to grant the CEO the same enforcement powers as a board of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, or by conferring appropriate specific powers. These powers are similar to those available to CEOs elsewhere in Canada, including the Yukon and Nunavut, and have already been granted in the NWT to the administrators of the Human Rights Act, Residential Tenancies Act and Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The committee agrees that thorough investigation of complaints is essential.

Recommendation 13

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the act be amended to strengthen the enforcement powers of the CEO, by conferring the specific power to

summon persons to appear, produce documents and give evidence under oath.

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the end of reading of the report and MLA Bromley will read out the conclusion. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To conclude the report, I’d allow Mr. Bromley

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Hawkins.

Conclusion

Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures believe that taken together, the recommendations stemming from this review will help clarify, modernize and strengthen the NWT’s electoral system. It is a strong system, founded on fairness, transparency and accountability. We thank the Chief Electoral Officer for his diligence, and all those who provided public input or attended the committee’s hearings.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

That concludes the presentation of our report. Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that Committee Report 8-17(5), Report on the Review of the Auxiliary Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Issues Arising from the 2011 General Election, be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

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

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Question has been called.

---Carried

Committee Report 8-17(5) is received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Mr. Bromley.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and move Committee Report 8-17(5) into Committee of the Whole for consideration today. Mahsi.

---Unanimous consent granted

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. Mr. Beaulieu.

Tom Beaulieu

Tom Beaulieu Tu Nedhe

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Results Report (2013-14), 20/20 A Brilliant North, NWT Public Service Strategic Plan.” Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 32.1(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the following document, entitled “List of Inter-activity Transfers Exceeding $250,000 for the period of April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014.” Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Nadli.

Michael Nadli

Michael Nadli Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to Motion 12-17(4) of the Legislative Assembly, the Standing Committee on Government Operations wishes to table a document, entitled “Establishing an Office of the Ombudsman for the Northwest Territories.”

The Standing Committee welcomes public comment over the summer and anticipates further discussions during the fall sitting of the Assembly. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I referred to health care cards that are from Ontario as well as British Columbia. I have two samples. I have one sample here from Ontario – it’s a two-page document in colour – and I have a second sample here on a document from British Columbia. All people will be able to note the details that I discussed here and certainly the aspects the Minister of Health has agreed to investigate.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Bromley.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the Council of Canadian Academies Executive Summary of the report “Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada” issued last month. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Colleagues, pursuant to Section 23 of the Official Languages Act, I wish to table the Annual Report of the Office of the Northwest Territories Languages Commissioner for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Mr. Abernethy.

Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills

Glen Abernethy

Glen Abernethy Great Slave

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Friday, June 6, 2014, I’ll move that Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Pharmacy Act, be read for the first time. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Item 17, motions. Mr. Bromley.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a motion on the public review of horizontal hydraulic fracturing.

WHEREAS on May 8, 2014, the NWT Elders Parliament unanimously supported a motion calling for a moratorium on fracking (horizontal hydraulic fracturing) in the NWT;

AND WHEREAS on March 12, 2014, a petition signed by 790 people from at least 24 NWT

communities insisting that the GNWT exercise its authority under the MVRMA to refer future fracking applications to a full environmental assessment that includes public hearings was presented in this House;

AND WHEREAS the GNWT response to that petition does not provide for any substantive public review to address the concerns expressed by members of the public;

AND WHEREAS the GNWT response to the recent horizontal hydraulic fracturing application from Husky failed to acknowledge that the public is concerned about fracking and, therefore, should be referred for an environmental assessment;

AND WHEREAS the Council of Canadian Academies released a report in April 2014, titled “Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada” that recommends a cautious approach to horizontal hydraulic fracturing and says more research and information is needed on its environmental impacts;

AND WHEREAS many jurisdictions, including the Canadian jurisdictions of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec, have imposed moratoria on hydraulic fracturing until further research and review;

AND WHEREAS the impacts of hydraulic fracturing are wide-ranging and not well understood, especially in the North;

AND WHEREAS many people in the NWT are concerned about serious, lasting impacts on our people, land, water, air, climate, fish and wildlife;

AND WHEREAS the issue of horizontal hydraulic fracturing with its related exploitation activities can overwhelm and divide communities;

AND WHEREAS community members of all ages need to be fully informed, consulted and involved in discussions around hydraulic fracturing and the risks and benefits in their regions;

AND WHEREAS the federal government allows fracking in Canada without enough understanding of the environmental impacts and the Northwest Territories has allowed the first projects to go ahead with minimum environmental assessment;

AND WHEREAS more applications for hydraulic fracturing are before the Sahtu Land and Water Board right now;

AND WHEREAS both the oil companies involved have announced that there will be a pause in their fracking operations and they will not frack any more wells for the next two to three years;

AND WHEREAS the Northwest Territories has the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing within our territory;

AND WHEREAS the Northwest Territories needs more baseline information and better monitoring

plans that involve elders, the community and traditional knowledge;

AND WHEREAS a fracking operation in one region of the NWT will have impacts on every other region of the NWT;

AND WHEREAS we need to act in the best interest of our youth and future of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS Section 144 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act provides for the establishment of a committee to study the effects of existing or future physical activities carried out in a region of the Mackenzie Valley;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that, in recognition of the clear public concern about fracking, the Government of the Northwest Territories immediately refrains from supporting any hydraulic fracturing proposals until a full and public assessment has been completed that demonstrates that the impacts of fracking and related development on the North are better understood, and demonstrates that it can manage this technology in a way that ensures the integrity of our environment and communities;

AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories report back with the results of this public assessment within 12 months.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

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

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

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.