Advanced education and careers, not previously authorized, $2.833 million.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $26.716 million.
Agreed.
Move along to page 16, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $8.558 million.
Agreed.
Highways, not previously authorized, $30.078 million.
Agreed.
Moving along to page 17 still on the Department of Transportation, Transportation, continued, capital investment expenditures, marine, not previously authorized, $172,000.
Agreed.
Road licensing and safety, not previously authorized, $921,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $39.729 million.
Agreed.
Let’s move along to page 18, Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, tourism and parks, not previously authorized, $1.372 million.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $1.372 million.
Agreed.
Moving along to page 19, Environment and Natural Resources, capital investment expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $211,000.
Agreed.
Forest management, not previously authorized, $184,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $395,000.
Agreed.
Okay. Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of Tabled Document 43-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures)?
Agreed.
Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 43-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures), be now concluded and that Tabled Document 43-16(5) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A motion is on the floor and is being distributed.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber and thank you very much to the witnesses for joining us today.
Based on the previous decision of committee, next on our agenda is Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project, and we will open the floor to general comments. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to begin today by offering some general remarks on how the Cabinet is engaging this Assembly in developing its responses, how the government is engaging the review process, the Joint Review Project report itself, the report itself, the content of the government’s public statements to date on the Joint Review Project and my general concerns.
While this Cabinet has heard my process concerns in a number of statements, questions and as reported in the media, I want to restate my basic thoughts on the role of the Assembly in developing the government response.
This is a consensus government and the Cabinet is not the government. Cabinet only has power with the approval of the Assembly. This Cabinet has put forward legalistic arguments saying that to consult with the Assembly on the specific recommendations would recreate an apprehension of bias that would jeopardize the review process. I have never agreed with this argument and I would like to make an observation in a little bit about that.
There may be Ministers responsible for filing this government’s response, but these Ministers cannot speak without the authority of this Assembly. Our agreed conventions for the business of this Assembly demand that all Members be consulted on major announcements and decisions because this is a consensus government and the government’s failure, Cabinet’s failure to do this, is a violation of the basic principles we’ve established for consensus government.
As a result, Members have not had detailed discussion on the Joint Review Panel report and its recommendations and have not been supplied with regular information on the Cabinet’s positions and actions. For example, this government made a major public presentation, one that I tabled earlier today in the House, of its position at the April hearings of the National Energy Board in Inuvik. Copies of that presentation have never been supplied to Members who must go to the NEB public registry if they are to know what the government has said. Even while public review, public review, open and public review was ongoing, with the opportunity for public input this spring, Cabinet did not seek input from Members on specific recommendations, even on a confidential basis. I would like to note that this debate would not be taking place in this Assembly today if the executive summary of the Joint Review Panel report had not been tabled by this side of the House for discussion in Committee of the Whole.
I repeat from a perspective of honouring the principles of consensus government, this entire process has been unacceptable and underscores the requirement for the government to anticipate this sort of situation and deal with such injustices proactively in the future; think ahead and prevent it. We’re different. And that makes it, unfortunately, an obligation for us to look after ourselves when these processes are coming down the pipe, so to speak.
While the government is refusing to talk to Members on its position, it’s proclaiming its simplistic bias extolling the virtues of the project to the world. I tabled today a copy of the ITI department’s advertisement in the May -- this month -- 2010 edition of Up Here Business magazine entitled Mackenzie Gas Project, A Secure Energy Source.
This advertisement says that this government is actively working to ensure that Northerners are fully informed, and invites the public to contact the GNWT to “answer all your pipeline related questions and have your input.” Obviously, today the public is welcome to ask questions and expect answers, but clearly not the MLAs, representatives of the people who are being denied their rights. I have to ask with advertisements like this, is there a basis for apprehensious of bias concerns being raised by the public, Mr. Chair?
Regarding the Joint Review Project itself, the project report, I want to re-emphasize its one most important conclusion. The Joint Review Panel in filing its 176 thoughtful and comprehensive recommendations placed particular stress on its position that the project should only go ahead if all 176 recommendations are met, meaning that unless all 176 recommendations are met, the project should not proceed. We’ve now seen the federal and GNWT interim response to the Joint Review Panel report in which government says it will accept only 10, less than 10 percent of the 115 recommendations aimed at government. I’ve seen the government’s reasoning for rejecting recommendations and that was reflected in the Inuvik proceedings. I am not optimistic that we are strongly seeking to support the panel’s attempts to make this project go ahead on the basis of a truly sustainable development.
Regarding the statements made by this government thus far, there are deep concerns. The JRP was convened to review a proposal for the development and ultimate shipment of .83 to 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas per day to southern markets. That was the extent of the review. Environmental and socio-economic review processes consider applications for finite, limited activities. This is the basis of the confidence placed in review processes, especially under land claims settlements, because a limited review is not a blank cheque. That is especially crucial in the case of the Mackenzie Gas Project proposal.
As Mr. C.W. Sanderson making a presentation of the Government of the Northwest Territories at the April 20th and 21st hearings to the National Energy Board in Inuvik said, “The project is basin opening and will make use of an important corridor in a fragile eco-system.” And later, “The basin opening characteristics of the pipeline are both manifest on the record before you and of extreme importance on the attitude that the GNWT takes to the pipeline.”
Unfortunately, the attitude and legal arguments presented by the GNWT to the NEB aim to violate the basic trust that this would be a limited review of a limited proposal. The terms of reference of the JRP review say that to go beyond 1.2 billion cubic feet would, “require the development of further gas fields,” and that “no specific developments for this purpose have been proposed.” We don’t know. We know there are three gas fields that will provide up to 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas. Other developments would provide more, but we don’t know where, we don’t know what the impacts would be and so on.
The GNWT’s presentation in Inuvik went to great lengths to assert that with the approval of this limited project, future further development of gas sources should be permitted beyond the 1.2 billion or even 1.9 billion cubic feet a day. GNWT’s presentation even suggested this pipeline should be constructed to accommodate that future unevaluated expansion. This is a radical statement of this government’s willingness to abrogate its future duties of oversight; a statement made without reference to the will of this Assembly and, therefore, completely unacceptable.
The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board and constitutionally protected land claims agreements were put in place to ensure, first, that Northerners have their say and, second, to ensure that sustainable development through integrated resource management is assured.
The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act provides options to control the pace scale of development. The Joint Review Panel called on governments to meet these responsibilities through their recommendations. All of us suffer when governments refuse to acknowledge their responsibilities in the face of clear requirements to deal with cumulative effects. Even worse, the GNWT’s submission to the NEB went to great lengths in lecturing the board not to include any conditions incorporating recommendations of the JRP which might place conditions on later development; a responsible attempt to deal with the mandate of cumulative effects that the JRP had in place.
GNWT apparently believes that the wisdom obtained in a five-year, $20 million review should not result in limiting principles for the consideration of future development proposals, something provided for in the MVRMA. All of this without a word of counsel from the Members of this Legislative Assembly and, again, all without these Assembly Members even being told what our lawyers will say in this public process or after the fact what our lawyers said.
Taken from another point of view, the many recommendations of the JRP report dealing with the social and environmental impacts of the proposal are a report card on how well we are dealing with these issues now. This includes everything from employment training to alcohol and drug treatment, women’s shelters, a huge social list. Not having accepted a single recommendation in this social category of socio-economic concerns, not having accepted a single recommendation, we get a failing grade on our report card.
Your time is up. I am going to go to the other committee members to see if they have general comments. If none do, we can go back to you. General comments. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The social and environmental measures outlined in the report, even with the modifications government propose, will cost this government, our government, us, huge sums. I have seen no estimate of these sums and I will be asking Cabinet to report on the work underway to assess the total cost of the huge new responsibilities and demands this project would create. I should say I will re-ask. I’ve asked before and gotten no response.
Of course, there is the option that Cabinet could simply say that it cannot agree with the recommendations because it would cost too much. But if that’s going to happen, what happens to the argument that this project will contribute to the sustainable economic and social well-being of the Territory?
If the wisdom of the JRP is that huge social and environmental shockwaves will result, that will require huge new expenditures to mitigate, how could the government refuse to insist upon these measures and still claim that the project provides net sustainable benefits? And if we do agree with the recommendations, how are we going to pay to meet them? Discussion should already by underway with the federal Minister of Finance, which I’ve also asked before, to identify these resources and get the new funding in place.
However, I am very pleased to see the Joint Review Panel recommendation 15-11, which says that even if a revenue sharing agreement is not in place, “the Government of Canada set aside 50 percent of the non-renewable resource royalty revenues it receives from the Mackenzie Gas Project to be held in trust for the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal authorities.” This Joint Review Panel report could be the first page of our eventual devolution of responsibilities from the federal government. Resource royalty sharing arrangements recommended by the panel in the report are in line with this Assembly’s intent to establish a heritage fund and provide a mechanism to fill it. This recommendation, 15-11, must be vigorously supported.
The final general thing I’d like to point out, from my reading of the Joint Review Panel report and the proponents’ responses, is that it has loopholes of timing and implementation that are unacceptable. In many instances, going into action or even preparing to go into action to mitigate impacts is dependent upon when the decision is made to proceed. In many cases, if we wait for the project to proceed, this will be too little, too late. Once this project proceeds, if it proceeds, we will have to be well along in our preparations. Pegging our preparations on the whim of the developer is not good enough.
So, Mr. Chair, in summary: the Joint Review Panel was saddled with a difficult undertaking. It was created to jointly provide for the functions of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, Inuvialuit Game Council provisions, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, and other processes and land claims. While recognizing the provisions for industry and Northerners’ input, we must have the ability to control the pace and scale of development to ensure the sustainability that the act provides for.
The Joint Review Panel gave it their best shot and in my mind they did a good job. They concluded it could go ahead -- exciting news -- but with essential conditions. Without meeting these conditions they concluded the project should not go forward because it could not be done in a way that is economically, socially or environmentally sustainable.
This government seeks devolution of responsibility and resource revenue sharing from the federal government. Well, Mr. Chair, here is a chance to demonstrate our worthiness to all governments, federal, aboriginal and municipal. Mr. Chair, let’s take the high road and have this government meet the quality of work provided by the JRP. Let’s fully endorse the conditions that must be met to make this truly sustainable development with the many benefits that we want for our people and with the minimal impacts we expect for our land.
That concludes my general remarks at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. General comments. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Myself, I’d like to also speak in regard to the Joint Review Panel’s recommendations and, more importantly, what we heard as the MLAs and, more importantly, what we heard from our communities, our constituents and our municipalities to ensure that they do have their voices heard. And I believe their voices were heard during the Joint Review Panel consultation. More importantly, for ourselves, this government, to stick up to the fundamental principle of good governance to ensure that we listen to our constituency, but, more importantly, follow up with the wishes of our constituents when it comes to ensuring that we do have safe, secure and stable communities and that we do benefit from major developments that happen in our homeland.
Mr. Chair, I think it’s important to realize that the recommendations in regard to the Joint Review Panel heard the communities in regard to their concerns and issues dealing with alcohol and drug abuse, the problems associated with the location of camps, of what’s going to happen in regard to the community infrastructure, in regard to disposal of hazardous waste, the use of gravel sources so that communities will be able to have their own gravel sources going forward and that they don’t exploit the communities and leave them with the costs associated with having to pay for a lot of the public infrastructure that we, as taxpayers and as community residents, have to ensure that we also have the capacity to carry on after these major developments take place.
I think, also, it’s very important to realize that the resources of the Northwest Territories are the resources of the people of the Northwest Territories. I think for far too long we have allowed the federal government and industry to dictate what happens to our resources. An illustration of that is the amount of federal infrastructure dollars or federal taxpayer dollars that was expended back in the ‘70s and ‘80s on the famous program called PIP, in which 90 percent of capital infrastructure dollars were paid for by the federal government and which a lot of significant discoveries were made using taxpayers’ dollars, but yet they remained sitting in the ground. I think, as Northerners, there has to be a statement that you either use it or lose it. I think, what we’ve seen in regard to other jurisdictions in Canada, regardless if it’s Newfoundland or Alaska, that they have basically made it clear to industry that you develop the resources in a timely manner and you ensure that the benefits flow to the residents of those areas, regardless if it’s Newfoundland or Alaska. I think, ourselves, as Northerners, don’t expect anything less.
I think we also have to realize the importance of sustainable public infrastructure, regardless if it’s pipeline, transmission line, that it has to ensure that the benefits flow to Northerners, regardless if it’s dealing with the gas, dealing with power transmission. That we have to benefit one way or the other, regardless if it’s we’re hooking the gas into our communities to gasify communities to bring down the cost of living, or ensuring ways that industry has to use a more feasible means of energy by way of green energy and use the natural resources we have by way of hydro or even by converting in regard to a more green means of public infrastructure such as pipelines.
Again, I think it’s important that the biggest thing we heard from our communities prior to the reviews was the fair factor, the social and economic impacts that development leaves by way of alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, and the effects it has on the social fabric of our communities. We have to ensure that we have the capacity, we have the resources, and we have the infrastructure in place to take care of our residents when they need those resources, regardless if it’s alcohol and treatment programs, regardless if it’s technical programs such as technical trades, and ensuring that we do have the infrastructure and the resources to carry out those social responsibilities and not only leave it up to government but also ensure that we work along with industry to find these preventative measures to that we can ensure the well-being of the people of the Northwest Territories and also that we do have developments that are win-win for everyone.
Mr. Chair, I think it’s also important that we do realize that we have to have a voice for the people that put us here. I think it’s important that we do have to ensure that whatever comes forward in regard to the NEB, after they’ve had an opportunity to review these recommendations, we take a close look at exactly what defines the NEB in regards to these recommendations but, more importantly, how are they going to implement these recommendations, especially the ones that have a direct affect on the residents of the Northwest Territories, communities in the Northwest Territories and people of the Northwest Territories so that we do win from this one of the largest projects in Northern Canada.
I think it is also important to realize that we do have to tie other types of public infrastructure such as the Mackenzie Highway into this type of project regardless if there is an alternative area of doing it, if we are able to bring down the cost of the pipeline by building our highways, regardless if it is the road from Wrigley to Tuk or dealing with sections so that we can connect communities to the different facilities regardless if it is dealing with the facilities in regards to the refining system or compressor stations and have that infrastructure built permanently and not look at the cheapest way of doing it and at the end of the day, we have no public infrastructure built because of the way that we allow a system to be built with no win-win situation for our communities.
I think that the Mackenzie Highway has the potential of being the win-win for everybody. I think that we do have to continue to pressure the federal government and industry to make them realize the importance of such a piece of public infrastructure in regards to this particular project and work with the aboriginal groups regardless if it is the Mackenzie Aboriginal Corporation or community groups, regardless if it is the Deh Cho, the Sahtu, the Inuvialuit and the Gwich’in.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think it is also important that we do file our own report as the government and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to ensure that we do oversee this project as any government should and as any Legislature should, to ensure that we at the end of the day are the benefactors of this arrangement and again, more importantly, the section that my colleague quoted in regards to section 50 and 11 which talks about resource revenues and ensuring that we do have some means of benefitting from this project in the interim until we receive resource revenue sharing or have some means of benefitting from resource development and formulating some sort of trust regardless if it is a heritage trust or having some resources put aside for a rainy day so once this project has come and gone 30 years later we are not sitting with a pipe in the ground which basically has served its purpose and it is now going to diminish its willingness to continue to benefit not only industry but people of the Northwest Territories. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, those are my comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next on my list is Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is in regards to the JRP report. When I was the past mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, I was in full support of the pipeline on a go-forward basis. I am still a big proponent of the push that I would like to see this project go.
Mr. Chairman, people in the Beaufort-Delta right now need jobs. People are not working. There is nothing going on. You have almost highlight companies that are almost going under right now due to lack of work and the lack of the federal government. I wish they would put more to the all-weather road between Tuk and Inuvik to keep businesses both in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk working for the next couple of years prior to getting this pipeline inserted.
The biggest thing I think what we should be pushing through, as Mr. Krutko said earlier, that use it or lose it. Under the Inuvialuit, you have a certain amount of time to go drilling and then penalties will come into play. Ultimately, they will be taken or you lose your permitting and you pay a big fine. Something like that is a sort of thing that we should work towards and to try to make sure everybody is on the same page.
At the end of the day, we need this pipeline. The people in the Beaufort-Delta need the jobs. Disposal, like Mr. Krutko, the camps, people in camps catering, you know, transportation, everything is going to be going good for at least three to five years in regard to that, then we work with our neighbours to the west, Alaska, in regard to their pipeline and working with them to work on both sides of the border. You know, that was brought up and hopefully we can see that through with the Minister.
Gravel sources, yup, we have a lot of gravel in our riding, not only in Nunakput but right down the Delta. The studies have been done. The jobs, again, use of the classifications where possible and, like I said earlier, the Tuk/Inuvik highway.
Mr. Chair, people have to work. Again, like I said earlier in my Member’s statement, we know we have nothing going on. We have a building that’s being built in Inuvik, the school, and I’m pretty sure they have enough workers already, but you have the people that work in the oil and gas industry for the last 20 or 30 years and then Shell coming back and working out on the drill rig, the Mallik, probably about three years ago that stalled, but it was good to see. People don’t realize 30 years ago we had six or seven drill rigs working off the shores of Tuk and now the big thing with the secondary well, which I am in favour of, and it’s going to cost a little bit more for companies to come up and work, but so be it.
At the end of the day, I wish the government, pipeline and the offshore will come hand in hand and I wish our territorial government would tell the NEB yes, we want this project to go. We have graduates coming out of high school now that basically have nowhere to turn, not unless the post-secondary education, which is good, but after that’s done, you know, all the government jobs are all taken up in the communities if they want to go home and work. There are very limited good paying jobs. So we have to push the federal government in regard to this. It only took the JRP five years and hopefully, like I said the other day, we keep them on a timeline and on the push to go forward to make this project happen. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. General comments. Mr. Krutko.
I move a motion to report progress.
---Carried
Can I have the report of Committee of the Whole, please, Mr. Abernethy?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 42-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 1, 2010-2011 (Operations Expenditures); Tabled Document 43-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures); and Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the JRP Report on the Mackenzie Gas Project, and would like to report progress with two committee motions being adopted and that consideration of Tabled Document 42-16(5) and Tabled Document 43-16(5) is concluded and the House concurs in those estimates and that an appropriation bill to be based thereon be introduced without delay. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. A motion is on the floor. Do we have a seconder for that? The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Veterinary Profession Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Veterinary Profession Act, has had third reading.
---Carried
The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
