Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the mover and seconder making this motion come forward. I think it is a discussion that’s happening throughout Canada and throughout the Northwest Territories. There is always that debate between these two bills that have come forward, and C-38 has already gone forward and gone through. It’s a very difficult situation and many people in the communities, when I’m in the communities, are discussing issues that are economic development driven versus environmental driver.
I understand my colleagues’ discussion on the environmental side, but on the other side, Bill 38 deals with some of the issues that some of the people are concerned with, that some of the environmental processes have been holding back projects, have been slowing the process down. Not that we want to do development with no cost, but that we want to do development that moves forward, that there are timelines.
I know in my riding there are three mining companies that have been involved in environmental assessments. Some of these companies go years and spend millions of dollars before they get any kind of commitment because of the environmental processes. Indications are that Bill C-38 will improve that system. Not that these people will not have to do environmental assessments for the Northwest Territories and make sure that things are being taken care of, but that there’s a timeline for these companies. They know the money that they have to invest. They know what the process involves. These are some of the things that have been demanded or asked by industry, by people, the people in the Northwest Territories that want jobs, that need jobs to help the Northwest Territories.
I guess, in essence, I’m having difficulties with this bill and supporting it. The motion, sorry, the new bill, Bill 45, speaks of waterways, and it’s fairly new. How it impacts everything in the North is still up for debate. My colleagues have discussed some of the political issues. We’re talking about a federal bill in this House, and that’s questionable whether we should be directing or talking about the federal government’s bills in this House. I think that’s a question mark for us.
My biggest concerns are that I see things being held up. We’ve talked about the economic development. We’ve talked about the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and the years, the decades that this project has taken. Whether we blame the environmental assessment process, we blame industry and the economy of it, there are two sides to every story, and there’s always a blame game. But I think somewhere down the line, there’s another half of the public that are saying we need jobs, we need the economy.
We’ve talked in this House about needing money to do other programs, to help with addictions, and those are going to come from resource sharing, and revenue and royalties. We need more revenue like that, so we need these projects to move forward. As difficult as it is to say, some of those projects have been held up because of that.
I will not be supporting this motion because of these difficulties that I’m having. I understand my colleagues that made the motion and seconded the motion; however, there is another side to this debate and I believe that we need to hear that side as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be supporting the motion. I am sick and tired of the Northwest Territories having the dubious distinction of being the most difficult place in which to develop resources.
Ten years ago I went to the Prospectors and Developers Conference in Toronto. I was a speaker there on behalf of our government, and we were talking about the same things then: the red tape, the environmental assessment process. That’s our distinction. That’s what we’re known for in the Northwest Territories. You want to go to a place where you can never get business done? Go to the Northwest Territories. While at the same time, our neighbours to the south, our neighbours to the east, our neighbours to the west are doing fantastic, and they are realizing their aspirations for their economic development.
In no way am I saying that we should develop our resources at the expense of our environment. Absolutely not. But what we have in place here, right now in the Northwest Territories, does not work, so good on the federal government for finally figuring out a way to streamline this and let’s get on with business. Let’s protect our environment at the same time. We’re not saying throw the doors wide open and throw out all environmental protection, but it’s about time that we had a streamlined process, and if this gets us to it, I support it and I do not support the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have heard from some of our colleagues who have a concern over the two federal bills, as mentioned, and what impacts it may have on our land, water and wildlife.
Federal Bill C-38 received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, all the Members here received some form of information from a number of groups. Some of them are special interest groups, some of them are environmental stakeholders, and I applaud their work. We did hear their messages loud and clear. But, Mr. Speaker, we didn’t hear from all stakeholders. There were many other stakeholders. We talked about some of the economic stakeholders with some of my colleagues here as well. They were missing from the overall positioning which would give us the ability to address the potential impacts of this bill. Because we haven’t received this full spectrum, I will not, nor should I, comment any further on that bill today.
We`ve also heard about Bill C-45, which has been recently introduced. It replaces a very old bill back from 1882, old legislation, which deals primarily with continued protection of our Canadian waterways. It talks about good infrastructure building and it balances us against unsafe navigation. More important, as we heard today, it reduces red tape. These are all positive things and things that I do agree with.
We have also heard only three bodies of water were mentioned, but I could also spend a great deal of time on why those three bodies of water were provided. This information is readily available to anybody. You can Google information. There was a comprehensive, quantitative analysis. There were things like Canadian Hydrographic Service’s scores and freight scores and navigation scores, but those things are moot, Mr. Speaker, because there was a criteria of why those bodies of water were selected to protect for navigation. There is an ability within that framework to add more bodies of water, as we heard from one of the Members here.
I can sit here and quote that there are at least nine federal acts of Parliament that govern marine safety and other types of safety, but again what will that prove today other than lots of words on paper.
Through my reviews of Bill C-45 today, there really is no reduction in environmental protection of NWT waters as a result. I feel quite confident that we are very well protected moving forward. I believe we are moving in the right direction.
Let’s remember that these are federal bills and the people of the NWT have elected a federal representative to represent our concerns. Yes, we serve the same people, but by using this House as a means of partisan tone, I am gravely concerned that the potential posturing could, in essence, jeopardize the many critical projects that we have agreed to as a Caucus on such as things as devolution, regulatory improvement, our Inuvik-Tuk Highway and the Mackenzie Valley fibre optic, just to name a few. Can we afford to jeopardize these projects as a result of this tone?
As much as I don’t want to diminish the ability to spearhead good debate in this House for Northerners, I feel we need to do so in a more productive, positive and respectful tone and to always govern ourselves, as I said, in a non-partisan manner, especially with our federal partners.
Again, I don’t want to undermine the good work of the Member bringing this motion forward and the spirit behind their intent and their thoughts and dues on the floor of this House, but by passing judgment on complex legislation that is still before Parliament is not, in my humble opinion, representing the views of my Range Lake constituents nor all Northerners. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot and will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to thank the mover and the seconder of the motion for bringing it forward, Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya. You’ve heard already, and we’re going to hear again, that this is a controversial motion. We’ve already had great debate at committee about it and I think it was a very healthy debate. I appreciate the comments I’ve heard from committee and I appreciate the comments I’ve heard today.
In listening to my colleagues, I get the impression that they think we are debating a federal bill. That’s not what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We are debating the effects of Bill C-38, a federal bill which was passed in June of this year. So we are now the recipients of the effects of Bill C-38.
I am in support of this motion and I support the motion because I am greatly concerned about the changes in federal environmental legislation that have taken place as a result of Bill C-38. I speak for myself today but I also speak on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of other concerned NWT residents and organizations. There are many of our residents, Mr. Speaker, who are concerned like me, concerned because of the ramifications of Bill C-38.
As a Member of this Assembly, it’s my duty to give voice to those constituent concerns, to hear what the public is saying and to give it some exposure. We know that Bill C-38 was a very large and all-encompassing bill. One of the concerns I have been hearing from constituents is the lack of consultation on that bill, a bill which will have a big impact on NWT residents and on our environment.
There are many parts of the bill that have been seen as positive by many people across the country and by people across the NWT. I admit there are parts of the bill which are going to be good and those parts of the bill met particularly with approval in the business and the mining and exploration sectors, and some of my colleagues have pointed to the fact that it will be a benefit and I agree.
Mr. Bouchard’s and Mrs. Groenewegen’s constituents will see a better process and hopefully will get their projects moving faster.
So some of the changes will have a positive impact and they will have a positive impact on a regulatory system which is onerous and time consuming, I totally admit that. It’s a system that should be made more simple and more streamlined. The changes in Bill C-38 may do that.
Many of the changes in Bill C-38 will have a large and negative impact on the NWT environment and that’s my concern. They will have an impact on our people, on our land, on our wildlife, on our waters. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act governs the referral of projects for environmental assessments. Through amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-38 puts restrictions on public participation in environmental assessments, narrows the definition of environmental effects, reduces the funding of participants in environmental assessments and increases the involvement of federal Cabinet in decision-making around environmental assessments. Those are not good things, in my mind.
There will be financial implications, as well, as a result of that bill’s passage. That’s been mentioned by Mr. Bromley as well.
We have heard from Mr. Yakeleya about the concerns of the Sahtu because of changes to the Fisheries Act, changes which are a part of Bill C-38.
Streamlining and becoming more efficient are important, Mr. Speaker, but not at any cost and not at the cost of our fisheries.
Some change was needed. The protection of habitat was too broad. Bill C-38 changed the scope of fisheries to too narrow a focus. There will be NWT waters and fish habitats which will now not be protected and they should be. As an example, the draining of an NWT lake by use by a mining project will no longer be prohibited. Any fish in that lake will not be protected as they have been. Most of our NWT lakes have been deemed to be non-important fisheries and we know that that’s not true.
I believe it’s the responsibility of the NWT government to consider the effects of legislation on our territory and to protect the NWT and its residents from those effects, to communicate territorial concerns to the federal government. That’s what this motion asks for, Mr. Speaker, that the GNWT look after NWT interests with the federal government on behalf of NWT residents.
I know Members are not fully behind this motion. Some think we should stick to territorial issues and business. This is territorial business. The effect of Bill C-38 will be felt in the NWT and on the NWT.
I want to again thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this motion to the floor, for providing this opportunity for dialogue on change which will affect us all. I hope my colleagues who are not in support will see the light before the vote comes and that they will support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing forward the motion. I regret to inform them that I, too, cannot support the motion as it currently reads. I don’t believe that the motion is timely and it may be too soon to address some of the concerns, because I, myself, as MLA have never had time to fully digest the impacts of all the past Bill C-38 and the current Bill C-45 coming up, which is moot because it may change.
As well, the concerns must be measured. The bill is so big that I need more time to take in all the information. Also, the motion mentions a few key words and I’m not convinced that there’s a dismantling of our federal regulatory regime that this motion speaks of, Mr. Speaker. I’m not convinced, either, that we in the Northwest Territories are suffering the effects of Bill C-38. I haven’t really digested what those are yet. I really believe that there is other legislation in place federally and territorially that covers environmental assessments and other environmental concerns, fisheries concerns, but yet I haven’t had time to review it or research it.
I do want to assure my constituents that as your MLA I will ensure that the concerns on Bills C-38 and 45 will be addressed, but there are other avenues to do this and I believe that we have time. You only have to look to the Prairie Creek experience to see the effects of the current regulatory regime. They’ve been using our regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories as well as federally, and they’ve been in the regulatory black hole, as it were, for the last 15 or 20 years. I pride them for being consistent and persevering and to get through as many of those loopholes, not loopholes, but through as many of those regulatory regimes as they could.
We can speak about the pipeline experience as well. If we had a speedy regulatory review of it, perhaps the project would still be on, but now that’s been set back.
I also want to say, too, that the concerns about our land and water are real, they’re very real, but I don’t believe that it’s all gone to the wind. I need more time to look at it and that’s why I’m not going to be supporting this motion now. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to commend the work by my colleagues who brought this motion forward. There is some good wording in there, but the wording also needs to be looked at in terms of supporting it. I commend the work done by the staff here that got the information for us as well.
In terms of consultation, we did receive some letters from various groups in the Northwest Territories, but we didn’t receive letters, or letters of concern from everybody. We don’t know what’s on everybody’s mind, and to bring a motion forward today without getting everybody’s input and support, it’s hard for me to speak and make a decision for people of my region and other regions in the Northwest Territories.
I myself have not spoken to the Aboriginal leaders, the municipal leaders and the community of Inuvik, where we do have a few big projects on the books coming up in the future. Whether or not we pass a motion like this could possibly harm those projects going forward, I’m not too sure. So before I can put my stance and support behind a motion and bring my concerns forward, I have to bring the concerns of my constituents, the community of Inuvik and the two Aboriginal groups that reside in Inuvik and the Beaufort-Delta region and discuss with them.
As I said, we did elect leaders across the way here that do work in the best interests of not only this House but of the residents of the Northwest Territories, and we should put our faith and our confidence in them that they are doing good work for the people of the Northwest Territories.
As I said and stated earlier and, actually, Mr. Bromley did make reference to a sustainable land use framework that’s in the works now, and I believe that will address and help us protect some of our environment, as well, when that’s possibly completed. Like I said, until I get full support, full concerns, questions from my constituents, the Aboriginal leaders in my community and the Beaufort-Delta region, at this time I won’t be able to support this motion as we move forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In listening to this motion today, it’s become clear that there’s still a lot of work that needs to be examined and considered before we can accept some type of judgment on this particular motion. So looking at the particular numbers before us at this moment, it looks as if it won’t pass.
I want to stress that many Members who are speaking in favour and against it are raising very important concerns. Some people are speaking against the motion saying that they will vote against it. They’re highlighting their caution, but they’re still echoing support for environmental protection. It is not in contradiction to have these types of views. I think it’s good stewardship in the challenge that we balance here every day.
If this motion fails today, it ends here, it ends this issue, it shows no further light of day upon it. It is a legitimate concern. I have not heard one person speak against the motion’s principles, which are we want good stewardship, but many people also spoke about the bogging down of opportunities before us. The challenge is, of course, like anything, to find the right balance. Information was still flowing to my office this morning to fully understand the impacts of this.
In some cases that I’ve seen thus far, we will see little effects that will streamline a process that seems almost ridiculous, and in other cases there can be real issues at risk. It’s about understanding the full issue before we pass judgment. I should say for the record, I’ve supported many environmental initiatives and my record clearly says this, but I do have concern with the way this motion is presented and written at this particular time. Therefore, I cannot support it.
Before I conclude, I do believe strongly that we need to fully understand the impacts that we are agreeing to. I’ve often said that we have to understand what questions we’re answering before we agree to answer it. We need to understand the issues before us before we challenge it. Sometimes, as we’ve heard from many Members, there are ways to do things and some of the changes are going to be very positive. So we can’t just jump in and say no, we don’t like this. We need, again, a good dialogue, good understanding.
In the spirit of dialogue, I wanted to wait to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, speak their views and raise their issues on behalf of constituents. It’s a principle and a tenet I feel very strongly about.
I strongly support the rights of those people to raise issues, even at times when I don’t agree with them. They will often say that I will stand by them to ensure that their voices are heard and I will defend the rights of all, even those I disagree with, to the end of my last breath.
Now that we’ve heard from everyone on this side of the House that wanted to speak at this particular motion, I’m now going to move a motion to end debate on this particular issue. What this does is it ends the debate before a verdict, a verdict that stops it in its tracks, because I feel that if this motion fails, the issues raised that were of concern puts it to bed period.
Work still needs to be done. If there was one clear message today, it said we need to still review this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins, your motion is in order. The motion is not subject to amendment and is not debatable.
To be clear, if this motion is adopted by the House, it would bring to close any further debate on the initial motion and no vote will be taken. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you. Okay, I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of the committee today? Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee wishes to discuss Committee Report 6-17(3), Standing Committee Economic Development and Infrastructure Report on Hydraulic Fracturing, and Committee Report 7-17(3), Report on the Use of Tablet Computers in Formal Session of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
We’ll commence with that after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I would like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. The first standing committee report we’re going to deal with is 6-17(3), the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, their report on the 2012 Hydraulic Fracturing Study Tour: Toward a Policy Framework for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It gives me great pleasure to have the motions before us. I just want to remind committee and, of course, the general public, these are a bunch of motions we had read into the official record when we had read the report yesterday. With that, I wanted to thank the Members publicly for their assistance in doing that.
At this point, I’d like to get straight to the committee motions that are on the official report.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories include in its policy framework on hydraulic fracturing a strategy to gather environmental and geological baseline information, with federal support.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories adopt standards for all phases of the drilling process and includes these in its policy framework, and strongly recommends that the standards be incorporated into regulation at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Mr. Bromley.
I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories include in its policy on hydraulic fracturing the implementation of environmental monitoring and area management plans. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Mr. Menicoche.
I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories include greenhouse gas monitoring and mitigation measures in its policy on hydraulic fracturing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Mr. Hawkins.
I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories undertake meaningful public consultation in the development of policy on hydraulic fracturing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Mr. Hawkins.
