N.W.T. premier says public wildfire inquiry could cost millions and grind gov't to a halt

N.W.T. Premier R.J. Simpson says he does not support an independent public inquiry into how the government responded to the 2023 wildfires that led to the evacuation of around 70 per cent of the territory. 

A motion to vote on the subject was postponed last week in the Legislative Assembly at the request of the premier. 

That postponement narrowly passed with all of cabinet voting in favour, along with Frame Lake MLA Julian Morse and Great Slave MLA Kate Reid. All other MLAs voted against it. The 9-9 tie was broken by Speaker Shane Thompson voting to postpone. 

Range Lake MLA Kieron Testart and Dehcho MLA Sheryl Yakeleya, who are the MLAs behind the motion for a public inquiry, spoke with Hilary Bird, host of CBC's the Trailbreaker, Monday to discuss why they think it's important.

"The government response was very lacking for a great number of people," said Testart.

"People's stories need to be heard and we need to restore trust in the public and we're not going to get that through a southern contractor who's hired by the department and reports to the minister." 

Yakeleya said she's heard from some of the communities in her region that they faced challenges with getting information from the territory about the wildfire situation. She added she's spoken with people in Enterprise who believe this inquiry is important in order to help repair trust between their community and the territorial government.

"They're seeking answers, and this motion will make that happen for them," she said.

Dene Nation has stated it is in support of a public inquiry, as has the Tłı̨chǫ government. 

Simpson said he doesn't support the motion because two departments, Municipal and Community Affairs and Environment and Climate Change, are already doing reviews of their response.

Simpson was on The Trailbreaker Wednesday morning to discuss why he thinks the current reviews are enough. Below is a transcript of that conversation. 

This Q&A has been edited for clarity and length. 

Do you think the N.W.T. needs a public inquiry?

I don't think the N.W.T. needs a public inquiry. 

We're doing two reviews right now, one through the Department of Environment and Climate Change and that's a very technical review to look at the wildfires, how they were fought — so, you know, when a particular fire started, how it was actioned, at what time, what type of fire retardant was used on it, things like that, so that in future years we have that information and we can adjust as necessary.

And that one is very important because this past year has been like no other year. The conditions were like nothing anyone who's worked on the fires have seen. The people who came back out of retirement have said they've never seen anything like that.

MACA is also going to undertake a review as well. That one is going to look at the evacuations and all of the co-ordination of government departments, and it's going to be able to answer the big questions. 

We're going to have public components in there. There'll be public meetings, opportunities for written feedback. We're trying to figure out, how can we have anonymous feedback as well. Because there's concerns that, you know, some government employees might not want to tell their story for fear of reprisal. 

Or even contractors who do lots of work with the government might not want to tell their story. And so we want to make sure that everyone can tell their story, so that we have a full picture of what happened and we have the information needed to address those issues and make sure they don't happen again.

We did hear MLA Testart say that this wouldn't give us a full picture of what happened, that these are departmental after-action reviews. What is it about the public inquiry process itself that concerns you?

Well, our Public Inquiries Act is very old and very outdated. It doesn't have a lot of the provisions that modern acts would have — the ability to do interviews that aren't in public, that are a little more anonymous, to look at reports without making it a public process. 

So there's a lot of work that can be done in the background under the new act. But with our current act, which is decades old, anyone who was involved in the issue of the inquiry — so the evacuations — has the right to testify, essentially, and call witnesses and examine witnesses. 

So we could have a situation where we have tens of thousands of people able to testify and call witnesses and it could turn into a circus very quickly.

It's not focused. 

Once we create this body, it takes on a life of its own. We don't have an ability to cap costs. We don't have an ability to set a timeline. If we want to look into the wildfires and the wildfire response, we could be looking at an inquiry worth tens of millions of dollars. It would require hundreds or thousands of people to testify. 

Recently, there's been concerns about the ATIPP Act and how departments are resourced to provide information.

A public inquiry could essentially ATIPP multiple departments, everything in those departments over the course of a year, essentially grinding them to a halt. 

So the act itself is not well-suited to a review of this magnitude. So that's the biggest issue and that's my biggest concern.

But one thing that Kieron Testart did say is that through a scope of reference, frames of reference, you know, you could sort of narrow the scope of what this public inquiry could look like and the cost. 

He's also said that he's been working with cabinet on this motion. Is that not true, that you can sort of narrow that down a little bit so it doesn't end up costing tens of millions of dollars and that you're having to interview thousands of people?

From my reading of the act and the reading of the officials that I've spoken with, that's not the case. 

It's very prescriptive and it doesn't allow us to do those things that we're talking about. It doesn't allow people to testify anonymously. It's very much like a court trial.

The only evidence that can be presented is evidence that's admissible in a court of law. So once it's created, it takes on a life of its own and we can't really narrow it the way that I think some people think maybe we can. They might be thinking we have a modern piece of legislation where you have a lot more flexibility, but we just don't have that with our act.

If not an inquiry through that act, what tool do you think can create the same kind of transparency and public buy-in that Kieron Testart is talking about?

The plan is to go and contract a third party, an independent contractor to do the review. 

And so that's a contractor whose name is going to be on that review and I don't think they're going to want a compromised report. 

But even if they're still concerned about the government covering things up, there's ways that we can work together and create a terms of reference for that contract to ensure that that doesn't happen. 

So we could have a committee appointed by cabinet, appointed by the regular members, possibly appointed by the council of leaders, who could provide oversight of that of that contract. 

And they could see the draft reports as they come in from the contractor at the same time as the government does. So there's no opportunity for the government to, you know, whitewash anything. That contract could include requirements that the government provide documentation upon request. So that's a legal requirement in contract law. So there's legal ways to still compel documents without the process of a public inquiry. 

So I'm confident that the process that we're looking at is going to fulfil those goals.

I do have to bring up that when you were campaigning for premier you were asked by the now MACA minister, Vince McKay, if you would support a public inquiry and you said yes, you said that you would. And you said you know it can't be a run-of-the-mill review, it needs to be an enhanced review. These after-action reviews that you're talking about, is that enough?

I never said I was in favour of a public inquiry. I said I was in favour of an independent, third-party public review. 

You might be referencing the all-candidates forum that we had in Hay River. And I knew, because I was in MLA in the last term, that there was independent reviews happening.

And so that's always been my position. I've always been in favour of those.

This is one of the main reasons that I ran for MLA and premier. My constituents were impacted quite significantly over the past few years by floods, by fires, and so the evacuations, the emergency response is something that's very close to my heart.

And the reason I ran, the reason I wanted to do this, is to make sure that doesn't happen again.

When I left Hay River, I looked off to my right and there was a tower of smoke. People who left 15 minutes after me, there were walls of flame on either side of them.

And there's no reason that should have happened. So when I came into this role, I wanted to make sure things like that didn't happen.

So this is very personal for me. Being in this role, having this ability to have oversight over these processes, and having Minister McKay who knows as much as anybody about this stuff as well, gives me a lot of confidence that we are going to answer the big questions and we're going to do everything we can to address these issues.

We also heard Kieron Testart say any review the N.W.T. government undertakes, independent or not, won't restore public trust. Do you think the public and your constituents in Hay River will be truly satisfied with anything short of a public inquiry?

I've spoken to many people who are of the same opinion as me, that a public inquiry is not the way to go and the kind of review we're talking about is the way to go. So I don't think the public is all-in on a public inquiry. And I think one of the biggest issues here is that people don't really understand what a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiries Act is. It's a very formal, legalistic process that is not very flexible.

Will the public have a chance to see these reports that you're talking about?

Absolutely. That's the plan. We're going to have public meetings where the public will be able to get up and say their piece. And then once the reports are done, they're going to be able to see that reflected in the reports.

So we need to make these reports public. This is a way to get that public trust.