Mr. Chairman, there were many, many things that I liked in the sessional statement, and you know when I say that, there’s more to follow. I thought a number of things did actually reflect some of our early discussions on our priorities and vision. It was when we got to “maximizing opportunities,” and even there I was doing well. I was totally with the Premier until we reached the statement of blind support that says we can do all this with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. As a biologist in the old days, we always used to look for the one solution, too. And you know what? We never found it. It’s a complex world out there.
I’m particularly concerned with some of the costs associated with this. The first point I want to bring up…. I’ve worked on this issue outside this House, as well, as a non-government person. I’m familiar with the file, so to speak. This blind option, this open-door policy without some very rigorous oversight, is something I don't want to see us subscribing to. One of the major conditions I would want to see here is a carbon-neutral project. The days of having a project of this size, without it being carbon-neutral, are gone. Let’s take the leadership role.
Even before that, there is a lot of discussion to be had. There is some fundamental disregard for our current experience with the diamond industry, some lack of understanding, and I'd like to address that a little bit.
First of all, putting all our eggs in one basket, in the Mackenzie Valley basket, and inviting into our living room the most profitable corporation in the world — ironically, proven as the culprit actively responsible for delaying action on climate change, and one with many other human rights abuses and blemishes —
doesn't sit well with me, particularly with a “Come on in and do it to us again” sort of policy.
A profligately rich, multinational corporation that comes to the table demanding subsidies beyond what we already provide, which are major — let’s have some critical thinking here.
We know that this will only accelerate our migrant workers problem and will pipeline resources directly out of the North even faster, as opposed to capturing them here. Our health care cards will go up, and so on, with many costs associated with that. Then, of course, there are the externalized environmental costs that need to be brought in as part of the equation.
Let’s look at our current experience with mega-development in the North so far: again, a rapid doubling, and even tripling, of our greenhouse gas emissions.
People say to me on the street, “The 10 per cent of the iceberg that's above the waterline is doing super-well, but the 90 per cent below….” Although they are reporting increased dollars from diamonds and from residential schools, the real situation is that our social problems are escalating. The number of deaths associated with that, the number of addictions, family breakups and so on, is on the rise.
It’s clearly not helping people across the board, and I don't see this government really rigorously ensuring that the across-the-board benefit will come along with this.
Mr. Chairman, there is another way forward. This 16th Assembly identified quite clearly that our
priority is economic diversification. This does not mean going after one basket yet again.
We want food providers, boat builders, artists, renewable energy technicians, doctors, plumbers, lawyers, electricians, accountants, inventors and so on who support our local economies, not something that will end up raising our local costs so that local people will not be able to afford homes and taxes in their own communities.
I'd like to see us put conditions in place that ensure full and true benefits, should we go for things like this, and I don't see that that's been done. We certainly need to demand that it only go forward under carbon-neutral conditions.
I'm going to focus just on this one point, and if I can, Mr. Chairman, I'll wrap it up quickly.
I'd like to turn to page 4 of the Sessional Statement and have us read that in a way that considers the environment as a backpack. In many ways, the work we are doing now is like our elders planning for a hunting trip. We have to pack wisely for the
journey. We can load down our packs with everything we would want to have with us. Just think about the environment here. We can load down the environment with everything we want to do, in terms of economic development, but the result would be — and in this case, the result is already — a load that's too heavy to haul. Our environmental systems are breaking down before our very eyes. That weighs us down and slows down our journey.
Choosing what not to take is difficult. I grant that these are difficult economic challenges we face, but I’m looking for innovation. I’m looking for things that really support our local economies and challenge our people instead of having them line up and be automatons and, you know, Exxon’s force once again, like it’s happened throughout the world to little avail for local economies.
Choosing what not to take is difficult and may involve some compromises and hardships. I grant that. But in the end it allows us to make the journey and reach our destination. I am totally convinced we can do this in a much better way. It’s going to take some innovation. It’s going to take some realization that doing the same thing harder is not going to work.
That’s all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.