Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s nice to be able to provide a couple of comments regarding the Minister’s opening remarks, and quite namely, a few things inside his opening remarks did cause some interest and I would like to hear perhaps a little more detail.

In one of the paragraphs, the Minister mentioned about the transboundary water agreement with neighbouring jurisdictions. One of the challenges is we have become keenly aware, of course, as being downriver, we see the effects of the other jurisdictions. Although it has been some time since I sat on the committee that would oversee this department, I do recall off memory that we do have

a transboundary agreement with the Yukon, but yet it still seems to be an outstanding issue with Alberta for one reason or another. I shouldn’t coin it as an issue per se, but for one reason or another, as I understand it, Alberta still won’t come to the table. I hope the Minister can provide an elaboration as to why our neighbour to the south still resists that.

As we heard Mr. Yakeleya mention in this Member’s statement and certainly his questions yesterday about the concerns about being downriver of not just development but we are talking about major development that does play a heavy toll on our water and the water we’ll be receiving for many years to come and the impacts of that. One of the particular issues to wield against Alberta is who will be theoretically responsible for contamination.

I know that, in the past, I have come to the Minister of ENR to ask him about what we do for water monitoring specifically in that particular area as the benefactors of some of that development that is going to put challenges on our water system. As we all know, it is the lifeblood of all land, which is water and, of course, that seeds and fuels both our forests, our people, our animals and things like that. It is obviously critical that it is developed and protected, of course, in a way that makes a lot of sense. That said, I think the transboundary water agreement with Alberta is quite significant. I would not speak to assume in any lesser manner that the transboundary water agreement with British Columbia would be of less concern, but I am not familiar enough with the individual tributaries that pour out of northern B.C. into the Northwest Territories that has the same effect now. I am aware that they fuel the Liard River, of course, but does it have the same effects? I am sure to some degree it does. I can’t imagine that that area should be overlooked in one way or the other. I am just speaking more from a position of saying that my first thought and concern, of course, being the Alberta side.

Mr. Chairman, switching issues of concern to raise, and hopefully the Minister of ENR can elaborate a little further on the work developed, under our caribou. The caribou harvesting industry has been, for lack of better terms, shut down. It will continue to be shut down for some time. I am wondering as to what type of work has been done in studying the numbers. In some cases, we hear the numbers aren’t as bad as they first thought. What has the department done to further track caribou to make sure that numbers are being studied and they are being studied properly? What investment is being done to help foster that? I see that he has a Caribou Management Plan to work with partners regarding caribou management of herds in the North Slave area for patrols and whatnot, but I would like to find out more specifically as to the numbers. Really, the numbers are what are

speaking to why there is a caribou ban for non-Aboriginal people as well as the harvesters, the businesses such as the lodges. Of course, as I have spoken before, they are in a really difficult position. They know how important the caribou is. If you are a lodge, obviously, your bread and butter is dependent on that type of tourism market, which has been shut down. Of course, they are still concerned about the realities of that. They have never denied their concern, although the numbers have obviously always been disputed from their point of view. That said, I support what the government’s primary concern is, which is to make sure that the viability of the herd always exists going forward. I think it would be a mistake to not take that precautionary principle in this initiative. And yet, there are a lot of people and their livelihood as well as corresponding people who work indirectly with those industries who have taken a bit of a hit. It is very difficult for them to find new markets to expand into. That is, again, one of the issues of that area of concern, caribou.

Mr. Chairman, I think those are the only two particular areas that I kind of like the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources to expand a little further on. I look forward to hear his comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.