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.