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.