Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank my colleague Mr. Yakeleya for helping to bring this motion forward.

This motion is in response to the very deeply held concerns territory-wide about the loss of environmental review, oversight, and public participation that recent federal legislation passed and proposed is causing. Known as the federal omnibus Bill C-38 passed in June and C-45 currently under consideration, the impacts of these legislatives are more strongly felt and immediate in the North because the environmental management regime is largely federal here. This motion asks our government to speak out on these impacts, consider how to fill the voids created, and to tell us how the funds will be found to enable responsible environmental management across the NWT while supporting sustainable economic development.

Some might say this motion is partisan, to which I would say, balderdash. This motion is, purely and simply, about the need to have and protect clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and healthy food to eat. Everyone understands these basics.

There are also some amongst us, in every culture, whose understanding of the environment goes beyond these basics. These are people who understand at a cellular level that humans are a part of the environment and depend on its well-being. Such understanding is often realized through recognition of the aesthetic and often spiritual importance of the land in its naturally healthy and fully thriving state. First and most importantly, these are the very people excluded from full participation in the environmental review process that new federal legislation enabled through Bill C-38 last June. Why on Earth would any government exclude people wanting to speak up on behalf of clean air, food, and water, and who have nothing to gain in

doing so, other than clean air, water, and food for the benefit of everyone, your family and mine.

Every culture that has survived over the aeons has learned the critical role of our environment in supporting us as a society. Every culture has learned that we ignore this fact at our peril. In the past, stakes were high, but nowhere near what they are today when we have already stressed the integrated system of ecosystems across the globe to near breaking point. Canada helped lead this understanding in today’s modern sense and many of our Aboriginal governments are playing key roles and reminding us of this understanding, yet how are we showing that understanding today.

The federal legislative changes have weakened the Fisheries Act to the point where we no longer have the ability to sufficiently protect food fisheries and water quality, and protect Aboriginal harvesting rights. Prior to Bill C-38, the Fisheries Act prohibited any work or undertaking the results in the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. The amended act only applies where there is “serious harm” and where the fish harmed contribute to a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery. Apparently, the ecological services they provide have no role. Former federal Fisheries Ministers Siddon, Anderson, Fraser and Dhaliwal have expressed strong concerns with this reduction in scope of protection for fish and fish habitats.

Before the C-38 amendments, the Fisheries Act allowed the Minister to grant authorizations to destroy fish and/or harm habitat. The C-38 amendments allow for regulations which can exempt broad categories of activities or projects like pipelines. It also allows for regulations to exempt some waters from prohibitions against serious harm to fisheries.

Finally, they provide the opportunity to suspend the federal act in favour of provincial legislation, highlighting the concern about regulatory gaps in the territories where we do not have such legislation in place.

Without any consultation, information, or input from the NWT or other jurisdictions, the Government of Canada has rewritten the Environmental Assessment Act, and in the process made significant changes, offloading provincial governments as further advanced through the new authority of the federal Minister to defer a project to provincial DA processes. Under these changes, fewer projects will be referred to aid because the project must be of a type to be listed in regulations. Previously the default was that projects would be reviewed unless there was a specific exemption. Many people are concerned that the process is now politicized because an opening has been provided for industry to now lobby the Minister to keep a project off the list of those to be reviewed. Further,

there will no longer be environmental screening of environmental impacts for offshore projects and pipelines for areas previously studied. Others previously regulated by other legislation will now be assessed in-house by the National Energy Board.

Still, with the new Environmental Assessment Act, the definition of environmental effects has been restricted from its broader form that included any change that the project could cause on the environment, as well as any socio-economic effects of any such change. Those who know the challenges and clean-up limitations for Arctic offshore drilling must be shuddering at our vulnerability here, let alone the failed opportunities for public accountability and mitigation of environmental and socio-economic impacts.

Again, public participation will now be restricted to “interested parties” defined as persons “directly affected” by the project or having “relevant information or expertise” in the opinion of the responsible authority. Obviously, this could block the participation of Aboriginal people or organizations from contributing their important perspectives and knowledge.

Finally, the federal Cabinet may now be involved in decision-making, declaring effects “justified in the circumstances,” deciding whether to approve or reject pipeline recommendations, and requiring the NEB to reconsider its recommendation on a pipeline. This seems to be the epitome of politicizing a previously objective process.

Changes to the Species at Risk Act have ended the application of the act to pipeline projects and lifted provisions for periodic permit reviews with reasonable timelines of three to five years to open-ended permits. The Minister, of course, can extend any time limit or decide that it simply doesn’t apply. Also, requirements for minimizing pipeline impacts on critical habitat of species at risk are henceforth exempted, and the important work of the National Roundtable on the Economy and the Environment will be no more, this institution having been eliminated, as has the requirement for a report on the greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Bill C-45 currently under consideration in our federal Parliament proposes to rename the Navigable Waters Act to the Navigation Protection Act, reduces federally protected water to a list that currently includes only three water bodies in the NWT: Great Bear and Great Slave lakes and the Mackenzie River. Current provisions being considered would enable local authorities to add to the schedule. Protection of water quality in Canada has resulted from important clauses in our Environmental Assessment Act, our Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act working in an integrated fashion. This last amendment, given all those legislative changes to other acts described

above, throws to the wind the protection of most waters in Canada.

I believe everyone is interested in improved efficiencies in environmental review and enhancing opportunity for environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. However, the legislative changes I have described here briefly go far beyond such a tune-up and, unfortunately, leave us in the NWT with the consequences. Here, now, I am speaking about the administrative and financial consequences, not the obvious environmental ones.

The NWT is regulated by the federal environmental management regime, so we do not have backup fisheries and other legislation that provinces typically do. What are the regulatory gaps being left behind? We do not have the financial resources to fill in the growing void. Many will say that devolution is the answer, yet I can’t help but wonder how many times we have turned to this handy response and, in consequence, how many times over we have vicariously spent the financial benefits to be realized. We need to begin seeking resources to take on the environmental oversight being set adrift, a review we know is required and expected by our people.

To this end, we are asking that this government inform the Government of Canada of our concerns and to register our protest at not having information provided nor the opportunity to be consulted. We are asking our government to become familiar with the impacts of the changes to federal law, something they clearly and unbelievably have not yet done, and to begin to estimate the cost to restore a responsible environmental management regime. Finally, we are asking them to determine how and where we will find the dollars necessary to implement this work.

Some might say, but what about the consequences to our discussions with the Government of Canada about devolution or other major partnership discussions underway? We are a small player on the national scene but I have to ask, what does this question say about the relationship we have with the federal government, our supposedly closest partner? What is the mettle of this relationship?

I appreciate this opportunity to bring this motion forward today. I also appreciate the discussions I have had with my colleagues on the merits of this proposal and I seek their thoughtful response as we vote today.

Land is life. It sustains and nourishes us spiritually, culturally, physically, economically and socially. Working together, Northerners will responsibly and sustainably manage the lands, waters and resources of the Northwest Territories for the benefit of current and future generations.

This is a quotation from the draft vision of this government’s Land is Life: Towards a GNWT Land Use and Sustainability Framework issued this June. I think it’s a great vision. I also think that today is the day to start implementing it.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I will be calling for a recorded vote. Thank you for the future comments here of my colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Thank you, colleagues, for allowing us to have this debate in the House on this motion here. When I was reading the motion and the comments from the other interested groups it was quite an eye opener because of the Bill C-38 having an impact in the Northwest Territories. We in the Northwest Territories are going to be dealing with the impacts. We are right now in a very critical stage with our relationship with the federal government. We have devolution. We have the fibre optic line. We have the P3. We have other relationship building that would enhance the territory. We even have, in the Sahtu region, an increase of the oil and gas exploration. Even in the Beaufort Sea and the Nahendeh area and around Yellowknife. These new laws that are coming into place play a critical point for the people of the Northwest Territories. It’s like having a new set of clothes that we’re going to wear. Like it or not, we’re going to wear it. We’re going to have to get used to it. We just don’t know what size it will be. That’s the situation I see us in in the small communities. Not too many people in the small communities will really understand the consequences of Bill C-38. Not even Bill C-45.

I’m talking about Bill C-38 because this motion talks about the new rules coming into effect and how the Northwest Territories is going to deal with it. It talks about our system in the Northwest Territories; the ecological system is in jeopardy. We have a very sensitive, rich ecological system in the North here. You go down the Mackenzie Valley and people talk about the climate change and the effects it’s having on our land.

I have some concerns from the Sahtu Renewable Resources Council that wrote me a letter. I just tabled that document. They wanted me to say that earlier this year the federal government passed Bill C-38, the first of its budget incrementation acts. The bill is over 40 pages long and amends dozens of federal laws. Buried in all those pages are some major changes to the federal Fisheries Act. These changes have people in the Sahtu and Canada very worried. They have brought in the new, weaker standard of protection for fish and fish habitat, protection which now limits the cases where there is serious harm and only applied to fish and habitat

supports of commercial, recreational Aboriginal fishery. This act also allows the new regulations that could exempt both categories of projects from the law that says you can’t seriously harm fish and their habitat. Worst of all, there were no public consultations on these changes before they were made. Even some of the former Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans, both Liberals and Conservatives, have raised concerns about these changes and especially the lack of consultation. There are many questions left unanswered and many uncertainties.

Who will step in to fill the gaps of fish monitoring and regulation? Is it the federal government trying to offload its responsibilities to the provincial and territorial governments? If so, where are the resources for us to take this on? Will the changes have an impact on Aboriginal rights? Why weren’t Aboriginal governments and land claims organizations consulted? What kinds of projects will be exempted from the law protecting fish and habitats from serious harm? What criteria will the federal government use to decide? Will it consult with anyone?

We cannot afford to stand by and let this go without saying anything. We have to speak out and add our voices to all the other Canadians who want to make sure our fish are protected for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

These are the concerns that have been raised by the Sahtu Renewable Resource Council through the Sahtu Renewable Resource Board. These are the people who are asking, on this one specific legislation, that they have some serious concerns on the protection of our life. Our fish, our animals and our land are our life. We are the land. As one elder said, our blood is in the land and that these types of changes are going to have an effect on our land.

Even the Sahtu Renewable Resource Board said, when they had federal people coming to their meetings, they weren’t very consulting. They were told this is what’s going to happen and how you’re going to deal with it. Their concerns weren’t taken very seriously.

We have a lot of responsibly now that the Bill C-38 is going to come into the Northwest Territories. These Ministers here are going to have to figure out how to deal with it. We hope that this debate here doesn’t give any type of indication to our federal counterparts that what we say will harm us. We are concerned about what the people are saying and what these acts will have as impacts in our small communities. I thank the Member for speaking on this issue here and raising it.

I guess, in essence, what I want to say is that when this bill came in I was very surprised at the lack of consultation with the people in the North and how these bills will be impacted on our lives, and having

our Aboriginal governments not feel that they were properly consulted through this process. It raised a lot of concern for me. I hope that the federal government style of government changes but I’m not too sure. For me, I guess, I call into question how we’ll do our business in Canada with this bill here being piled up like everything has been put in a wheelbarrow and saying this is what we’re going to deliver to the people of Canada, and not really knowing the consequences of these new laws here.

I guess the bottom of the whole thing is that we have to deal with it. We’re asking this government to look at, very seriously, what kind of consequences there will be in the Northwest Territories and hoping that we would have good answers for our people, because we’re held accountable.

I want to thank Mr. Bromley for bringing this motion to the floor and asking other Members to speak on it also.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be supporting the motion. I am sick and tired of the Northwest Territories having the dubious distinction of being the most difficult place in which to develop resources.

Ten years ago I went to the Prospectors and Developers Conference in Toronto. I was a speaker there on behalf of our government, and we were talking about the same things then: the red tape, the environmental assessment process. That’s our distinction. That’s what we’re known for in the Northwest Territories. You want to go to a place where you can never get business done? Go to the Northwest Territories. While at the same time, our neighbours to the south, our neighbours to the east, our neighbours to the west are doing fantastic, and they are realizing their aspirations for their economic development.

In no way am I saying that we should develop our resources at the expense of our environment.

Absolutely not. But what we have in place here, right now in the Northwest Territories, does not work, so good on the federal government for finally figuring out a way to streamline this and let’s get on with business. Let’s protect our environment at the same time. We’re not saying throw the doors wide open and throw out all environmental protection, but it’s about time that we had a streamlined process, and if this gets us to it, I support it and I do not support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to thank the mover and the seconder of the motion for bringing it forward, Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya. You’ve heard already, and we’re going to hear again, that this is a controversial motion. We’ve already had great debate at committee about it and I think it was a very healthy debate. I appreciate the comments I’ve heard from committee and I appreciate the comments I’ve heard today.

In listening to my colleagues, I get the impression that they think we are debating a federal bill. That’s not what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We are debating the effects of Bill C-38, a federal bill which was passed in June of this year. So we are now the recipients of the effects of Bill C-38.

I am in support of this motion and I support the motion because I am greatly concerned about the changes in federal environmental legislation that have taken place as a result of Bill C-38. I speak for myself today but I also speak on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of other concerned NWT

residents and organizations. There are many of our residents, Mr. Speaker, who are concerned like me, concerned because of the ramifications of Bill C-38.

As a Member of this Assembly, it’s my duty to give voice to those constituent concerns, to hear what the public is saying and to give it some exposure. We know that Bill C-38 was a very large and all-encompassing bill. One of the concerns I have been hearing from constituents is the lack of consultation on that bill, a bill which will have a big impact on NWT residents and on our environment.

There are many parts of the bill that have been seen as positive by many people across the country and by people across the NWT. I admit there are parts of the bill which are going to be good and those parts of the bill met particularly with approval in the business and the mining and exploration sectors, and some of my colleagues have pointed to the fact that it will be a benefit and I agree.

Mr. Bouchard’s and Mrs. Groenewegen’s constituents will see a better process and hopefully will get their projects moving faster.

So some of the changes will have a positive impact and they will have a positive impact on a regulatory system which is onerous and time consuming, I totally admit that. It’s a system that should be made more simple and more streamlined. The changes in Bill C-38 may do that.

Many of the changes in Bill C-38 will have a large and negative impact on the NWT environment and that’s my concern. They will have an impact on our people, on our land, on our wildlife, on our waters. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act governs the referral of projects for environmental assessments. Through amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-38 puts restrictions on public participation in environmental assessments, narrows the definition of environmental effects, reduces the funding of participants in environmental assessments and increases the involvement of federal Cabinet in decision-making around environmental assessments. Those are not good things, in my mind.

There will be financial implications, as well, as a result of that bill’s passage. That’s been mentioned by Mr. Bromley as well.

We have heard from Mr. Yakeleya about the concerns of the Sahtu because of changes to the Fisheries Act, changes which are a part of Bill C-38.

Streamlining and becoming more efficient are important, Mr. Speaker, but not at any cost and not at the cost of our fisheries.

Some change was needed. The protection of habitat was too broad. Bill C-38 changed the scope of fisheries to too narrow a focus. There will be NWT waters and fish habitats which will now not be

protected and they should be. As an example, the draining of an NWT lake by use by a mining project will no longer be prohibited. Any fish in that lake will not be protected as they have been. Most of our NWT lakes have been deemed to be non-important fisheries and we know that that’s not true.

I believe it’s the responsibility of the NWT government to consider the effects of legislation on our territory and to protect the NWT and its residents from those effects, to communicate territorial concerns to the federal government. That’s what this motion asks for, Mr. Speaker, that the GNWT look after NWT interests with the federal government on behalf of NWT residents.

I know Members are not fully behind this motion. Some think we should stick to territorial issues and business. This is territorial business. The effect of Bill C-38 will be felt in the NWT and on the NWT.

I want to again thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this motion to the floor, for providing this opportunity for dialogue on change which will affect us all. I hope my colleagues who are not in support will see the light before the vote comes and that they will support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing forward the motion. I regret to inform them that I, too, cannot support the motion as it currently reads. I don’t believe that the motion is timely and it may be too soon to address some of the concerns, because I, myself, as MLA have never had time to fully digest the impacts of all the past Bill C-38 and the current Bill C-45 coming up, which is moot because it may change.

As well, the concerns must be measured. The bill is so big that I need more time to take in all the information. Also, the motion mentions a few key words and I’m not convinced that there’s a dismantling of our federal regulatory regime that this motion speaks of, Mr. Speaker. I’m not convinced, either, that we in the Northwest Territories are suffering the effects of Bill C-38. I haven’t really digested what those are yet. I really believe that there is other legislation in place federally and territorially that covers environmental assessments and other environmental concerns, fisheries concerns, but yet I haven’t had time to review it or research it.

I do want to assure my constituents that as your MLA I will ensure that the concerns on Bills C-38 and 45 will be addressed, but there are other avenues to do this and I believe that we have time. You only have to look to the Prairie Creek experience to see the effects of the current regulatory regime. They’ve been using our regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories as

well as federally, and they’ve been in the regulatory black hole, as it were, for the last 15 or 20 years. I pride them for being consistent and persevering and to get through as many of those loopholes, not loopholes, but through as many of those regulatory regimes as they could.

We can speak about the pipeline experience as well. If we had a speedy regulatory review of it, perhaps the project would still be on, but now that’s been set back.

I also want to say, too, that the concerns about our land and water are real, they’re very real, but I don’t believe that it’s all gone to the wind. I need more time to look at it and that’s why I’m not going to be supporting this motion now. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to commend the work by my colleagues who brought this motion forward. There is some good wording in there, but the wording also needs to be looked at in terms of supporting it. I commend the work done by the staff here that got the information for us as well.

In terms of consultation, we did receive some letters from various groups in the Northwest Territories, but we didn’t receive letters, or letters of concern from everybody. We don’t know what’s on everybody’s mind, and to bring a motion forward today without getting everybody’s input and support, it’s hard for me to speak and make a decision for people of my region and other regions in the Northwest Territories.

I myself have not spoken to the Aboriginal leaders, the municipal leaders and the community of Inuvik, where we do have a few big projects on the books coming up in the future. Whether or not we pass a motion like this could possibly harm those projects going forward, I’m not too sure. So before I can put my stance and support behind a motion and bring my concerns forward, I have to bring the concerns of my constituents, the community of Inuvik and the two Aboriginal groups that reside in Inuvik and the Beaufort-Delta region and discuss with them.

As I said, we did elect leaders across the way here that do work in the best interests of not only this House but of the residents of the Northwest Territories, and we should put our faith and our confidence in them that they are doing good work for the people of the Northwest Territories.

As I said and stated earlier and, actually, Mr. Bromley did make reference to a sustainable land use framework that’s in the works now, and I believe that will address and help us protect some of our environment, as well, when that’s possibly completed. Like I said, until I get full support, full concerns, questions from my constituents, the Aboriginal leaders in my community and the

Beaufort-Delta region, at this time I won’t be able to support this motion as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In listening to this motion today, it’s become clear that there’s still a lot of work that needs to be examined and considered before we can accept some type of judgment on this particular motion. So looking at the particular numbers before us at this moment, it looks as if it won’t pass.

I want to stress that many Members who are speaking in favour and against it are raising very important concerns. Some people are speaking against the motion saying that they will vote against it. They’re highlighting their caution, but they’re still echoing support for environmental protection. It is not in contradiction to have these types of views. I think it’s good stewardship in the challenge that we balance here every day.

If this motion fails today, it ends here, it ends this issue, it shows no further light of day upon it. It is a legitimate concern. I have not heard one person speak against the motion’s principles, which are we want good stewardship, but many people also spoke about the bogging down of opportunities before us. The challenge is, of course, like anything, to find the right balance. Information was still flowing to my office this morning to fully understand the impacts of this.

In some cases that I’ve seen thus far, we will see little effects that will streamline a process that seems almost ridiculous, and in other cases there can be real issues at risk. It’s about understanding the full issue before we pass judgment. I should say for the record, I’ve supported many environmental initiatives and my record clearly says this, but I do have concern with the way this motion is presented and written at this particular time. Therefore, I cannot support it.

Before I conclude, I do believe strongly that we need to fully understand the impacts that we are agreeing to. I’ve often said that we have to understand what questions we’re answering before we agree to answer it. We need to understand the issues before us before we challenge it. Sometimes, as we’ve heard from many Members, there are ways to do things and some of the changes are going to be very positive. So we can’t just jump in and say no, we don’t like this. We need, again, a good dialogue, good understanding.

In the spirit of dialogue, I wanted to wait to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, speak their views and raise their issues on behalf of constituents. It’s a principle and a tenet I feel very strongly about.

I strongly support the rights of those people to raise issues, even at times when I don’t agree with them. They will often say that I will stand by them to ensure that their voices are heard and I will defend the rights of all, even those I disagree with, to the end of my last breath.

Now that we’ve heard from everyone on this side of the House that wanted to speak at this particular motion, I’m now going to move a motion to end debate on this particular issue. What this does is it ends the debate before a verdict, a verdict that stops it in its tracks, because I feel that if this motion fails, the issues raised that were of concern puts it to bed period.

Work still needs to be done. If there was one clear message today, it said we need to still review this issue.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that debate on Motion 21-17(3), Federal Changes to Environment Law, be now adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins, your motion is in order. The motion is not subject to amendment and is not debatable.

To be clear, if this motion is adopted by the House, it would bring to close any further debate on the initial motion and no vote will be taken. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Committee Report 6-17(3), Report on August 2012 Hydraulic Fracturing Study Tour: Toward a Policy Framework for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northwest Territories; and Committee Report 7-17(3), Report on the Use of Tablet Computers in Formal Session of the Legislative Assembly, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee wishes to discuss Committee Report 6-17(3), Standing Committee Economic Development and Infrastructure Report on Hydraulic Fracturing, and Committee Report 7-17(3), Report on the Use

of Tablet Computers in Formal Session of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you. Is committee agreed?

We’ll commence with that after a short break.

---SHORT RECESS