Mr. Speaker, I would 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 changes to federal legislation is causing. As the motion lays out in detail, the impacts upon our environmental management regime of the measures concealed in the federal omnibus budget Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 are a major assault upon the land for all Canadians.

Because federal stewardship for our northern natural birthright is so dominant, these impacts are more strongly felt in the NWT. Still worse, they are

taking place just as we are negotiating the transfer of these management responsibilities to our control. Disturbingly, most have taken place without even our advance knowledge, much less our input. 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 ensure responsible environmental management across the Northwest Territories while supporting sustainable economic development.

This is not a partisan motion. It does not judge those who brought in the changes. It does judge the destructive and retrogressive nature of the changes and finds them unacceptable. This motion is purely and simply about ensuring that clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and healthy food to eat are front and centre when we pursue economic or any other activity that can affect the land.

Everyone of whatever stripe understands these basics. There are some among 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 land and depend on its well-being. Such understanding is often realized through recognition of the esthetic 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 these bills 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 eons has learned the critical role of our land 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 ancient understanding, yet how are we showing that understanding today?

Fundamentally, this motion suggests that we, in the NWT, recognize our leadership responsibility in protecting the land and whether we are stepping up to the plate or not. 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. The amended act only applies where there is “serious harm and where the fish harmed contribute to a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.” Former federal

fisheries Ministers Sidden, Anderson, Fraser and Dhaliwal have expressed strong concerns with this reduction in scope of protection for fish and fish habitats.

Before C-38, 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 whole categories of activities or projects like pipelines. It also allows for regulations to exempt some waters from prohibitions against serious harm to fisheries.

Finally, the changes to the Fisheries Act provide the opportunities to suspend the federal act in favour of provincial legislation. Are we seeking authority for fisheries in devolution negotiations? Are we including fish in our definition of wildlife in the new Wildlife Act so we can have some authority in addressing these gaps?

Without any consultation, information or input, the Government of Canada has rewritten the Environmental Assessment Act. The new authority of the federal Minister to defer a project to provincial processes now also offloads much of this work on provincial governments.

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. The definition of environmental effects has been restricted in the new Environmental Assessment Act. Those who know the challenges in cleanup limitations for Arctic offshore drilling must be shuddering at our vulnerability here, let alone the failed opportunity for public accountability and mitigation of environmental socio-economic impacts.

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 and individuals from contributing their important perspectives and knowledge according to the will of the Minister. That’s not how we understand democracy in the Northwest Territories.

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 active pipeline projects and lifted provisions for periodic permanent reviews with reasonable timelines of three to five years to now open-ended permits. Once again, the Minister 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 report on the greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Bill C-45, renamed the Navigable Waters Act and the Navigation Protection Act, reduced 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. 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.

If this sounds like an industry wish list for the disassembly of the environmental protection, carefully put in place through extensive and long democratic debate, it in fact is. A letter obtained last year through access to information laws reveals the oil and gas industry was granted its request, and the federal government changed just this exact series of environmental laws. In a December 2011, to the Environment ministry and others, industry gave its list for changes in the National Energy Board Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Migratory Birds and Migratory Birds Convention Act. Within 10 months of the request, they had almost everything they asked for. Compare this to the treatment given this government which was never asked and never told.

More than half of our citizens are Aboriginal people who have constitutionally entrenched rights, including the right to be consulted and accommodated on matters affecting those rights. Apparently, they weren’t asked to send their wish list to the federal Environmental Minister. When the changes came out, they were forced into the streets to protest through the Idle No More movement. Idle No More condemns the changes to federal environmental law enacted under Bills C-38 and C-45.

I believe everyone is interested in improved efficiencies and 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. Incredibly, they do not address the regime changes that federal review of the regulatory regime explicitly identify.

Through this motion, the House is asking that this government inform the Government of Canada of our concerns and register our protests at not having information provided, nor the opportunity to be consulted. Our government has recognized the need to become familiar with the impacts of the changes to federal law, an exercise necessary to begin to estimate the cost to reach thorough environmental management regime. I recognize the challenges given that regulations and full implementation are still to come. Yet, the sweeping legislative changes are clear, and demand recognition and response.

Finally, we are asking for this government to determine how and where we will find the dollars necessary to implement reconstitution of this policy. 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 medal of this relationship?

I appreciate this opportunity to bring this motion forward again today with my colleague Mr. Yakeleya. I also appreciate the discussions I’ve had with my colleagues on the merits of this proposal and I seek their thoughtful response today as we prepare to vote. I am sure that regardless of Cabinet action today, most if not all of the regulatory concerns expressed in this motion are also held by this Cabinet. Here’s a quotation from the draft vision of this government’s Land is Life, the words of the GNWT Land Use and Sustainability Framework issued this June. “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.”

Once again, I think it’s a great vision. I also think that today is the day to start implementing it, hopefully. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Yakeleya and I have received significant support, as I’ve said, and I look forward to the comments of all representatives here today and hope the Premier will give Cabinet the okay for a free vote. Mahsi.

---Applause