Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for all of the representatives in the House today that spoke and shared their perspectives. I kind of disagree with the recent comment that this is not the way things should be done. I think this is the way things should be done. We should be bringing these things into the House and debating them and casting our votes. I very much appreciate this democratic approach.

Many have raised the point that this is a democracy. A fundamental issue that, of course, causes these sorts of dilemmas is when we don’t follow a democratic process.

All of the changes addressed in this motion have been perpetrated by the Government of Canada through omnibus bills in which these are hundreds and hundreds of pages, thousands of pages over two. C-38, hundreds of pages, many, many pieces of legislation, not one amendment, Mr. Speaker. No debate. There was not one Canadian idea that was worthy of consideration in that omnibus bill with all of these regulatory changes.

We heard from the Premier today that this will jeopardize our relationship, and we heard that concern from several people. I would say that the Premier’s comments today will certainly solidify our relationship with the federal government, but I am asking the question, is that the kind of relationship we want when we cannot speak our piece, when we cannot raise concerns.

We have seen dramatic changes, the undermining of legislation developed over decades, with good debate and consultation with Canadians throughout the country, completely removed without debate and not expressing our concerns, not being able to have our Premier step out publicly and say, we disagree with this.

Not only that, but we know you’re only half done. My colleague, Mr. Yakeleya, has mentioned the MVRMA which the Premier says can’t be changed, but we know there are changes coming. He mentioned the NWT Act. He mentioned a number of other pieces of legislation, all of which we know there are changes coming, and we have a record of not being consulted here. Are we still not going to speak out? Are we going to continue to let our voices be repressed rather than knowing there is more coming, that we’re not being approached? Let’s get our perspectives out there now. Let’s talk to them. Let’s assure our citizens that we hear their voices. My e-mail box is full. They are not negative things; they are supporting the direction this motion takes.

The Premier has assured us we have, in fact, not given up on taking over authority for the MVRMA. It may happen sooner, it may happen later, but that is the authority that we are looking for. Fisheries is a federal authority. I haven’t said it is not and I haven’t said it shouldn’t be, but all provinces have jurisdiction on fisheries. How do they do that? They put fish in their Wildlife Act and they have authority over fisheries. So there can be shared participation.

We don’t have authority. We know that there are major gaps and, in fact, I know that Cabinet is aware that there are major gaps in the Northwest Territories created by the changes to the Fisheries Act. I hope we are speaking out on that to the federal government behind closed doors

apparently, but one way or the other, I hope we are speaking out as the Premier says we are in some areas. Here we are left with these gaps, not speaking out on it and with no recourse to fill those gaps as most of the provinces have.

The Premier says we must accept the authority of the federal government, but again, what kind of relationship is it when we can’t comment on their actions, especially when they affect us and largely us and often only us? It is affecting legislation that governs the people of the Northwest Territories.

The Premier talks about a respectful approach. Again, what is a respectful approach? To me it’s a democratic approach where full debate is heard, Canadians’ voices are heard and points that they raise are considered.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and Members in the House have raised many issues. Again, there is much other legislation that will undoubtedly be changed, and not necessarily favourably to our situation. We need to be putting our voices out there now so that we can start to try and minimize that.

I know that the recent effects on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board have been mentioned. I haven’t dwelled on that because that’s a funding issue rather than a legislative issue, but certainly it’s an indication of the sorts of things that I don’t think Cabinet wants to see happen. Not having our voices out on this is not helping the situation.

The lack of consultation has been raised by a number of people and certainly there are special considerations with regard to Aboriginal rights there.

Many people have said they are torn and I can completely understand that. I speak out so strongly for the environment because there are so few others that do. It’s always being trumped by economic development, so we are left with these huge global, stale problems that are getting worse and affecting people everywhere, but I understand being torn. I appreciate this process in that it’s an opportunity to focus our considerations, and experience the dilemma, and trying to bring our best deals and our best information on resolving that dilemma.

Something else that was recognized was the leadership opportunity we have here. I’d say that’s largely been usurped, but the vote is still to be had and I hope the Premier does recognize the opportunity that we do have to provide leadership here and will, in fact, let his Cabinet Members have a free voice.

Some have said this is looking back, this is focused on looking back. That’s not the case. I think the motion does say let’s comment on the current situation, but mostly let’s assess where the damage

has been done, figure out how to fix that damage when we have the authority to do that, find out what the costs are and figure out how to come up with funding those costs. That’s a pretty straightforward-looking aspect to this motion.

Again, we frequently heard that it might endanger the prize of devolution. To me, that’s sort of a sad comment and certainly does comment on the maturity of our relationship – speaking of maturity – with the federal government.

The omnibus nature of the bill certainly does have that aspect to it and it is simply a reflection of the approach that the federal government is taking in perpetrating these changes to environmental protection.

There were a couple of quotes from some letters, the outrageous changes and the future, and people care greatly about how we treat our land. I don’t doubt that we all care, but there are people who are willing to speak up, at some risk apparently, politically, but they are judging that that’s a fair risk. People want to have their voices heard. They want to see their governments speaking out, because they care very deeply and they see these changes in legislation as outrageous and impacting the future of them and their children.

So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line was the debate was not had in coming up with these regulations. Many have said they’re torn and so on, but thoughtful engagement and debate can be uncomfortable, it’s a necessary step and, once again, I appreciate this House being willing to engage in that debate and bring their very point forward.

Once again, I don’t know about my colleagues, but my e-mail box is full. It’s clear that our people are clearly concerned about the situation addressed by this motion. I’ve seen widely distributed expressions of these concerns about a broad range of individuals, groups and governments. This is democracy and the democratic debate being held today is appreciated. I am listening to the people myself and I look forward to the support of my colleagues in the motion before us. Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Mahsi.