Mr. Speaker, the government will be voting against this motion. This motion takes issue with decisions made by the government that they had every right to make. It then calls upon the Government of the Northwest Territories to take action in areas of federal jurisdiction. We cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. Allowing this motion to pass would create false expectations in the public about our government’s legitimate role and responsibilities in the areas noted in the motion. Rather than let that impression take hold, we think it is important that Cabinet vote on this motion instead of abstaining.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is focused on managing the business of the territory. That has to be our primary objective here, not telling the Government of Canada how it should do business.

We aren’t the federal opposition. We are a government in our own right and we need to concentrate on managing our own affairs. While federal decisions often have impacts on provinces and territories, it is important that we respect the distinct roles and responsibilities Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories has. These changes are the law of the land. It is better for us to decide how to manage the impacts than to rail against the process. Respecting the jurisdiction of Parliament doesn’t mean we have to agree with its decisions. We aren’t here to defend federal

legislation, and we aren’t going to say that we support the changes that have been made. But respecting the jurisdiction of the federal government doesn’t mean that our government will stop advocating for the interests of our residents.

We will continue to work with the federal government and raise issues that matter to Northerners. Where we have differences of opinion, we need to respect those differences, find ways to rise above them and keep working together.

This motion suggests our government has not been diligent in managing the affairs of the territory. That’s simply not true. Many of the issues that have been raised publicly in conjunction with C-38 and C-45 have been identified and raised by the Government of the Northwest Territories before. Our government is committed to sustainable development that balances economic development with concern for the environment. We identified the need for regulatory improvement in the last government and have been working on it since 2008.

Devolution is another part of our ongoing efforts in this area and it will enhance our ability to manage land and resources according to northern priorities and principles.

I also have to take issue, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestions in this motion that the responsibilities the Government of the Northwest Territories is pursuing through devolution will be compromised by Bill C-38 and C-45. This is not correct. Indeed, nothing in the proposed legislation referenced in the motion diminishes the regime we will be inheriting through devolution. The MVRMA reflects a system promised and constitutionally protected agreements, as do screening and review processes under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We need to be clear that these are not being addressed in Bill C-38 and C-45 and will not be diminished through devolution.

Environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley is governed by the Gwich’in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claims. This will not be affected by the federal changes proposed in Canada’s Bills C-38 or C-45. The system of environmental regulation in the Mackenzie Valley will continue after devolution.

In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region there are also environmental protection measures guaranteed in a land claim. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement establishes an environmental screening committee and an environmental impact review board that has been designed with and takes into account the views of the Inuvialuit. Nothing in the proposed federal legislation will lessen those roles and responsibilities, and we look forward to working with the Inuvialuit after devolution to develop complementary territorial practices.

Devolution will give this Legislative Assembly greater ability to manage lands and resources. We have to be clear, though, that not all federal responsibilities in this area are going to be devolved. Canada will continue to be responsible for environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, as Members already know.

We must also be clear that Canada’s jurisdiction over fisheries will continue after devolution, just as that jurisdiction applies in the provinces. Canada’s jurisdiction over navigable waters will continue after devolution, just as it applies in the provinces, and Canada’s concurrent jurisdiction over the environment will continue after devolution as well.

Suggesting that Canada will simply download responsibility for a broken regulatory system on our government is wrong and misleading, as our suggestions that our government will somehow bear the costs for this. Canada will continue to have responsibilities in the Northwest Territories after devolution, and we expect they will continue to fulfil their ongoing responsibilities. It doesn’t make sense for this Legislative Assembly to appropriate resources for something Canada will be responsible for. We must accept that Canada has the authority to make changes to its own legislation and will continue to be able to do so after devolution.

When this government has questions or concerns about federal decisions or legislation, we prefer to raise them in a mature dialogue with Canada. The rules of engagement between governments are informed by traditions of diplomacy and respect for each other’s areas of jurisdiction, and mature governments communicate with each other professionally and with respect, particularly in areas of disagreement.

NWT Days was a great example of how our government can constructively and proactively engage with the Government of Canada. I think all Members who were in Ottawa will agree with me that we made a positive impression that will help us advance our priorities and strengthen our relationship with Canada and other stakeholders in the capital. I was very proud of how all members of our delegation, both Cabinet and Regular Members, conducted themselves in the best traditions of statesmanship and collegiality. That should be our model for engagement with another government, Mr. Speaker.

The principles of courtesy and respect in our relationships with other governments are very much in line with traditional Aboriginal values and the principles of consensus government. Ill-informed and misleading motions about the actions of another government, the parliamentary equivalent of stamping our foot and hold our breath are not the way we want to do business.

We have much better ways of communicating our concerns to the federal government. We had

concerns about Bill C-10 and we raised them through respectful dialogue with Canada. We are doing the same with Bills C-38 and C-45.

Members and the people of the Northwest Territories can rest assured that we will always raise our voices on behalf of our territory as required and whenever indicated. We have done it before and we are well engaged in doing so now on Bills C-38 and C-45. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.