Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to rise in front of my colleagues here today and thank the mover of the motion, Mr. Bromley. He has definitely shown great stewardship in environmental concerns and causes for most of his political life, and I do applaud his actions.

Again to Mr. Yakeleya, the seconder of the motion. His wisdom reaches far beyond the walls here of the Legislature, so I thank you for your always kind words and thoughts.

You’ve heard from some of my colleagues for a second time, concerns over two federal bills. We were here to talk about the impacts and what they may have on our lands, our water and our wildlife.

Bill C-38 did receive Royal Assent on June 29, 2012. As has been said before in this House by

many Members, we really did not receive enough information from all NWT stakeholders to really position ourselves in addressing all the potential impacts and effects of this bill, and I want to make sure that is clearly said. That is also for Bill C-45 which was recently passed. That bill replaced a very old legislation, an 1882 legislation which deals primarily with the continued protection of our Canadian waterways via the building of critical infrastructure such as bridges and balancing this with safe navigation. Again, this Assembly still has not received all the NWT stakeholder information to truly understand all the territorial ramifications of such a federal bill.

It has been said we talked about the fact that only a couple of lakes and waterways have been mentioned, such as the Great Slave Lake, Great Bear Lake and the Mackenzie River. What we don’t see is how they came up with those. Those were due to a comprehensive quantitative analysis, and these bodies of water were chosen on a point system using Canadian hydrographic services, freight scores and navigation work score. These were not just pulled out of a hat. There has been a lot of science and math that has gone into this. Some have expressed why only these three bodies of water, but we have also informed that there is a process in place for adding other bodies of water to this list over time on a standardized point system. So those are promising points.

It is also further understood that this new bill will not diminish the safety oversights of the current NWT waterways. We should also note that there is also nine other acts of federal Parliament that govern on marine safety, and with extensive safety via the Canadian Shipping Act. Again, it is not just one act that is going to have a direct impact on our waterways. We have other acts to help protect us.

My interpretation of Bill C-45 with our environment in mind, and I’d have to say, I have a hard time finding evidence that suggests that there would be a reduction in the environmental protection of our NWT waters. That, I needed to go on record. It is, through research, that the current Canada legislation governing the environmental protection of waterways, in my humble opinion, is not affected by the proposed amendments to Bill C-45. These changes suggested in no way will diminish our federal government’s commitment to protecting our environment in the future.

These are federal bills. The people of NWT have elected a federal representative to represent our concerns. Yes, we serve the same people, but again, I said before, for using this House as a means of partisan tone, I am gravely concerned that the potential posturing as we heard from some Members will jeopardize and could jeopardize the many critical projects that we have before us such as the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We have heard

devolution. I am going to say regulatory improvement. We have another big project on the ground soon with the fibre optic project. Those are just to name a few, and there are going to be more.

As much as I do not want to diminish our ability to spearhead good solid debate in the House for all Northerners, I believe we need to do so in a more productive, positive and respectful tone, and to always govern ourselves in a non-partisan manner, especially with our federal partners.

I want to say that I do support the spirit and the intent of those Members bringing their thoughts or views to the floor of the House. We as MLAs have received many e-mails. But passing judgment on complex federal legislation with a motion in itself, which is indeed almost omnibus in nature, in my humble opinion, does not represent all the interest of Northerners.

Although today’s motion, I have to say, is much softer in tone in content than the original motion that we saw back in the fall, I saw some issues with some of the items mentioned and some of the thoughts that were brought forward. You and I know there is a lot of emphasis that has gone into that motion.

Even though it speaks more about open debate and dialogue with respect to self and public governments, I do support those in that motion, so I’m polarized, Mr. Speaker. There is still, in my mind, too much flaw in the motion itself, and it is for those reasons that I find myself torn and trying to do what I think is right not only for the constituents of Range Lake, and the constituents of Yellowknife or the constituents of Northwest Territories, I will and must abstain from the support. Thank you very much.