Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I love that we live in a democracy and we live in a country where we have freedom to express our opinions, whether that be by way of protest or of prodding the government.

The bills have already been passed in Ottawa that bring about these effects. We could protest that here by way of motion in this Legislature. However, given the fact that we have our eye on a bigger prize, which is devolution, I do not think that is expedient at this time.

I cannot support the motion for that reason. It is a way of sending a message, but to me, devolution is the prize. I’ve been around not only this Legislature but around this question for many, many years. To me, to get control of resource management into the hands of Northerners is what the ultimate goal is here. I know that devolution may not go as far as some people would like to see it go, but it is a first step and I believe that there will be more autonomy, and more decision-making, and more powers that will come to the Northwest Territories. So whatever the final Devolution Agreement ends up looking like, it may not be everything we want, but it is a step in the right direction.

Although I said in a committee meeting that everything is permissible, not everything is constructive, that’s a virtual lie, in case you didn’t know. The point being, at this juncture, what could be constructive about when the legislation has already been passed in Ottawa, when we are on a track to strike a deal that is in our best interest. I’m not saying that the federal government is going to punish us if we pass a motion in this House, but you know what it does? It sends a mixed message. I would like the majority of the legislators in this House to send a message to the federal government at this time.

On any day of the week we have the ability to stand up and criticize other types of legislation which will remain in place. We are not going to be taking over all control, all legislation. There will be much legislation that the federal government will retain in their control. We have that opportunity to negotiate, to critique, to have a say with the federal government.

But at this juncture, after the passage, these two bills are already a fait accompli. I do not see the sense of the timing of the federal government registering a motion of this House now that we don’t approve of what has been going on.

In respect to the preservation and conservation of the environment and that whole issue, I also respect my colleagues in this House who have brought forward this motion. But to be honest with you, the pendulum has swung a way too far the other way for a long time. It was very difficult to conduct business in the Northwest Territories. I believe there is middle ground, I believe there’s fair ground, and we need to find where that is. I don’t think that we should let it go so far the other way that we become reckless or careless with our natural environment.

There are good things and bad things in the omnibus. I guess that’s why it’s called an omnibus and that’s why we can’t really break it out. And that’s another whole topic about whether the federal government should use the majority to pass legislation through omnibus bills. That’s another topic for another day.

To suffice it for today, to say that we need to keep our eye on the prize, which is devolution, autonomy, control of northern resources in the hands of Northerners. This is the first step of it in devolution, and I would like to support our Cabinet and continue to pursue that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.