Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya, the mover and the seconder of the motion, for bringing this motion forward for a second time.

We had great debate at committee about this last fall, and we have had debate about it, not quite so much debate in the last week or so. Members have received evidence of considerable public support for this motion since the motion was given notice of on Tuesday.

I rise in support of this motion again, as I did in the fall. I support the motion because I am still – my views have not changed – gravely concerned with the changes in the federal environmental legislation that have taken place as a result of Bills C-38 and C-45. I speak for myself, but I also speak on behalf of my constituents, as I imagine all Members here are, but I am also speaking on behalf of other concerned NWT residents and organizations who have expressed their concern with the actions of

our federal government by passing these two large bills.

Many of our residents are concerned, concerned for our environment and they are concerned for our environment because of the ramifications of Bills C-38 and C-45. I think we have probably – I know I haven’t checked my e-mail lately – up to the time I went to the House, received 20 e-mails in the last 24 hours urging us to pass this motion.

I feel, as a Member of the Assembly, that it is my duty to give voice to constituent concerns, to hear what the public is saying and to give it some exposure. We know that both Bill C-38 and C-45 are very large and all-encompassing. Everybody has spoken to that, but one of the concerns that I have been hearing from constituents – and it is a concern of my own and it has been mentioned by many people – is the lack of consultation on both of these two bills with the people, with the government, with the organizations who are going to be impacted by the effects of the bill. There are a number of organizations, Aboriginal governments, we have environmental-minded organizations, we have municipal governments, we have individual constituents who are concerned about the effects these bills are going to have. Nobody, including this government, had any opportunity to provide any input into these bills.

The bills have passed. I agree with that. We cannot disagree. That is a fact. However, the regulations that are going to actually kind of govern what is going to fall out of these bills have not yet been written. They have not yet been passed. We as a government should be demanding some input into the regulations that the federal government is going to write that will have an impact on us. I feel very strongly that the lack of consultation is a major factor in our relationship with the federal government.

I have to agree with some of my colleagues who said that there are parts of these bills that are positive. I agree that our regulatory regime is probably more onerous than it needs to be. There are some changes in these bills that will reduce the regulatory system that we have. I can’t disagree with that. Many people across the country have seen, particularly in business, that to reduce our regulatory system is a good thing. I think it is mining and exploration for us up here that have said yes, this is good, let’s make sure that we carry on with it.

I do agree that the system needs to be simpler and more streamlined. Where I am really concerned about the impacts of these two bills is that it is going to be a large negative impact on the NWT environment, on our people, on our land, on our waters. One of the particularly large acts which is going to have a big impact on us is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and it governs the referral of projects for environmental assessments.

This is effected in Bill C-38 and it puts restrictions on the public participation in environmental assessments. It narrows the definition of environmental effects and it reduces the funding for participants in environmental assessments. The thing that I think concerns me a lot, and I have heard it a lot from constituents as well, is it increases the involvement of Cabinet in making decisions around environmental assessments. So there will be situations where, as residents of Canada, as constituents of Canada, we will have absolutely no input into whether or not a certain project should go to an environmental assessment. We will then have no opportunity to provide input into what effect a development would have on us here in the NWT.

There are financial implications, as well, as the result of the passage of these bills. I think that’s referenced in some of the information that we have received from the government in their analysis of the impacts these bills are going to have on us.

I believe in streamlining, I believe in being more efficient, but I don’t believe in doing it at any cost, and I don’t believe in doing it at the cost of our fisheries or of our environment. Mr. Yakeleya spoke some time ago, I think he spoke in the fall about the effect that these bills were going to have on our fisheries and some of it may be minor, it may just be that I can no longer go and fish in a particular lake because it’s now not designated a fishery, but it’s entirely possible that Aboriginal communities may no longer be able to fish on a certain lake because it’s now been designated not a fishery and, therefore, they’re not going to be able to use it.

One of the things that I see as a potential, a possible effect of the changes that have come through in these omnibus bills, is, for instance, the use of a lake by a mining company. Right now they have to go through an environmental assessment. There is a fair bit of consideration that’s given to the use of that lake. That’s no longer going to happen. A mining company will be able to drain a lake for use as a mine and nobody will be able to have an opportunity to try and stop that.

As I understand it, most of our lakes in the NWT have been deemed to be non-important fisheries. So anybody can do anything they want with them. I believe it’s the responsibility of our government, the NWT government, to consider the effects of federal legislation on our territory, and I thank the government for the work that they have done to date, but I also believe that it’s the responsibility of our government to protect the NWT and to protect its residents from the effects of that legislation, to communicate territorial concerns to the federal government.

I believe that’s what this motion asks for. It has the same operative clauses as the motion that was presented to us in the fall. There has been no

change in what we are asking for in this motion. That’s been suggested by some of the speakers. The motion asks that the GNWT look after NWT interests with the federal government on behalf of NWT residents, and I think that’s something that our government should be doing and I think it’s something that we as MLAs ought to be asking our Cabinet to be doing.

I know that some Members have stated that they don’t believe this is business that we should be dealing with here in this House because it’s federal. I know that some Members think that this is a partisan motion. I cannot agree to that at all. I think it’s totally non-partisan. There’s no reference to party at all. The only partisan part of it is that some of us believe more strongly, perhaps, in the environment than others, and I leave the public to decide who falls where. I believe this is territorial business and the effects of these two bills are going to be felt on us in the NWT.

I want to just mention a bit of the support that we’ve received in the last couple of days. We have received, there has been a press release from the Dene Nation who have indicated their support for this motion. I want to quote two statements from some of the e-mails that we’ve received. One of them says, “your silence on this issue implies agreement,” and by that they meant agreement with the federal government’s position and agreement to all the changes that come with these two bills. The second one is, “any citizen who cares for this and the next generation must, in conscience, oppose these publicized and outrageous changes.”

So I want to again thank the mover and the seconder of the motion for bringing it to the floor, for providing us with the opportunity for this dialogue and for expressing our views. I hope that my colleagues, many of them have already indicated their support or their lack of or their non-support, and I would hope that they would reconsider. I would like to also thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for providing us with a huge amount of information on the effects of these bills, on the impact that the changes in these bills will have on us. I think Mr. Bromley laid that out extremely well and Mr. Yakeleya did as well. I thank them for the work they’ve done on that.

So I would encourage my colleagues to think twice. Those that are going to abstain, think twice. Those that are against this motion, think three times and I hope this motion will succeed. Thank you.