Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the motion brought forward by Ms. Bisaro and would like to thank the seconder for allowing debate here today.

Out of sight or out of mind, that tends to be the issue here with the Giant Mine issues as of late. I think the people of the Northwest Territories are still greatly concerned about the issue, but we only hear it from time to time and it’s paramount that we bring this forward here today.

As we have talked and heard that we are sitting on potentially the largest environmental disaster they say in Canada, I say in the world, and yet the world does not know the true issues that face mankind. I think it is paramount that we deal with this today and talk about the mechanisms of this motion.

What we have heard thus far from any of the teams involved is that we are dealing with a remediation plan, and I get it, but when you look at the fundamentals, the levers, the nuts and bolts of it, this is nothing more than a safety plan. I am not saying that we don’t need to do it – I think we have

to do it in order to protect the safety of all the residents in the Northwest Territories – but there is very little mention about a recovery plan. I think this is something that is missed in the message. Having something in perpetuity forever, even if it is down to a hundred years, I don’t want this burden on my grandkids; I don’t want this burden on their grandkids. We have the power to deal with it today. We have the power to create dialogue to make sure we are not just dealing with the safety issue but that we are dealing with a full recovery issue.

It has been brought forward, I have brought forward that there is ingenuity all over in the world. In fact, we have patented technology here in Canada that deals with repatriating the gold that is in the tailings ponds. There is a process. It is Canada-wide. It talks about using high-pressure hydrochloric acid to get the gold out of the tailings ponds where, God forbid, we can actually repatriate this gold and use the proceeds to actually do the remediation work and do the recovery work, and yet this goes unnoticed. Why don’t we investigate it? Well, it’s not in plan number 58; it’s not plan 59.

We are worried so much about protecting bureaucratic jobs, worrying so much about protecting pensions out there, that no one is seeing the forest for the trees. Because no one wants to bring out that idea, because it’s too risky, we can’t talk about it. Let’s stick with the plan. I am saying, people, take the blinders off, both sides of the House, both the territorial and federal. Let’s find a solution out there. There are seven billion people in this world. There has to be someone out there who understands how to fix this problem.

Earlier last week Mr. Hawkins brought a motion or an idea to the table and we had to repeat his message countless times. Why? We don’t know why. Selective hearing maybe, I have no idea. It was a great idea, but yet we still have not received a formal reply from this side of the House. Which really basically says, will you take this idea over to your federal counterparts and talk about it? Nothing more. It’s not a promise. It’s not about spending our money. Well, I guess indirectly it is spending taxpayers’ money; we all pay taxes. But really it’s an idea that we need to foster and move forward.

This motion is broad-based and I appreciate its content, but it speaks to us doing something rather than sitting on our hands on an issue that affects everyone, and will affect my kids and their kids.

We have to deal with it. I support the motion. I have the opportunity to thank the Members here for allowing me to speak towards it. Thank you.