Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to use my time here today to focus in on the pluses and minuses of this motion. First, on the plus side of the ledger, I want to thank Mr. Bromley for bringing forward this motion. This is the second time it’s been around. The first time, I’ll have to tell you, the tone brought forward to the Members was less than receptive I have to admit. But that said, I wish to acknowledge Mr. Bromley’s relentless pursuit of environmental initiatives. There are times that we think that that’s the only focus he’s got, but I have to admit he is a good colleague to work with and I do thank him for the stuff he does bring to the table. Without his point of view, sometimes I think that perspective would be lost. Of course, in the context of balancing perspective, it’s very fundamental that that perspective is brought to the table for consideration.
At the same time, I wanted to thank Member Yakeleya. We’ve been good friends for many years and I want to say that Member Yakeleya’s unwavering passion continues to shine through for the people and the land, and today is no less of an example of his passion for the land, and how important it is to him, and how he sees the future and the role he needs to play for it.
To the motion specifically now, I’d like to say that I wonder if this motion is almost a year late. A year ago I think it might have been better timing for it. A lot of these revisions have already come and they’ve gone in, as we’ve heard repeatedly without me needing to go at length of it, but Bills C-38 and C-45 have already passed. They’ve already passed with a majority government that pays little attention to us other than to keep an eye on us from time to time to wonder what type of mess are we stirring up over here, and trying to decide on when they’re going to transfer authority.
I can’t argue with their philosophy in the sense that they needed major revisions. I would define the old laws archaic and I would define them, respectfully, that they were so outdated I understand why they have to do revisions. As we all know, to do good business, everything needs to be revised from time to time.
The issue of environmental protection, acute here more in the Northwest Territories, does cause concern, because the way the motion paints this right now is if you vote in favour of it, you care for the environment and if you vote against it the way the motion tries to paint you in a position, you don’t care for the environment. That is very troublesome and I would say many of my colleagues have spoken to that already, that they feel that the motion is divisive in its own way.
Northern voices have been strong, regardless of what party politics you share behind the scenes or even upfront, whether what side of the continuum you’re on. I think all Northerners care about environmental protection. I don’t think it’s one or the other. I think that’s one of the great things about being a Northerner here. I believe people care passionately about environment and it doesn’t have to come at the cost of opportunity.
Speaking of opportunity, I should also acknowledge the flurry of e-mails we’ve received from the public the last couple of days and, of course, the forum or standard e-mail that’s being pushed forward repeatedly; the same e-mail, that’s what I’m getting at.
The fact is, the citizens are taking an opportunity to engage their Legislature and their elected officials. That is exactly what a democracy is about. I’m grateful for that. We live in such a wonderful place. If we were MLAs in Edmonton or Toronto or those types of places, we wouldn’t even know some of these people and it’s so exciting to see that people send us notes on their perspective on how this affects them, and it’s very meaningful because we do know a lot of these people. At the same time, we actually know their passion of why they are sending these e-mails and we can relate to them at the same time.
As I said earlier about Bill C-38 and 45, they’ve already passed, June and December of last year. Is this motion more of a rear-view perspective going forward, saying can we change something in the past that’s already been long gone? I think it’s more of a context in tone where we have a situation where people want to express their views about how important the environment is, and I support that. I don’t think we need to let up on any perspective where we should compromise the environment on the sake of success for the benefits of performing, or pursuit, sorry, in that regard for development jobs and opportunities. We know we have many regions that are struggling and they
need opportunities. But by the same token, I think Northerners are very acute to the needs of the land, the needs of the water, the needs of the people, and I don’t think that comes as a compromise, Mr. Speaker.
You know, it’s funny. I do agree with Member Bisaro on this point about commenting on federal legislation. Ironically, I think it’s part of our job to comment and criticize and we live in such a wonderful time. We shouldn’t be afraid to say to that institution, the Government of Canada, here are our voices. I feel comfortable in today’s day and age that reprisal will not come. We’ve heard repeatedly about the undertones of the partisan relationship that this motion has. I agree with Member Bisaro’s comment that it’s not written in that tone where it references one over another, but at the same time you can feel it and you can sense it and you can smell it. Anybody in politics can read it. They would say it clearly is against the stripes the federal government is.
That said, I acknowledge the pressure our Cabinet must be under. Our Cabinet cannot and should not be necessarily fighting the federal government based on their simple stripes and what colour they wear and what jersey they wear this year, because, as a partisan government, we must find ways always, regardless of the issue, to work with our federal counterparts. So I recognize the tough job that they must do in balancing these terms, because when we go from one government to the next – and they do have different visions – it’s a difficult balancing act, and I wish to tip my hat to them on the challenge that they carry forward.
I think that in time our devolution will bring forward our opportunity to manage the environmental wants and needs of our citizens. I can appreciate the constructiveness of why this motion is important. At the same time, I also feel there are misleading statements in this whereas our government has not been consulted. I don’t think that’s actually been the case. I think there have been cases where they have had consultation, and I’ve even spoken to Minister Miltenberger and he has, himself, revealed that to me, the comment of saying there has been some type of discussion. Has it been done in isolation? I am going to say I believe, no, it has not. Has it been done heavy handed with a majority government? I am going to say probably in the sense that they are doing what they want to do because they believe they have the mandate in focus to do as such. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with them, but we have to realize what’s going on. I’m a pragmatic person, Mr. Speaker. If this is the ground that’s laid before us, how do we find a way to do this?
I want to thank MLA Bromley once again, by saying that I had asked him to put the statement in about rigorously seeking Government of Canada’s
support. I think right now, if we should be asking for anything, we should be asking for the support to continue on the ideals of what we want. Someone is going to say, what exactly does that mean. If we feel our environmental system isn’t being supported in a manner where we can do these proper reviews, not only the issues I was raising today earlier in my Member’s statement and question period, then we should be asking them to assist us. Because our ideals are slightly different, in some ways I think they are a lot better, our northern ideals and values. We should be asking them for their support to continue on until the day we can manage our own environmental management boards. In that sense, the people of the Northwest Territories manage their own.
Right now, on a deviation from the point, the people are doing a good job of their boards, and their land claimant groups and their own rights, and they are doing a job and it’s a shame that it’s being constructed in the way it is. But that’s another discussion for another time.
I’m going to close by saying a few things. I acknowledge the spirit and intent of this and, of course, this puts me in a very difficult position. On one hand I’m not sure I completely agree with this motion, on the other hand I know what he’s trying to say. Or I believe, in some regards, I know what Mr. Bromley is saying. I started off by saying that Mr. Bromley has been a tremendous advocate for environmental issues that will go down in history for many years. He’ll be a trivia answer one day when someone says, who championed the environment in a way like no other in the Northwest Territories. They’ll say, a) David Suzuki, or b) Bob Bromley. They may seem somewhat of the same guy some days it seems like, but Mr. Bromley will be that trivia contest, I’m sure, on environmental issues.
In the same token, as I said earlier, the motion is written in a manner like it almost feels like if you vote yes, you care about the environment; if you vote no, you don’t care about the environment. So I find it sort of needles MLAs to make a choice, and it’s challenging to make a choice that’s fair, balanced and reasonable. I feel, as an MLA, I was elected to make a choice one way of the other.
So principally I’m going to end with this: It’s always been my belief that if a motion is not necessarily one I fully support, I will not obstruct if I feel that its message is true. I believe the message is about support for the environment.
I don’t feel voting for this motion does irreparable harm to our territorial system, irreparable harm to the people of the Northwest Territories, I think it speaks to the spirit and intent and the passion people have for the land.
I think that standing against it, in some measures can be a principle by saying, well, I don’t like the motion and I’m going to vote against it. I don’t think
it’s helpful in this case. I think we did send a message in the past where there are certain things I can’t support, but I think in this particular one, as I said, I feel that the principle sometimes outweighs the mechanics of the message, so I will be supporting the motion as it’s been written. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.