Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Public Works and Services. Would the Minister of Public Works and Services commit to a complete formal review and audit of the recently constructed East Three Inuvik School, and would the Minister commit to addressing the following:
tabling of the original negotiated contract for the “substantial” completion date, the revised negotiated contract for the “substantial” completion date and all articles of agreement;
a complete status report of the project, chronology, appropriations, remediations and whole costs analysis;
a complete analysis of all market escalators used within the framework of the project; and
a complete evaluation of the Class C estimate structure used for the project, reported in both square metres and square feet.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to written question asked by Mr. Moses to the honourable Jackson Lafferty, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment on October 19, 2012, regarding Aboriginal student achievement funding.
How is the funding being distributed to the regions?
ASA contributions are distributed to regions based on specific initiatives implemented in response to the ASA Education Plan. At this time there are three specific NWT initiatives that are receiving dedicated ASA funding: teacher cultural orientations, school community libraries, and regional literacy coordinators.
Teacher cultural orientations are funded for $450 per teacher and money is allocated to individual education authorities to use regionally or distribute to communities if appropriate.
School community libraries are funded through the NWT library services and funding is allocated through either the regional district education councils (DECs) or the community, dependent on how the community library is set up. Funding budgeted in the department is also used to provide support to, and purchase resources for, community libraries.
Regional literacy coordinators are cost shared with district education councils (DECs) and Yellowknife district education authorities (DEAs).
A breakdown of funding being distributed to each of the 33 communities.
Later today, at the appropriate time, I will table the 2012-13 ASA Funding Distribution. ASA funding is distributed to regional DECs/Yellowknife DEAs in support of specific initiatives.
Funding actually allocated to the Aboriginal Student Achievement committee initiatives.
ASA community working groups are intended to be voluntary and unique to each community, structured in such a way so as to meet the needs of that community, with approaches best suited to the local context. While standing outside the formal funding and associated reporting processes, ASA community working groups provide a place for the community to engage in conversations about student achievement and education.
Funding being spent by the department on their own campaign on the Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative.
The department is funding two department positions, as ASA coordinator and a literacy coordinator, at a cost of $262,000 and is continuing with an ASA public awareness campaign in the amount of $160,000.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition dealing with the matter of midwifery care. The petition contains 27 signatures of Yellowknife residents.
The petitioners request that the Government of the Northwest Territories commit to expanding the Midwifery Program to other communities in the NWT beyond Fort Smith for fiscal year 2013-14, by identifying the selected communities and committing to the continuity of this expansion with annual core funding. Further, that the Government of the Northwest Territories ensure that women feel confident and secure to stay in their communities during the normal and healthy process of pregnancy and birth, by developing an education plan on the roles and benefits of midwifery that will be delivered to all women and families in the NWT beginning in the fiscal year 2013-14. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures would like to present a Report on the Use of Tablet Computers in Formal Session of the Legislative Assembly.
In its February 8, 2012, Report on the Use of Tablet Computers in the Legislative Assembly, the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommended that:
Tablet computers such as iPads be considered as a type of laptop computer/hand-held device, subject to the existing conventions in the House regarding electronic communications devices.
This recommendation was adopted by a motion of the Committee of the Whole. As a result, it is currently the convention that iPads, like laptops, BlackBerries and other hand-held electronic communications devices may be used during Committee of the Whole proceedings, subject to the restrictions that they must be turned off when a Member has the floor and must be on silent mode at all times.
The committee also indicated in its February 2012 report that it would continue to review the expansion of iPad use outside of Committee of the Whole.
iPads were introduced as a standard tool for briefing materials and Cabinet and committee meeting agenda packages at the outset of the 17th Assembly, in place of paper versions of the same documents. As noted earlier in this report, in February 2012 the House agreed to permit iPad use in the Chamber during Committee of the Whole proceedings.
The use of iPads for these purposes has allowed for a substantial reduction in the amount of paper used by Members and staff. It also increased convenience and ease of retrieving information as documents equivalent to several binders of paper can be stored on one device.
In considering whether the use of iPads should be permitted in formal session as well as Committee of the Whole proceedings, the committee held in mind a number of factors in addition to the advantages of increased convenience and reduced paper consumption.
iPads could present a distraction during debate.
The use of iPads, if not discreet, could create a negative impression among members of the public viewing the proceedings.
The increased ease of sending messages in and out of the Chamber might allow others to influence debate.
Attempts to restrict certain uses of iPads might be difficult to enforce and would rely largely on Members’ voluntary compliance.
iPads, when used as visual readers, are not functionally different than paper documents, which Members are permitted to use and refer to during formal session.
The committee also reviewed practices in other jurisdictions. These practices are rapidly evolving as use of iPads and other tablet devices become more widespread.
Both Houses of the Parliament of Canada, the United Kingdom House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly in Saskatchewan allow use of iPads in formal session subject only to general restrictions that they be in silent mode and not be disruptive or interfere with decorum. Most other Canadian Legislatures also allow for some use of iPads during formal session, albeit subject to additional restrictions. Examples of restrictions in place in other jurisdictions include prohibiting their use by a Member who has the floor, prohibiting their use during certain proceedings such as votes, question period and/or Speaker’s rulings, and allowing the use of iPads during question period as a virtual reading device only.
In the opinion of the committee, the advantages of allowing use of iPads in formal session outweigh the potential disadvantages. Further, the concerns about the detrimental effects iPads might have on formal proceedings can be mitigated by putting in place certain restrictions. The committee, therefore, makes the following recommendation:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Members be permitted to use tablet computers during all proceedings in the Chamber with the exception of the following times: during the prayer, at any time when the Commissioner is present in the Chamber, during the Speaker’s opening and closing remarks and rulings, during votes, and at any other time designated pursuant to instruction of the Speaker;
And further, that the use of tablet computers be subject to the existing convention that any electronic device used in the Chamber must be in silent mode at all times.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the use of tablet computers during formal session be at all times subject to the overriding discretion of the Speaker to intervene to ensure order and decorum in the Chamber, and that if the use of any tablet computer is deemed to impinge on the decorum or dignity of the House, the Speaker may order the offending Member to discontinue use of the device.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that any necessary amendments to the rules of the Legislative Assembly to permit the use of tablet computers in formal session be brought forward for consideration of the Legislative Assembly in the February-March 2013 sitting of the Legislative Assembly;
And further, that guidelines governing the use of tablet computers be incorporated into an appendix to the rules of the Legislative Assembly to be entitled, “Direction Regarding the Use of Electronic Communication Devices in the Chamber;”
And furthermore, that pending changes to the rules of the Legislative Assembly, the recommendations in this report be treated as conventions and Members be permitted to use tablet computers in accordance with them.
Finally, the committee urges all Members to continue to exercise courtesy and good judgment in using electronic devices in the Chamber so as not to distract fellow Members or in any way detract from the proceedings underway.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That concludes the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures Report on the Use of Tablet Computers in Formal Session of the Legislative Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley.
---Carried
Committee Report 7-17(3) is received and moved to Committee of the Whole. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and move Committee Report 7-17(3) into Committee of the Whole today.
---Unanimous consent granted
Committee Report 7-17(3) is moved into Committee of the Whole for today. Thank you, Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following three documents, entitled NWT Power Corporation 2012 Annual Report, NWT Hydro Corporation 2012 Annual Report, and List of Interactivity Transfers Exceeding $250,000 for the Period of April 1, 2012, to September 30, 2012. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled Status of Women Council of the Northwest Territories Annual Report, 2011-2012. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following three documents, entitled Health and Health-Related Behaviours Among Young People in the Northwest Territories, the NWT Student Financial Assistance Program Review and Final Review Report as of March 2012, Management Response to the Student Financial Assistance Review, Final Report. Finally, further to my Return to Written Question 10-17(3), I wish to table the following document, entitled 2012-2013, ASA Funding Distribution. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following two documents, entitled 2012-2012 Grants and Contributions Results Report and Government of the Northwest Territories Contracts over $5,000 Report Year to Date of the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2012. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Colleagues, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I wish to table the Summary of Members’ Absences for the Period of May 23, 2012, to October 16, 2012.
Colleagues, I hereby table 2011-2012 Annual Report of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to table a report called The Oil-Fired Appliances Working Group, Action Plan and Recommendations 2012 Yukon Government.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to table a letter that was addressed to Minister Duncan, Minister Ashfield and Minister Peter Kent from the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board in regard to the proposed change to the federal Fisheries Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. WHEREAS the Government of Canada has enacted major revisions to a number of environmental protection laws, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act and the Species at Risk Act, through its first omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-38, and is proposing further revisions under Bill C-45, which is currently before Parliament.
AND WHEREAS a vigorous environmental management regime is essential for the protection of our vulnerable northern ecosystems, for citizens’ participation in the management of our natural heritage, and for protection of Aboriginal rights and fulfilment of the constitutional duties to consult with Aboriginal peoples;
AND WHEREAS the impact of federal dismantling of environmental protections will be more acute in the Northwest Territories than in the provinces, owing to the continuing federal responsibility for management of natural resources;
AND WHEREAS Bill C-38’s substantial weakening of the federal Fisheries Act protections for fish and fish habitat is a retrogressive measure that will eliminate the ability to adequately protect vital food fisheries and ensure protection of waters, and will undermine the exercise of Aboriginal harvesting rights;
AND WHEREAS the introduction of arbitrary deadlines for the completion of environmental assessments, of restrictions on the types of projects that may be referred to environmental assessment, and of new restrictions on citizen involvement in environmental assessments will limit the quality of or eliminate necessary public review of environmental impacts;
AND WHEREAS Bill C-38 removed the requirements of the Navigable Waters Act for reviews of pipeline and power line projects, and proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Act in Bill C-45 would remove the requirement for reviews of projects including dams, road crossings, mines and bridges affecting all but two lakes and one river in the Northwest Territories, thus removing protection even from heritage rivers;
AND WHEREAS pipeline and oil and gas projects will no longer be referred to independent panels, but will be assessed in house by the National Energy Board, and offshore projects will no longer be assessed unless designated for assessment by the federal Cabinet, thus limiting comprehensive, publicly accountable scrutiny of the potentially major environmental and socio-economic impacts;
AND WHEREAS changes to the federal Species at Risk Act have ended the application of the act to pipeline projects, and will allow for the issuance of open-ended permits for projects that affect species at risk and/or their habitat;
AND WHEREAS the terms of the Devolution Agreement-in-Principle require that the GNWT take over this weakened and inadequate federal environmental and resource management regime;
AND WHEREAS the only means for the GNWT to improve this weakened and inadequate regime would be to allocate GNWT revenues over and above the federal funding provided for in the Devolution Agreement;
AND WHEREAS the GNWT was not consulted or even informed in advance of these changes to laws that are critically important to the citizens of the NWT and are a central issue in the ongoing devolution negotiations;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that the Government of the Northwest Territories inform the federal government of our dissatisfaction both with the dismantling of the federal environmental protection regime and with the federal government’s failure to consult and inform this government on changes directly affecting our interests, the ensured integrity of our environment and the content of devolution negotiations that are currently underway.
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories immediately begin to determine the cost of repairing and maintaining the environmental management regime post-devolution in order to restore it to the responsible standards expected by our public.
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories begin to identify the means through which such costs could be funded.
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a comprehensive response to this motion within 120 days. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank my colleague Mr. Yakeleya for helping to bring this motion forward.
This motion is in response to the very deeply held concerns territory-wide about the loss of environmental review, oversight, and public participation that recent federal legislation passed and proposed is causing. Known as the federal omnibus Bill C-38 passed in June and C-45 currently under consideration, the impacts of these legislatives are more strongly felt and immediate in the North because the environmental management regime is largely federal here. This motion asks our government to speak out on these impacts, consider how to fill the voids created, and to tell us how the funds will be found to enable responsible environmental management across the NWT while supporting sustainable economic development.
Some might say this motion is partisan, to which I would say, balderdash. This motion is, purely and simply, about the need to have and protect clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and healthy food to eat. Everyone understands these basics.
There are also some amongst us, in every culture, whose understanding of the environment goes beyond these basics. These are people who understand at a cellular level that humans are a part of the environment and depend on its well-being. Such understanding is often realized through recognition of the aesthetic and often spiritual importance of the land in its naturally healthy and fully thriving state. First and most importantly, these are the very people excluded from full participation in the environmental review process that new federal legislation enabled through Bill C-38 last June. Why on Earth would any government exclude people wanting to speak up on behalf of clean air, food, and water, and who have nothing to gain in doing so, other than clean air, water, and food for the benefit of everyone, your family and mine.
Every culture that has survived over the aeons has learned the critical role of our environment in supporting us as a society. Every culture has learned that we ignore this fact at our peril. In the past, stakes were high, but nowhere near what they are today when we have already stressed the integrated system of ecosystems across the globe to near breaking point. Canada helped lead this understanding in today’s modern sense and many of our Aboriginal governments are playing key roles and reminding us of this understanding, yet how are we showing that understanding today.
The federal legislative changes have weakened the Fisheries Act to the point where we no longer have the ability to sufficiently protect food fisheries and water quality, and protect Aboriginal harvesting rights. Prior to Bill C-38, the Fisheries Act prohibited any work or undertaking the results in the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. The amended act only applies where there is “serious harm” and where the fish harmed contribute to a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery. Apparently, the ecological services they provide have no role. Former federal Fisheries Ministers Siddon, Anderson, Fraser and Dhaliwal have expressed strong concerns with this reduction in scope of protection for fish and fish habitats.
Before the C-38 amendments, the Fisheries Act allowed the Minister to grant authorizations to destroy fish and/or harm habitat. The C-38 amendments allow for regulations which can exempt broad categories of activities or projects like pipelines. It also allows for regulations to exempt some waters from prohibitions against serious harm to fisheries.
Finally, they provide the opportunity to suspend the federal act in favour of provincial legislation, highlighting the concern about regulatory gaps in the territories where we do not have such legislation in place.
Without any consultation, information, or input from the NWT or other jurisdictions, the Government of Canada has rewritten the Environmental Assessment Act, and in the process made significant changes, offloading provincial governments as further advanced through the new authority of the federal Minister to defer a project to provincial DA processes. Under these changes, fewer projects will be referred to aid because the project must be of a type to be listed in regulations. Previously the default was that projects would be reviewed unless there was a specific exemption. Many people are concerned that the process is now politicized because an opening has been provided for industry to now lobby the Minister to keep a project off the list of those to be reviewed. Further, there will no longer be environmental screening of environmental impacts for offshore projects and pipelines for areas previously studied. Others previously regulated by other legislation will now be assessed in-house by the National Energy Board.
Still, with the new Environmental Assessment Act, the definition of environmental effects has been restricted from its broader form that included any change that the project could cause on the environment, as well as any socio-economic effects of any such change. Those who know the challenges and clean-up limitations for Arctic offshore drilling must be shuddering at our vulnerability here, let alone the failed opportunities for public accountability and mitigation of environmental and socio-economic impacts.
Again, public participation will now be restricted to “interested parties” defined as persons “directly affected” by the project or having “relevant information or expertise” in the opinion of the responsible authority. Obviously, this could block the participation of Aboriginal people or organizations from contributing their important perspectives and knowledge.
Finally, the federal Cabinet may now be involved in decision-making, declaring effects “justified in the circumstances,” deciding whether to approve or reject pipeline recommendations, and requiring the NEB to reconsider its recommendation on a pipeline. This seems to be the epitome of politicizing a previously objective process.
Changes to the Species at Risk Act have ended the application of the act to pipeline projects and lifted provisions for periodic permit reviews with reasonable timelines of three to five years to open-ended permits. The Minister, of course, can extend any time limit or decide that it simply doesn’t apply. Also, requirements for minimizing pipeline impacts on critical habitat of species at risk are henceforth exempted, and the important work of the National Roundtable on the Economy and the Environment will be no more, this institution having been eliminated, as has the requirement for a report on the greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Bill C-45 currently under consideration in our federal Parliament proposes to rename the Navigable Waters Act to the Navigation Protection Act, reduces federally protected water to a list that currently includes only three water bodies in the NWT: Great Bear and Great Slave lakes and the Mackenzie River. Current provisions being considered would enable local authorities to add to the schedule. Protection of water quality in Canada has resulted from important clauses in our Environmental Assessment Act, our Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act working in an integrated fashion. This last amendment, given all those legislative changes to other acts described above, throws to the wind the protection of most waters in Canada.
I believe everyone is interested in improved efficiencies in environmental review and enhancing opportunity for environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. However, the legislative changes I have described here briefly go far beyond such a tune-up and, unfortunately, leave us in the NWT with the consequences. Here, now, I am speaking about the administrative and financial consequences, not the obvious environmental ones.
The NWT is regulated by the federal environmental management regime, so we do not have backup fisheries and other legislation that provinces typically do. What are the regulatory gaps being left behind? We do not have the financial resources to fill in the growing void. Many will say that devolution is the answer, yet I can’t help but wonder how many times we have turned to this handy response and, in consequence, how many times over we have vicariously spent the financial benefits to be realized. We need to begin seeking resources to take on the environmental oversight being set adrift, a review we know is required and expected by our people.
To this end, we are asking that this government inform the Government of Canada of our concerns and to register our protest at not having information provided nor the opportunity to be consulted. We are asking our government to become familiar with the impacts of the changes to federal law, something they clearly and unbelievably have not yet done, and to begin to estimate the cost to restore a responsible environmental management regime. Finally, we are asking them to determine how and where we will find the dollars necessary to implement this work.
Some might say, but what about the consequences to our discussions with the Government of Canada about devolution or other major partnership discussions underway? We are a small player on the national scene but I have to ask, what does this question say about the relationship we have with the federal government, our supposedly closest partner? What is the mettle of this relationship?
I appreciate this opportunity to bring this motion forward today. I also appreciate the discussions I have had with my colleagues on the merits of this proposal and I seek their thoughtful response as we vote today.
Land is life. It sustains and nourishes us spiritually, culturally, physically, economically and socially. Working together, Northerners will responsibly and sustainably manage the lands, waters and resources of the Northwest Territories for the benefit of current and future generations.
This is a quotation from the draft vision of this government’s Land is Life: Towards a GNWT Land Use and Sustainability Framework issued this June. I think it’s a great vision. I also think that today is the day to start implementing it.
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I will be calling for a recorded vote. Thank you for the future comments here of my colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Thank you, colleagues, for allowing us to have this debate in the House on this motion here. When I was reading the motion and the comments from the other interested groups it was quite an eye opener because of the Bill C-38 having an impact in the Northwest Territories. We in the Northwest Territories are going to be dealing with the impacts. We are right now in a very critical stage with our relationship with the federal government. We have devolution. We have the fibre optic line. We have the P3. We have other relationship building that would enhance the territory. We even have, in the Sahtu region, an increase of the oil and gas exploration. Even in the Beaufort Sea and the Nahendeh area and around Yellowknife. These new laws that are coming into place play a critical point for the people of the Northwest Territories. It’s like having a new set of clothes that we’re going to wear. Like it or not, we’re going to wear it. We’re going to have to get used to it. We just don’t know what size it will be. That’s the situation I see us in in the small communities. Not too many people in the small communities will really understand the consequences of Bill C-38. Not even Bill C-45.
I’m talking about Bill C-38 because this motion talks about the new rules coming into effect and how the Northwest Territories is going to deal with it. It talks about our system in the Northwest Territories; the ecological system is in jeopardy. We have a very sensitive, rich ecological system in the North here. You go down the Mackenzie Valley and people talk about the climate change and the effects it’s having on our land.
I have some concerns from the Sahtu Renewable Resources Council that wrote me a letter. I just tabled that document. They wanted me to say that earlier this year the federal government passed Bill C-38, the first of its budget incrementation acts. The bill is over 40 pages long and amends dozens of federal laws. Buried in all those pages are some major changes to the federal Fisheries Act. These changes have people in the Sahtu and Canada very worried. They have brought in the new, weaker standard of protection for fish and fish habitat, protection which now limits the cases where there is serious harm and only applied to fish and habitat supports of commercial, recreational Aboriginal fishery. This act also allows the new regulations that could exempt both categories of projects from the law that says you can’t seriously harm fish and their habitat. Worst of all, there were no public consultations on these changes before they were made. Even some of the former Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans, both Liberals and Conservatives, have raised concerns about these changes and especially the lack of consultation. There are many questions left unanswered and many uncertainties.
Who will step in to fill the gaps of fish monitoring and regulation? Is it the federal government trying to offload its responsibilities to the provincial and territorial governments? If so, where are the resources for us to take this on? Will the changes have an impact on Aboriginal rights? Why weren’t Aboriginal governments and land claims organizations consulted? What kinds of projects will be exempted from the law protecting fish and habitats from serious harm? What criteria will the federal government use to decide? Will it consult with anyone?
We cannot afford to stand by and let this go without saying anything. We have to speak out and add our voices to all the other Canadians who want to make sure our fish are protected for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
These are the concerns that have been raised by the Sahtu Renewable Resource Council through the Sahtu Renewable Resource Board. These are the people who are asking, on this one specific legislation, that they have some serious concerns on the protection of our life. Our fish, our animals and our land are our life. We are the land. As one elder said, our blood is in the land and that these types of changes are going to have an effect on our land.
Even the Sahtu Renewable Resource Board said, when they had federal people coming to their meetings, they weren’t very consulting. They were told this is what’s going to happen and how you’re going to deal with it. Their concerns weren’t taken very seriously.
We have a lot of responsibly now that the Bill C-38 is going to come into the Northwest Territories. These Ministers here are going to have to figure out how to deal with it. We hope that this debate here doesn’t give any type of indication to our federal counterparts that what we say will harm us. We are concerned about what the people are saying and what these acts will have as impacts in our small communities. I thank the Member for speaking on this issue here and raising it.
I guess, in essence, what I want to say is that when this bill came in I was very surprised at the lack of consultation with the people in the North and how these bills will be impacted on our lives, and having our Aboriginal governments not feel that they were properly consulted through this process. It raised a lot of concern for me. I hope that the federal government style of government changes but I’m not too sure. For me, I guess, I call into question how we’ll do our business in Canada with this bill here being piled up like everything has been put in a wheelbarrow and saying this is what we’re going to deliver to the people of Canada, and not really knowing the consequences of these new laws here.
I guess the bottom of the whole thing is that we have to deal with it. We’re asking this government to look at, very seriously, what kind of consequences there will be in the Northwest Territories and hoping that we would have good answers for our people, because we’re held accountable.
I want to thank Mr. Bromley for bringing this motion to the floor and asking other Members to speak on it also.
