Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Along with the other communities that currently don’t have resident nurses, we are looking at Wrigley. All communities that have a population of under 250 people are essentially not scheduled to have residential nurses in their community in relation to the Integrated Service Delivery Model that we use to provide medical services to the various communities. But recognizing that all of these communities that don’t have residential nurses do require some nursing, we’re trying to find models that will work in communities such as Wrigley. Thank you.
Thank you very much. He was talking about models. Is there an actual policy that says the smaller communities cannot have nursing? When I’ve initially asked these questions, well, ever since I became MLA 10 years ago, there was an issue of having the support of policing as well. Is that still the issue here for returning nursing to Wrigley? Thank you.
That certainly is still the issue; it is still one of the issues that we are trying to get around. Currently the communities that don’t have RCMP also don’t have nursing, so that becomes an issue. I can’t recall the exact area or association that we deal with the Nurses’ Association that indicates that one nurse cannot be out in a community by themselves, but I do know that a model says that a population of over 250 can be accommodated by two nurses and also by two RCMP members. That type of model is something that would fit that. With a population lower than that, we are trying to find a way to provide more consistent nursing into all of these communities, but we haven’t found a method that would work yet. Thank you.
I guess the case here, as well, is that the community is expected to have increased development, increased traffic to the community, so the health and wellness of the community will be an issue here.
I would like to ask the Minister, will the Department start considering that and start planning towards that for restoring nursing to the community of Wrigley. Thank you.
Certainly, when we see an increase in development and also that the consequence of that is an increase in the population. I know that at one point Wrigley did have a population high enough to accommodate nurses; at this time it doesn’t. As we see an increase in industry activities in that area, then we would certainly consider that and take it into consideration when we provide nursing to Wrigley. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is not a case that there never were nurses there. There were nurses there, there was RCMP there, so I would like to once again ask the Minister to look into the situation, take into account the increased development in that area and start planning or accessing the need for restoring two nurses back to the community of Wrigley. Thank you.
Again, right now the Member is correct that we are currently providing coverage out of Fort Simpson, and that sometimes that is scheduled to be three days a month, from what used to be full-time nurses and the supports necessary to provide nursing services to the community. For sure we are prepared to look at what the Member is suggesting at this time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Time for oral questions is done. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Your loyal and hardworking Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to report on the review of Bill 3, Wildlife Act, and commends it to the House.
Bill 3, the Wildlife Act, is a product of over 15 years of work to replace existing wildlife legislation which dates back to 1978. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure conducted extensive public consultation on the bill and has reached consensus among its members that the legislation is ready for consideration by the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 3 was referred to the Standing Committee on March 5, 2013. Between April and June 2013, the committee held public hearings in Yellowknife, Tulita, Norman Wells, Tsiigehtchic, Detah, Hay River, Fort Smith, Inuvik, Fort Simpson, Nahanni Butte, Fort Providence and Behchoko. The committee heard from a wide range of individuals, organizations and Aboriginal governments during this public review process, both at hearings and via written submissions. The committee members would like to thank all participants.
After carefully considering and discussing all feedback received on the bill, the committee proposed the amendments discussed in this report. The committee would also like to take this opportunity to raise a number of issues brought forward during public hearings that it agrees are significant to the implementation of the new act.
The committee heard considerable appreciation for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ – the department’s – collaborative approach to the development of Bill 3, and the extensive consultation process it undertook prior to the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Assembly. Presenters also commended the standing committee on its effort to consult with the public on the bill.
A number of presentations expressed general support for the bill, highlighting its incorporation of Aboriginal and treaty rights and management and conservation principles as strengths of the proposed legislation. Other individuals and organizations expressed conditional support, or, in some cases, could not support the bill at all for reasons which the committee attempted to address through amendments or recommendations.
That concludes my portion of the introduction process and at this time I would like to turn the floor over to my colleague from the Deh Cho, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The committee believes that, while upholding Aboriginal and treaty rights, legislation should clearly recognize the value of wildlife to all residents of the Northwest Territories. The committee heard that the bill needed to further convey that all Northerners have a responsibility for stewardship that comes with the opportunity to access wildlife.
The committee also heard that legislated wildlife management is contradictory to the traditional Aboriginal relationship with wildlife and the land. A Tulita elder told the committee, “Unfortunately, the Dene way of self-regulation does not fit within the legal system of the non-Dene.”
The committee wants to reinforce how the new Wildlife Act upholds constitutionally enshrined treaty and Aboriginal rights and the provisions in land claim agreements, recognizing that land claim and self-government agreements function as modern treaties. At the same time, the committee believes that the legislation should be interpreted in a way that recognizes the fundamental value of wildlife to all residents, and thus proposed that the preamble be amended to include the statement: “And whereas all people of the Northwest Territories have an interest in wildlife as a natural resource and a responsibility for stewardship of wildlife and habitat.” The Minister concurred with this amendment, and the change has been made to Bill 3.
Many presenters asked that the new Wildlife Act make harvester and firearms safety training mandatory for all harvesters. The committee recognizes the need to balance the constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and treaty rights, while still ensuring that sound harvesting skills are taught to all harvesters. The committee has heard from the public how harvester training is intrinsic to traditional Aboriginal lifestyles and skills traditionally passed from elders to new hunters.
In response to public request and acknowledgement of traditional practices, the committee felt that the act should set a standard of safe hunting by requiring safety training for all harvesters, except those who are exempted by the regulations. In this way, and with the appropriate consultation, the Minister may exempt certain harvesters from the safety training requirement, and define the training methodology applicable to such harvesters. The committee believed that training should include firearms safety, practices to prevent wastage, and harvesting skills relevant to conservation such as identifying male and female animals.
The committee agrees that firearms safety training is extremely important. It acknowledges that Bill 3 sets out provisions for safe harvesting, and applicable federal law has established provisions for safe and responsible firearms training that are beyond the scope of wildlife legislation.
The committee proposed to amend sections 22, 47 and 48 of the bill to provide that no person is entitled to obtain a hunting licence, general hunting licence or otherwise harvest under such a licence until that person has successfully completed an approved harvester training course unless exempt in harvester training according to the regulations.
During the clause-by-clause review, the Minister did not concur with the motions and explained that Bill 3 provides for harvester training to be developed under the regulations through extensive consultation. The public has identified a number of concerns related to conservation and public safety and has clearly requested a high standard of safety training for hunters in the Northwest Territories. The matter of harvester training will be discussed further when the bill is considered by the Legislative Assembly.
I will now pass on the floor to my colleague Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Bromley.
The committee heard that the act should establish an appeal process for individuals who are denied permission to trap game, particularly in unsettled claim areas. Bill 3 provides for applicants to receive written explanation for the refusal of an application for a hunting licence. The committee proposed an amendment that would add a requirement for written reasons for refusal to issue or recommend the issuance of a special harvester licence. The committee further proposed a motion to allow an individual to appeal refusals to issue any licence, permit or other authorization, including the option of appealing to the Minister.
The Minister did not concur with this amendment, but suggested that an appeal process, independent of the Minister, could be developed through regulations, similar to the model established in the Forest Management Act. This matter will be subject to further discussion by the Committee of the Whole.
The committee heard concerns with respect to harvesting and commercial activities involving aircraft. The committee proposed an amendment to Bill 3 that would prohibit a person from hunting prescribed game, including all big game, within a prescribed time after being airborne in an aircraft. The type of game and the prescribed time limit would be set out in regulations.
The Minister did not concur with this amendment, and again, the committee anticipates that this topic will be a subject of further discussion.
The committee heard the view that new legislation should enforce mandatory harvest reporting for all harvesters. The committee strongly agrees that harvest reporting should apply as widely as possible. Bill 3 avoids potential infringement upon Aboriginal and treaty rights by dealing with harvest reporting in regulations, in cooperation with Aboriginal governments. The committee supports this approach, but agrees it could be strengthened by amending the bill to include harvest reporting provisions. The committee further recommends that the department work with Aboriginal governments, renewable resource boards, and all other stakeholders to ensure that as many harvesters as possible report their harvest in a way that promotes a consistent, cooperative approach to responsible wildlife management, including population monitoring and sustainability for game species that withstand considerable harvesting.
The motivation for harvest reporting is stewardship-focussed. Creating a culture of harvest reporting for big game is a proactive, conservation-oriented approach to managing wildlife populations and ensuring sustained harvest for all.
The committee moved that the bill be amended to specify that a person who harvests wildlife shall report the wounding, killing or capture of big game or other prescribed wildlife, within a time frame specified in regulations. The Minister did not concur, explaining that it was preferable to deal with harvest reporting requirements under regulations only, in cooperation with Aboriginal governments and local harvesting organizations. This topic will be subject to further discussion by the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, with your concurrence, I would like to turn it now over to Mr. Blake. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Blake.
Throughout the public consultation process, the committee heard a number of issues that it chose not to address through amendments, but still deserve to be recognized as a high priority for the department in the implementation of the new act.
The overwhelming majority of public presentations and written submissions called upon the committee to recommend that the same consultative, collaborative process used to develop Bill 3 apply to the development of the regulations. Members of both the public and the committee expressed concern that Bill 3 contains significant regulation-making powers, and that it is difficult to determine the full implications of the new legislation in the absence of these regulations.
The legislative process does not allow for regulations to be developed at the same time as a bill. The committee confirmed the extent of the bill’s regulation-making power is similar to wildlife management legislation in other parts of Canada. The department states in its publication of the Results of the 2012 Consultation and Public Engagement on the Proposed New Wildlife Act, that it is “developing a process and timelines to engage and consult with other government departments, Aboriginal governments, co-management partners, regulators, stakeholder organizations, industry and the public on new regulations.” The committee strongly recommends that the necessary resources be made available for this thorough public consultation process. The committee itself also expects to be involved.
The committee heard a number of concerns related to unsettled land claims and land use plans. The committee believes that sections 4 and 172 of Bill 3 are adequate to address these issues. At the same time, the committee recognizes these issues as significant and that they may set precedent in terms of future land claims and land use planning agreements, and wants to ensure that some of the concerns expressed by First Nations governments can be addressed through regulations.
Many people expressed the view that the process for providing public input into wildlife and habitat management, formalized in Section 16 of the bill, needs to be part of an inclusive forum where all Northerners can be heard. The committee supports the wildlife management process set out in sections 15 and 16 of the bill; however, the committee recommends that the annual meeting of organizations responsible for wildlife management in the Northwest Territories be open to the public to attend as observers with an opportunity to share their understanding of wildlife. The committee further recommends that the department and Aboriginal governments work together to find ways to actively involve stakeholders to foster a truly collaborative approach to wildlife and habitat management and conservation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass the report on to my colleague Mr. Kevin Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Mr. Menicoche.
The committee heard that the department should help residents understand significant changes under the new Wildlife Act and avoid inadvertent violations of the new act by promoting awareness of the roles, responsibilities and authorizations it contains. Recognizing the complexity of the Northwest Territories’ wildlife and habitat management system, the committee recommends that the department conduct an extensive communications campaign to ensure all residents are aware of the new act and its provisions. The committee highlights the importance of ensuring clarity surrounding the process for obtaining licences, permits and any other authorizations.
In order to be effective, the Wildlife Act must be implemented and enforced. As a resident harvester in Inuvik pointed out, the act and regulations “are only as good as their enforcement.” Throughout the Northwest Territories, the committee heard concerns about enforcement issues including the need to ensure adequate resources are available for officers to carry out their duties, and to monitor non-resident harvesters particularly along Northwest Territories borders.
Unless special permission is granted, current legislation requires a person to reside in the Northwest Territories for two years before he or she can apply for a hunting licence. Bill 3 proposes a 12-month residency period before an individual is eligible for a resident hunting licence. This change was a significant source of concern for many individuals and organizations. The committee reached consensus that the bill may proceed with a one-year residency requirement, but asks that the department retain well-defined and stringent requirements for proof of residency.
Over the last 10 years, the department has issued, on average, close to 1,200 resident hunting licences per year. The Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics currently predicts a net increase of 204 non-Aboriginal residents in the next eight years. That would result in an increase of 12 new resident harvesters, at the current rate of participation in resident harvesting activities, and 56 new resident hunters by 2031.
The department has publicly stated that effective measures are available to control the level of resident harvest. In areas with settled land claims, Aboriginal governments also have authority to control harvest.
The change would also allow RCMP and military service personnel, who are typically in the Northwest Territories for a short term, to participate in harvesting activities with a resident hunting licence. On a further note, a one-year residency requirement is consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions.
A significant number of comments and concerns were expressed with respect to the establishment of conservation areas. The committee recognizes that some of the public may feel a great deal of uncertainty in this area. The committee’s view is that the act sets out a reasonable procedure to designate conservation zones based on concrete data and in the interest of sustaining wildlife population and habitat. The committee strongly recommends that the department work with stakeholders, and the public, as appropriate, when establishing any form of conservation area. Members reinforce that conservation areas should address critical wildlife issues and thus should only be required on rare occasions.
With that, I’ll turn the conclusion over to our chair, Mr. Robert Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Menicoche.
The committee is well aware of the significance of wildlife to the people of the Northwest Territories and the complexity of developing new wildlife management legislation. Bill 3, the Wildlife Act, is the culmination of years of effort, dedication and inestimable investment of talent, interest and emotion on the part of a group of people as wide and diverse as the North itself. The Northwest Territories has undergone significant change since the new act was initially developed, and the committee recognizes that it is no small achievement to bring forward legislation that can continue to apply to our ever-evolving political and physical landscape. Members once again commend the hard work and determination of all those involved in every step of this journey. The committee is optimistic that Bill 3 can be assented to in the 17th Assembly, and recognizes the passage of a new Wildlife Act as an important milestone. The committee urges Cabinet to support the proposed amendments and begin the establishment of a renewed wildlife management regime that recognizes the paramount importance and fundamental value of wildlife to the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Committee Report 6-17(4) has been received and will be moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration.
I’d like to thank the committee for the hard work they’ve put into that report.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the following two documents, entitled 24th Annual Report of the Victims Assistance Committee of the Northwest Territories, 2012-13; and an Annual Report on the Activities of the Rental Office, April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following two documents, entitled NWT Business Development and Investment Corporation 2012-13 Annual Report, and NWT Business Development and Investment Corporation 2013-14 Corporate Plan. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Lafferty.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission Annual Report 2012. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS Section 91 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides that the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, shall appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner to exercise the powers and perform the duties set out in the act;
AND WHEREAS the appointment of the current Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Mr. Gerald Gerrand, expires November 30, 2013;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly considers the appointment of a Conflict of Interest Commissioner essential to exercise the powers and perform the duties under the act;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly is of the opinion that the appointment of a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, effective December 1, 2013, should now be made;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that pursuant to Section 91 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories the appointment of Mr. David Phillip Jones as Conflict of Interest Commissioner, effective December 1, 2013.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Thank you, colleagues. On behalf of all of us, Mr. Gerrand, we’d like to thank you for your eight years of services that you’ve served the Northwest Territories. We welcome Mr. Jones as your replacement, but it’s sad to see you go. I look forward to speaking to you before you depart Yellowknife. Thank you for your years of service for the people of the Northwest Territories.
---Applause
Colleagues, before we continue, I’d like to call a 10-minute break.
---SHORT RECESS
Colleagues, we are on motions. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS the Giant Mine leaves a terrible environmental legacy in the NWT;
AND WHEREAS there is still significant concern with the Giant Mine Remediation Project as envisioned by the federal and territorial governments;
AND WHEREAS the Report of Environmental Assessment by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board resolves some limitations with the original remediation plan and presents a reasonable and sound path to a closure program that will build accountability and public trust in the project;
AND WHEREAS the five-year environmental assessment was a thorough and fair process in which residents’ concerns were heard and reflected in the review board report;
AND WHEREAS recently the City of Yellowknife unanimously passed a resolution for the acceptance and implementation of the recommendations in the Report of Environmental Assessment;
AND WHEREAS a number of Regular Members of the Legislative Assembly representing ridings in Yellowknife have expressed support for this resolution and the Report of Environmental Assessment;
AND WHEREAS it is time to begin a new chapter for mineral development in the North;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that the Government of the Northwest Territories accept the measures and suggestions contained in the Report of Environmental Assessment and recommended by the review board pursuant to s. 130(1)(b)(i) of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act;
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories urge its federal counterparts to do the same, to ensure the timely and cooperative remediation of the Giant Mine. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Giant Mine site is an historic part of Yellowknife and the NWT, but it is a blight on our landscape, and worse, it is the biggest environmental liability in this country, one which we may have in this community forever, for eternity. I have trouble even contemplating that. One hundred years is an amount of time I can rationalize, even several hundred years, but forever? That’s beyond comprehension for most of us and certainly for me.
The federal government has assumed responsibility for the remediation of the Giant Mine site, but we, the GNWT, have also assumed some of that responsibility. Our Minister of Environment and Natural Resources is the GNWT Minister responsible for this project under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As such, Minister Miltenberger presents our position to the federal government. He represents the interests of NWT citizens in the development of a remediation plan for Giant Mine. That plan includes managing 237,000 tonnes of underground arsenic trioxide dust by ground freezing, remediating the surface, including covering the 13.5 million tonnes of contaminated tailings, managing the open pits, demolition of contaminated buildings, and management of contaminated soils all to industrial standards for future land use, managing site water and releasing treated water through a diffuser in Great Slave Lake.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories also propose that the project would be actively maintained for perpetuity, with vital components replaced periodically. That’s the plan, and that plan or project was subject to an environmental assessment performed by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, a body established under the MVRMA, Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That assessment took quite some time from start to finish, but only because the board was thorough. To their credit, they took the time necessary to do the work and to do due diligence in evaluating the proposed remediation and closure project.
I presented at one of the hearings here in Yellowknife, giving voice to my concerns and those of my constituents. I spoke to a number of issues, but I want to mention two specifically.
First, I was very concerned with the lack of commitment and openness from the developer – that would be the federal and territorial governments – to researching and possibly using different methods to deal with the arsenic problem in future years. The other was a concern about the lack of an independent oversight body for the ongoing – well, eternal – care and maintenance of the mine site. The project proposes oversight by the developer. That’s hardly on. That’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
My concerns and those expressed by others through the hearings were heard by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. Their press release of June 20, 2013, which announced the release of the assessment report, stated, “After careful deliberation, the review board concluded that the proposed project is likely to cause significant adverse social and biophysical impacts, including cumulative impacts arising from the potential effects of the proposed project in combination with the effects of past mining activities. It also found that these impacts would generate significant public concern.”
So the review board made some suggestions and put some measures in their report to address this significant public concern, and some of those measures will mitigate those concerns, and they are the following:
require that the project time frame be reduced from perpetuity to a more manageable time frame of 100 years;
facilitate ongoing research in emerging technologies towards finding a permanent solution;
require independent reviews of the project every 20 years to evaluate its effectiveness and decide if a better approach can be identified;
a comprehensive general risk assessment and detailed human health risk assessment;
human health monitoring;
investigation of long-term funding options;
independent oversight;
diversion of Baker Creek;
improvement of water treatment to a drinking water standard;
replacement of the proposed underwater diffuser near Ndilo with a near shore outfall immediately offshore of the Giant Mine site.
There were other ones, as well, but for me most notable among these measures are the ones that will reduce the time frame for the project from eternity to 100 years, that there should be an independent oversight body for the project, and that there should be ongoing research toward finding a permanent, better solution for containing the arsenic.
To me these recommendations indicate that the hard work of organizations and individuals fighting the plan of the project developers has paid off. The environmental assessment report contains recommendations and suggestions which address those concerns.
As the preamble of this motion states, the report presents a reasonable and sound path to a closure program that will build accountability and public trust in the project. But the report and the recommendations and suggestions within it must now be accepted by the Ministers responsible for the MVRMA, three federal Ministers and our own Minister of ENR, in order for the recommendations to take effect and have an impact on the remediation closure project. These Ministers can accept any or all of the recommendations, and conversely, they can reject any or all of them. Should the rejection occur, it would indicate a complete disdain for the views of Northwest Territories residents as expressed at the hearings, and complete disdain for the work of the review board.
This motion asks for the responsible Ministers to heed the concerns expressed by Northwest Territories residents and to heed the considered and thoughtful recommendations of the review board in regards to the Giant Mine Remediation Plan. It asks the GNWT to accept the measures outlined in the environmental assessment report and it asks the government to urge the federal government to do the same.
If this government truly listens to its residents, truly believes in the work and the autonomy of our boards and agencies – in this case the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board – then the government will vote in favour of this motion. By supporting this motion, the government will be properly representing its people, will be supporting the will of its residents, and be seen to be responding to residents’ concerns.
The report of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board is a considered, valid and just document, one which has proposed measures for the betterment of our NWT society, measures which will improve the remediation project, and measures which, if accepted, will assuage some of the fear we feel whenever we think of the monstrous amount of toxic waste stored beneath our feet not far from town.
I ask all Members to vote in favour of this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. I’ll allow the seconder, Mr. Nadli.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something in my own language just briefly.
[English translation not provided.]
Giant Mine is a legacy of underground arsenic that could be potentially dangerous if it ever leaks into Great Slave Lake, and also down the Mackenzie River. For those reasons, I strongly support this motion, along with my colleague.
Of course, the efforts of the review board and the report and recommendations must go forward. This effort has been going on for some time. I really encourage my colleagues and all governments to ensure that this legacy of abandoned mine sites not be left unheeded. We have a responsibility to the environment and also to the future generations. We want to ensure that we hold the environment in high regard as much as we can.
What interests me is the collaboration and also the efforts to try to bring people together in terms of remediating a site. I think a going term these days within the government is collaboration. I would like to see that more so in terms of ensuring efforts are allocated to this legacy and that work is done to ensure that things move forward.
As I pointed out earlier, Giant Mine potentially, if the arsenic is not contained, could leak into Great Slave Lake and Mackenzie River watershed. That is a dangerous scenario. Hopefully it will never happen. To avoid that, this motion speaks to deploying the governments, both federal and GNWT, to move forward to ensure that their efforts to bring the interest groups together, and ensuring the recommendations of the review board report are strongly used as a guideline.
What inspired me to also second this motion is also for the communities along the Mackenzie River, Fort Providence being the first community along the Mackenzie. The water has become a very valuable resource, especially in terms of this day and age. Water is crucial in advancing life and also the whole world, for that matter. For those reasons I support this motion. Mahsi.
