Debates of February 14, 2013 (day 7)

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 two omnibus budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45;

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 fulfillment of the constitutional duties to consult with Aboriginal peoples;

AND WHEREAS the impact of diminished federal 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 many Canadians, including former federal fisheries Ministers, First Nations and environmental organizations, have expressed concern that Bills C-36 and C-45 substantially weaken the federal Fisheries Act protections for fish and fish habitat, will compromise the federal government’s ability to adequately protect vital food fisheries and to ensure protection of waters, and will undermine the exercise of Aboriginal harvesting rights;

AND WHEREAS many Canadians have expressed concern that the introduction of 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 Bills C-38 and C-45 have removed the requirements of the Navigable Waters Act for reviews of pipeline and power line projects, and 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 public 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 diminished federal environmental and resource management regime;

AND WHEREAS the only means for the GNWT to improve this diminished regime would be to allocate GNWT revenues over and above the federal funding provided for in the Devolution Agreement;

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 standard 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, including rigorously seeking Government of Canada support;

AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a comprehensive response to this motion within 120 days. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, I would 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 changes to federal legislation is causing. As the motion lays out in detail, the impacts upon our environmental management regime of the measures concealed in the federal omnibus budget Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 are a major assault upon the land for all Canadians.

Because federal stewardship for our northern natural birthright is so dominant, these impacts are more strongly felt in the NWT. Still worse, they are taking place just as we are negotiating the transfer of these management responsibilities to our control. Disturbingly, most have taken place without even our advance knowledge, much less our input. 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 ensure responsible environmental management across the Northwest Territories while supporting sustainable economic development.

This is not a partisan motion. It does not judge those who brought in the changes. It does judge the destructive and retrogressive nature of the changes and finds them unacceptable. This motion is purely and simply about ensuring that clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and healthy food to eat are front and centre when we pursue economic or any other activity that can affect the land.

Everyone of whatever stripe understands these basics. There are some among 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 land and depend on its well-being. Such understanding is often realized through recognition of the esthetic 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 these bills 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 eons has learned the critical role of our land 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 ancient understanding, yet how are we showing that understanding today?

Fundamentally, this motion suggests that we, in the NWT, recognize our leadership responsibility in protecting the land and whether we are stepping up to the plate or not. 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. The amended act only applies where there is “serious harm and where the fish harmed contribute to a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.” Former federal fisheries Ministers Sidden, Anderson, Fraser and Dhaliwal have expressed strong concerns with this reduction in scope of protection for fish and fish habitats.

Before C-38, 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 whole categories of activities or projects like pipelines. It also allows for regulations to exempt some waters from prohibitions against serious harm to fisheries.

Finally, the changes to the Fisheries Act provide the opportunities to suspend the federal act in favour of provincial legislation. Are we seeking authority for fisheries in devolution negotiations? Are we including fish in our definition of wildlife in the new Wildlife Act so we can have some authority in addressing these gaps?

Without any consultation, information or input, the Government of Canada has rewritten the Environmental Assessment Act. The new authority of the federal Minister to defer a project to provincial processes now also offloads much of this work on provincial governments.

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. The definition of environmental effects has been restricted in the new Environmental Assessment Act. Those who know the challenges in cleanup limitations for Arctic offshore drilling must be shuddering at our vulnerability here, let alone the failed opportunity for public accountability and mitigation of environmental socio-economic impacts.

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 and individuals from contributing their important perspectives and knowledge according to the will of the Minister. That’s not how we understand democracy in the Northwest Territories.

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 active pipeline projects and lifted provisions for periodic permanent reviews with reasonable timelines of three to five years to now open-ended permits. Once again, the Minister 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 report on the greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Bill C-45, renamed the Navigable Waters Act and the Navigation Protection Act, reduced 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. 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.

If this sounds like an industry wish list for the disassembly of the environmental protection, carefully put in place through extensive and long democratic debate, it in fact is. A letter obtained last year through access to information laws reveals the oil and gas industry was granted its request, and the federal government changed just this exact series of environmental laws. In a December 2011, to the Environment ministry and others, industry gave its list for changes in the National Energy Board Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Migratory Birds and Migratory Birds Convention Act. Within 10 months of the request, they had almost everything they asked for. Compare this to the treatment given this government which was never asked and never told.

More than half of our citizens are Aboriginal people who have constitutionally entrenched rights, including the right to be consulted and accommodated on matters affecting those rights. Apparently, they weren’t asked to send their wish list to the federal Environmental Minister. When the changes came out, they were forced into the streets to protest through the Idle No More movement. Idle No More condemns the changes to federal environmental law enacted under Bills C-38 and C-45.

I believe everyone is interested in improved efficiencies and 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. Incredibly, they do not address the regime changes that federal review of the regulatory regime explicitly identify.

Through this motion, the House is asking that this government inform the Government of Canada of our concerns and register our protests at not having information provided, nor the opportunity to be consulted. Our government has recognized the need to become familiar with the impacts of the changes to federal law, an exercise necessary to begin to estimate the cost to reach thorough environmental management regime. I recognize the challenges given that regulations and full implementation are still to come. Yet, the sweeping legislative changes are clear, and demand recognition and response.

Finally, we are asking for this government to determine how and where we will find the dollars necessary to implement reconstitution of this policy. 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 medal of this relationship?

I appreciate this opportunity to bring this motion forward again today with my colleague Mr. Yakeleya. I also appreciate the discussions I’ve had with my colleagues on the merits of this proposal and I seek their thoughtful response today as we prepare to vote. I am sure that regardless of Cabinet action today, most if not all of the regulatory concerns expressed in this motion are also held by this Cabinet. Here’s a quotation from the draft vision of this government’s Land is Life, the words of the GNWT Land Use and Sustainability Framework issued this June. “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.”

Once again, I think it’s a great vision. I also think that today is the day to start implementing it, hopefully. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Yakeleya and I have received significant support, as I’ve said, and I look forward to the comments of all representatives here today and hope the Premier will give Cabinet the okay for a free vote. Mahsi.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Member Bromley for raising this motion and bringing it to the floor, and colleagues for allowing us to again speak on this motion.

I have 10 things that Aboriginal people should know about the federal omnibus budget implementation legislation. As I read the legislation, looked over the two bills, I see that there is a tsunami wave of changes coming to the North and there’s some big question marks for the Northwest Territories, because we have not yet seen Canada’s changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act, but we keep hearing they’re coming. Changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is an act that applies to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and to the national parks and to other federal laws, such as the National Energy Board Act, gives us an idea where Canada may be going and where our path may be carved out for us to follow.

Environmental assessments, point two. Public participation in the pipeline hearings and some environmental processes will be restricted to “interested parties.” “Interested parties” is defined as a person “directly affected by the project or having relevant information or expertise in the opinion of responsible authority or review panels.” As people from this land, our belief has always been that we are connected just as the Mackenzie River, which flows throughout the Northwest Territories.

Point three. There are new timelines for the project review. The National Energy Board pipeline reviews must be completed within 15 months. The environmental assessment conducted by independent panels must be completed within two years. These timelines will apply whether or not all concerns average people have in their say. Again, this process runs contrary to the beliefs of the Aboriginal people. When the time is right, the people are ready and we are set to go.

Point four, Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act used to prohibit any work or undertaking that resulted in harmful alteration or disruption of fish habitat. With the Bill C-38 changes, the act now only applies as to where there is serious harm and where the fish harmed contributes to commercial, recreation or Aboriginal fisheries. Serious harm is defined as the death of a fish or any permanent alteration to or destruction of a fish habitat. This is a very high standard to meet. It essentially says most harm to fish and fish habitat is okay now, even if we’re not sure of the consequences. Are we prepared to lead our people knowing this?

Point five, the changes to the Fisheries Act also meet gaps in the system in the Northwest Territories. Unlike the provinces, we do not have our own fisheries regulations. We also do not have the financial resources to start up our own monitoring program. How will we fill these gaps?

Point six, there are new definitions of Aboriginal fisheries that are not very clear. Although our rights are protected under the Constitution Act, the act creates a lot of confusion for fisheries, for fishery officers and Aboriginal people.

Point seven, Species at Risk Act. Canada’s Species at Risk Act says the federal regulatory authorities have to consider to try to minimize impacts on species at risk critical habitat before granting permits and licences for activities. With Bill C-38, the National Energy Board is now exempted from considering species at risk critical habitat when it reviews pipeline applications. Yet we know the pipeline can certainly affect the critical habitat or species like the caribou.

Point eight, the Species at Risk Act used to have time limits on permits for projects that affect species at risk and their habitat. This was a way of making sure that there was a check every few years at least. With the new legislation, those permits can now be open-ended.

Point nine, Navigable Waters Act. The Navigable Waters Act used to protect all of our lakes and rivers. With Bill C-45 there is now only federal protection for navigation on the Mackenzie River, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake.

Point 10, the most important thing that people should know is that the federal government made these changes without consulting with the Aboriginal people. Did they get our consent?

In conclusion for this very important motion, I think it’s to gather people from each region, come together and strategically talk about the changes that happened in the past and the changes that are happening now, and come back and come to a full-blown conference for the people of the Northwest Territories, and look at some of the changes that are going to impact the people of the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the mover and seconder for this motion. I think this is a large issue. It’s been debated throughout the country and it’s sitting in front of our Legislative Assembly here now as a federal political issue.

Over the last few months, I’ve been asked several times where I stand on the issue, often being asked what my colour is, what party do I support in this issue. It is a federal issue, I do believe. The politics are difficult in the Northwest Territories when we are dependent on the federal government for our funding, for our infrastructure money, our borrowing limit and any discussions we have concerning money. So the keepers of our coffers are the ones that are controlling this initiative, and I understand this motion is weighing us against some of our values, some of our issues about the land, the water and the uses of that. So I’m feeling a little bit torn about whether to support this motion.

Do I feel this would be an effective way to get to the federal government? Is this going to be an effective way to get our message out that we have concerns with the land? My concerns are the fact that these bills are passed. They are done with the federal government, and us making noise at the territorial level here will only make ripples to our people, our areas of concern, our funding, our infrastructure dollars.

A few months ago, when we were discussing this issue, I was definitely against it, discussing federal issues in the territorial Legislative Assembly here. I have lots of difficulty with the federal government implementing ombudsman’s bills and bills that don’t allow the public into the issues, for them to use their majority government to do what they will without public consultation, without Aboriginal group participation. I understand Idle No More. I attended some of their events and I appreciate some of the comments those people have been working on.

I also have an issue with this week’s discussion in the news about the cutting of the Mackenzie Valley Review Board in half. I am a pro-development guy with responsible development, Mr. Speaker. My concern with that is, we have projects in the South Slave going forward right now, being reviewed right now. How is that to be done with half the manpower, half the workforce that the Mackenzie Valley has?

I have questions about the federal government. My concerns are pro and con on this issue. For that reason, I’m going to abstain from voting on this motion. I understand the mover’s and seconder’s passion for this and I understand there is a lot of passion out in our territory about this, but I think there are also some issues that we have politically. Aligning ourselves with the federal government, obviously they are the keepers of our funds, so I feel that this type of motion could be apprehensive for us, could be difficult for us in the future.

I recognize the mover’s and seconder’s valiant efforts, but I do recognize the need for regulation and reform. I also know that we’re being torn here. Those are my feelings on the issue, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to vote, I will be abstaining.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the mover and seconder of the motion with regard to their dissatisfaction with regulatory reform, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. They would make some change to our regulatory regime that affects us here in the Northwest Territories.

I just want to advise the public, I know that huge Idle No More movement throughout the Northwest Territories, we’re really proud that people are taking this initiative, being more aware of politics federally and territorially. But, as well, I just want to advise them that these bills have already been passed, so these changes are coming. The recommendations in the motion are to assess what impacts they will have on our northern territory. So I think that’s where we’re going. I’m not really comfortable with the tone of the motion, where we were saying the federal government is bad, kind of thing.

But at the same time, yes, they have a majority government, but I think it’s an awareness thing. Even though they are a majority government, they still have to pursue more and fuller consultation than they have. I’ve spoken with my Cabinet colleagues and the federal government has spoken to some of our Ministers, but with our consensus-style government, we often do lots of consultations with the communities, in the smaller communities, showing them the bills we are changing, bills we want to enact. We have a very strong consultation process with our consensus-style government, but federally we don’t see that. I have issues with that and I hope some of their parliamentary practices can change. Just because they are a majority government doesn’t mean they don’t have to consult people. But they do some types of consultation, but based on our standards, we feel it’s not enough and I feel it’s not enough as well.

I just want to commend constituents in my riding who got active in the Idle No More movement, especially the youth who got organized in my community of Fort Simpson. They are concerned about land and water, and the future as well.

I had spoken to them and I had said these bills have already passed, but we have to use momentum. The Idle No More movement, I believe, if it continues is when there’s a vote on it in 2015 when there’s a federal election and also our own GNWT elections then. That’s the time the movement can really make an impact. Right now, it’s kind of dealing on past bills that have been passed. We may have some say, hopefully, as we do the regulations and guidelines for some of the bills that have changed or been deleted. In that sense, we can move forward in working with the federal government.

Once again, I support the frustration of my constituents and the youth who have shown and had their own protest to express their concern. At the same time, I always felt that the Idle No More was kind of one-sided in the media. I really don’t believe it’s sweeping away all regulatory guidelines. There’s still other legislation that protects the small streams, the small rivers, industry developing on our land. Gone are the days of rape and pillage of our land, Mr. Speaker. There’s lots of legislation out there. Some of the legislation was about getting rid of an act that’s over 120 years old. I can see the value in that, but nobody is speaking about the current legislation that’s there protecting our lands and resources, and there’s lots of strong ones. Our own government has lots of good, strong legislation that protects against that.

However, I do believe the spirit and intent of the motion there. Just with that alone, like I said, I disagree with some of the strong statements like the big bad federal government, but I am with the intent of the motion that Northerners should have a voice with any changes that impact our North, so with that, I will be voting in favour of the motion. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You heard my colleagues today. This is a very timely motion to be bringing into the House, especially when we’ve got so many other strong business topics we are dealing with going through the budget process. It’s a very stressful time and you feel that you are almost backed into a corner with federal government legislation and the bills that are coming through. As well, some Members here are coming and talking about wanting to bring this motion through without having really strong discussions.

Over the last few weeks that we’ve been here, we’ve literally been running from meeting to meeting to meeting without giving these very strong concrete discussions on the item and working on what we have to do within government for our own people, our health, our education, our justice.

Today it was a very hard decision to make, but in the short time I’ve been here in the Legislature – about 16 months – I’ve learned a lot. I’ve come here on the concept that I am here to represent the people of my community, but also the people of the Northwest Territories. I’ve always stood behind that. There are a lot of people who do a lot of good work out there in terms of environment, in terms of health, but there are a lot of other people who do a lot of good work in terms of creating jobs, business opportunities, and creating infrastructure in our region and for the Northwest Territories.

Just a little history. When we talk about protecting land and waters, all waters flow down to our region, the Beaufort-Delta, through the Mackenzie River down to the Arctic Ocean, so we would be the ones who would be impacted if there should be some type of disaster happening. We want to protect that. But also in the Beaufort-Delta communities, all you have to see in the past year and a half are all the houses being boarded up, all the jobs, all the people going on income support, and the dire straits that my people are in looking for jobs. They’re looking for a way to put food on the table and to pay the bills.

I respect Mr. Bromley for bringing this motion forward. I respect his expertise, his research, all the work that he does when he brings stuff into the House and the comments that he makes in the House. We don’t always agree on everything, but he does do his homework and he does consult with his constituents.

I also respect Mr. Yakeleya. In the last 16 months that I’ve been here, Mr. Yakeleya has always gone back to his roots, his knowledge, his culture, his traditions, his people. He’s been a big speaker of land and water, and I respect him staying with his traditional values and preaching about them.

I’ve listened to the constituents over the last little while. I’ve heard a lot from people back home, people throughout the Northwest Territories. This is land that our parents grew up on, before there was industry. Our ancestors grew up on this land. It provides food; it provides connection to the land and our traditions and culture.

Last year I was able to attend the 10-day NEB meeting, and listen to the constituents and the people in the Beaufort-Delta region talking about development, talking about stewardship, and making sure we hold our industry accountable, but also hold our governments accountable. It didn’t fall on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. One strong comment that I did take out of that meeting is the North can be one of the leaders in the world in where we can develop industry in a very responsible and efficient manner.

I know one of the concerns was the timeline and the deadlines on some of these regulations as they happen. I didn’t work in the government, but living in Inuvik, you sat through the whole regulatory process for the Mackenzie Gas Project and that dragged on a very long time. My community and the communities right down the Mackenzie Valley missed out on a great opportunity that would have brought a lot of resource revenues to this territory, and also created a lot of jobs in the Northwest Territories.

We’re here to make tough decisions. As you’ve heard, some of my colleagues have mentioned that the bills have been passed, they are going to work. As I said, it’s very timely that this government is starting to build a strong relationship with the federal government. It just goes to show that with our NWT Days I got to witness it and I got to see our Cabinet Ministers meeting with other federal Ministers and doing a good job for the people of the Northwest Territories, and I respect them for that, for going long days and making the commitment to meet with our federal Ministers.

As I said, this is a very tough one for me. I respect all the work that Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya have done. I’ve consulted with some constituents and other groups and have listened to what people had to say. As much as I want to support the concept of this motion, there is wording in the motion that I don’t agree with. I do strongly agree our government is doing the work that it needs to do, and when it comes to those discussions they’ll continue to work and they work in the best interests of our residents, and look at protecting and making sure that our lands and waters that are getting developed are being developed in a very safe manner. We elected them there for that reason.

Today I’m very torn, but when it comes down to the vote on this motion I am going to have to abstain from the vote as in my community I find both sides in terms of the situation we’re going through economically. The sooner we can get work in our region, the less impact it will have on this government in terms of dollars being put into that community and getting our people eating and putting food on the table. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I love that we live in a democracy and we live in a country where we have freedom to express our opinions, whether that be by way of protest or of prodding the government.

The bills have already been passed in Ottawa that bring about these effects. We could protest that here by way of motion in this Legislature. However, given the fact that we have our eye on a bigger prize, which is devolution, I do not think that is expedient at this time.

I cannot support the motion for that reason. It is a way of sending a message, but to me, devolution is the prize. I’ve been around not only this Legislature but around this question for many, many years. To me, to get control of resource management into the hands of Northerners is what the ultimate goal is here. I know that devolution may not go as far as some people would like to see it go, but it is a first step and I believe that there will be more autonomy, and more decision-making, and more powers that will come to the Northwest Territories. So whatever the final Devolution Agreement ends up looking like, it may not be everything we want, but it is a step in the right direction.

Although I said in a committee meeting that everything is permissible, not everything is constructive, that’s a virtual lie, in case you didn’t know. The point being, at this juncture, what could be constructive about when the legislation has already been passed in Ottawa, when we are on a track to strike a deal that is in our best interest. I’m not saying that the federal government is going to punish us if we pass a motion in this House, but you know what it does? It sends a mixed message. I would like the majority of the legislators in this House to send a message to the federal government at this time.

On any day of the week we have the ability to stand up and criticize other types of legislation which will remain in place. We are not going to be taking over all control, all legislation. There will be much legislation that the federal government will retain in their control. We have that opportunity to negotiate, to critique, to have a say with the federal government.

But at this juncture, after the passage, these two bills are already a fait accompli. I do not see the sense of the timing of the federal government registering a motion of this House now that we don’t approve of what has been going on.

In respect to the preservation and conservation of the environment and that whole issue, I also respect my colleagues in this House who have brought forward this motion. But to be honest with you, the pendulum has swung a way too far the other way for a long time. It was very difficult to conduct business in the Northwest Territories. I believe there is middle ground, I believe there’s fair ground, and we need to find where that is. I don’t think that we should let it go so far the other way that we become reckless or careless with our natural environment.

There are good things and bad things in the omnibus. I guess that’s why it’s called an omnibus and that’s why we can’t really break it out. And that’s another whole topic about whether the federal government should use the majority to pass legislation through omnibus bills. That’s another topic for another day.

To suffice it for today, to say that we need to keep our eye on the prize, which is devolution, autonomy, control of northern resources in the hands of Northerners. This is the first step of it in devolution, and I would like to support our Cabinet and continue to pursue that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to rise in front of my colleagues here today and thank the mover of the motion, Mr. Bromley. He has definitely shown great stewardship in environmental concerns and causes for most of his political life, and I do applaud his actions.

You’ve heard from some of my colleagues for a second time, concerns over two federal bills. We were here to talk about the impacts and what they may have on our lands, our water and our wildlife.

Bill C-38 did receive Royal Assent on June 29, 2012. As has been said before in this House by many Members, we really did not receive enough information from all NWT stakeholders to really position ourselves in addressing all the potential impacts and effects of this bill, and I want to make sure that is clearly said. That is also for Bill C-45 which was recently passed. That bill replaced a very old legislation, an 1882 legislation which deals primarily with the continued protection of our Canadian waterways via the building of critical infrastructure such as bridges and balancing this with safe navigation. Again, this Assembly still has not received all the NWT stakeholder information to truly understand all the territorial ramifications of such a federal bill.

It has been said we talked about the fact that only a couple of lakes and waterways have been mentioned, such as the Great Slave Lake, Great Bear Lake and the Mackenzie River. What we don’t see is how they came up with those. Those were due to a comprehensive quantitative analysis, and these bodies of water were chosen on a point system using Canadian hydrographic services, freight scores and navigation work score. These were not just pulled out of a hat. There has been a lot of science and math that has gone into this. Some have expressed why only these three bodies of water, but we have also informed that there is a process in place for adding other bodies of water to this list over time on a standardized point system. So those are promising points.

It is also further understood that this new bill will not diminish the safety oversights of the current NWT waterways. We should also note that there is also nine other acts of federal Parliament that govern on marine safety, and with extensive safety via the Canadian Shipping Act. Again, it is not just one act that is going to have a direct impact on our waterways. We have other acts to help protect us.

My interpretation of Bill C-45 with our environment in mind, and I’d have to say, I have a hard time finding evidence that suggests that there would be a reduction in the environmental protection of our NWT waters. That, I needed to go on record. It is, through research, that the current Canada legislation governing the environmental protection of waterways, in my humble opinion, is not affected by the proposed amendments to Bill C-45. These changes suggested in no way will diminish our federal government’s commitment to protecting our environment in the future.

These are federal bills. The people of NWT have elected a federal representative to represent our concerns. Yes, we serve the same people, but again, I said before, for using this House as a means of partisan tone, I am gravely concerned that the potential posturing as we heard from some Members will jeopardize and could jeopardize the many critical projects that we have before us such as the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We have heard devolution. I am going to say regulatory improvement. We have another big project on the ground soon with the fibre optic project. Those are just to name a few, and there are going to be more.

As much as I do not want to diminish our ability to spearhead good solid debate in the House for all Northerners, I believe we need to do so in a more productive, positive and respectful tone, and to always govern ourselves in a non-partisan manner, especially with our federal partners.

I want to say that I do support the spirit and the intent of those Members bringing their thoughts or views to the floor of the House. We as MLAs have received many e-mails. But passing judgment on complex federal legislation with a motion in itself, which is indeed almost omnibus in nature, in my humble opinion, does not represent all the interest of Northerners.

Although today’s motion, I have to say, is much softer in tone in content than the original motion that we saw back in the fall, I saw some issues with some of the items mentioned and some of the thoughts that were brought forward. You and I know there is a lot of emphasis that has gone into that motion.

Even though it speaks more about open debate and dialogue with respect to self and public governments, I do support those in that motion, so I’m polarized, Mr. Speaker. There is still, in my mind, too much flaw in the motion itself, and it is for those reasons that I find myself torn and trying to do what I think is right not only for the constituents of Range Lake, and the constituents of Yellowknife or the constituents of Northwest Territories, I will and must abstain from the support. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

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.

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.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to congratulate my colleagues for leading the charge on this, Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya. Simply, I rise in favour and support of this motion and I will be voting in favour of this motion. In being here as a Regular MLA, you have to try to represent the views of people that you represent, and being a representative, you need to ensure that you work with your people; and this principle, that’s very, very paramount for me, is the principle of protecting the land.

The land is my culture and my life, and it’s relative to the land. So in that respect, we need to ensure that the integrity of the environment is maintained, but I realize that as we enter this time in the North here, we need to ensure that there’s a balance between conservation and development and there has been some efforts in some regions that have tried to advance their land use plans and their land claims, and in that respect I support them to try to advance progress so that certainty can be achieved.

For the most part I will be voting in favour and some comments that were made today in the House I would like to support. I will be voting in favour. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Hawkins.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this motion forward. I do strongly believe in protecting our environment but, as Mr. Hawkins has stated, I believe that this motion has come forward a little too late. Also, I do not support this motion because I feel that this will jeopardize the priorities that this government has set on building a partnership with the federal government. I strongly believe that this territory needs to adapt to those changes. One way we could do that is to get our Devolution Agreement in place. I believe that is where we can ensure we work with the federal government to protect our territory, through sustainable development.

With that, I’m not going to support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, the government will be voting against this motion. This motion takes issue with decisions made by the government that they had every right to make. It then calls upon the Government of the Northwest Territories to take action in areas of federal jurisdiction. We cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. Allowing this motion to pass would create false expectations in the public about our government’s legitimate role and responsibilities in the areas noted in the motion. Rather than let that impression take hold, we think it is important that Cabinet vote on this motion instead of abstaining.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is focused on managing the business of the territory. That has to be our primary objective here, not telling the Government of Canada how it should do business.

We aren’t the federal opposition. We are a government in our own right and we need to concentrate on managing our own affairs. While federal decisions often have impacts on provinces and territories, it is important that we respect the distinct roles and responsibilities Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories has. These changes are the law of the land. It is better for us to decide how to manage the impacts than to rail against the process. Respecting the jurisdiction of Parliament doesn’t mean we have to agree with its decisions. We aren’t here to defend federal legislation, and we aren’t going to say that we support the changes that have been made. But respecting the jurisdiction of the federal government doesn’t mean that our government will stop advocating for the interests of our residents.

We will continue to work with the federal government and raise issues that matter to Northerners. Where we have differences of opinion, we need to respect those differences, find ways to rise above them and keep working together.

This motion suggests our government has not been diligent in managing the affairs of the territory. That’s simply not true. Many of the issues that have been raised publicly in conjunction with C-38 and C-45 have been identified and raised by the Government of the Northwest Territories before. Our government is committed to sustainable development that balances economic development with concern for the environment. We identified the need for regulatory improvement in the last government and have been working on it since 2008.

Devolution is another part of our ongoing efforts in this area and it will enhance our ability to manage land and resources according to northern priorities and principles.

I also have to take issue, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestions in this motion that the responsibilities the Government of the Northwest Territories is pursuing through devolution will be compromised by Bill C-38 and C-45. This is not correct. Indeed, nothing in the proposed legislation referenced in the motion diminishes the regime we will be inheriting through devolution. The MVRMA reflects a system promised and constitutionally protected agreements, as do screening and review processes under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We need to be clear that these are not being addressed in Bill C-38 and C-45 and will not be diminished through devolution.

Environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley is governed by the Gwich’in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claims. This will not be affected by the federal changes proposed in Canada’s Bills C-38 or C-45. The system of environmental regulation in the Mackenzie Valley will continue after devolution.

In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region there are also environmental protection measures guaranteed in a land claim. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement establishes an environmental screening committee and an environmental impact review board that has been designed with and takes into account the views of the Inuvialuit. Nothing in the proposed federal legislation will lessen those roles and responsibilities, and we look forward to working with the Inuvialuit after devolution to develop complementary territorial practices.

Devolution will give this Legislative Assembly greater ability to manage lands and resources. We have to be clear, though, that not all federal responsibilities in this area are going to be devolved. Canada will continue to be responsible for environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, as Members already know.

We must also be clear that Canada’s jurisdiction over fisheries will continue after devolution, just as that jurisdiction applies in the provinces. Canada’s jurisdiction over navigable waters will continue after devolution, just as it applies in the provinces, and Canada’s concurrent jurisdiction over the environment will continue after devolution as well.

Suggesting that Canada will simply download responsibility for a broken regulatory system on our government is wrong and misleading, as our suggestions that our government will somehow bear the costs for this. Canada will continue to have responsibilities in the Northwest Territories after devolution, and we expect they will continue to fulfil their ongoing responsibilities. It doesn’t make sense for this Legislative Assembly to appropriate resources for something Canada will be responsible for. We must accept that Canada has the authority to make changes to its own legislation and will continue to be able to do so after devolution.

When this government has questions or concerns about federal decisions or legislation, we prefer to raise them in a mature dialogue with Canada. The rules of engagement between governments are informed by traditions of diplomacy and respect for each other’s areas of jurisdiction, and mature governments communicate with each other professionally and with respect, particularly in areas of disagreement.

NWT Days was a great example of how our government can constructively and proactively engage with the Government of Canada. I think all Members who were in Ottawa will agree with me that we made a positive impression that will help us advance our priorities and strengthen our relationship with Canada and other stakeholders in the capital. I was very proud of how all members of our delegation, both Cabinet and Regular Members, conducted themselves in the best traditions of statesmanship and collegiality. That should be our model for engagement with another government, Mr. Speaker.

The principles of courtesy and respect in our relationships with other governments are very much in line with traditional Aboriginal values and the principles of consensus government. Ill-informed and misleading motions about the actions of another government, the parliamentary equivalent of stamping our foot and hold our breath are not the way we want to do business.

We have much better ways of communicating our concerns to the federal government. We had concerns about Bill C-10 and we raised them through respectful dialogue with Canada. We are doing the same with Bills C-38 and C-45.

Members and the people of the Northwest Territories can rest assured that we will always raise our voices on behalf of our territory as required and whenever indicated. We have done it before and we are well engaged in doing so now on Bills C-38 and C-45. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add a few words, as well, to this debate.

For 46 years and 17 Assemblies we have been working together on a foundation of very, very fundamental principles, the protection in accordance to the land, the water and the animals. We need to work together, Aboriginal governments and public government. Our common desire to control our own fate is to eventually achieve self-government.

I would suggest to you that what we should be talking about and what the focus is, is this motion, as it is worded, appropriate at this particular time. I would suggest to you that it’s not. We have many other issues at play and the motion itself tries to address a whole host of issues. It is clear from the debate and those who are supporting this bill that there is strong unhappiness with the federal government in the bills they’ve passed. Be that as it may, our job as a government, as the Premier has said, is to manage our way through this. The recommendation and the therefores that speak to the territorial government are not clear and they are not especially helpful. Tell them we are unhappy and, oh, yes, we want more money.

We are within a hair’s breadth of devolution, resource revenue sharing, $65 million; A-based transfers, another $65 million – the culmination of a dream to control the levers of our destiny. We have to focus on those things. The work we do in the environment in this territory, I would hold up for comparison to any other jurisdiction in this country. In fact, I would submit to you, that in spite of the burdens of some of the regulatory millstones we have to carry that are not ours and that we are soon going to be rid of, is the fact that we have done enormously good work. We are going to negotiate an orderly transfer with the federal government. We are doing work on water, wildlife. We have been preparing ourselves for decades for this time and we are just about there.

This motion, as it is worded, is not particularly helpful. It gives voice to the unhappiness with what the federal government has done, but we are legislators. We have to take the broad view. We know that we can balance resource development and the environment. We know that we can do a better job as Northerners and has ever been done before. We will do that and we will demonstrate that. We have demonstrated it in a whole host of other areas.

We know that in our small communities, there are enormous employment challenges, challenges with cost of living. Those are things that are driving MLAs every day. Let us not lose track of that.

Forty-six years, we are just about there. We have to manage our way through this. This is similar to global warming and climate change. There are things happening to us that we didn’t necessarily initiate or that we don’t control. But as we have done time after time as a government and as a territory, we will manage our way through this. As we sign those agreements, we will be better off tomorrow than we ever were today or in the past.

There should be no concern about people’s commitment to the environment here. All we are talking about is this motion is not the time and there hasn’t been the time for the discussion to have it thoughtfully fully worded out address the concerns of all the Members and be put forward in a more constructive way. That is not how we do business in a consensus government.

I, as well as Cabinet, as the Premier indicated, will be voting against this motion. Let us not lose track of all the things that we have in common and there should be nobody leaving here today thinking that somehow those that voted against or for or abstained are any less concerned about the North, the land, the water, the animals, how do we have a productive life for our people. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I will go back to the mover of the motion for final comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for all of the representatives in the House today that spoke and shared their perspectives. I kind of disagree with the recent comment that this is not the way things should be done. I think this is the way things should be done. We should be bringing these things into the House and debating them and casting our votes. I very much appreciate this democratic approach.

Many have raised the point that this is a democracy. A fundamental issue that, of course, causes these sorts of dilemmas is when we don’t follow a democratic process.

All of the changes addressed in this motion have been perpetrated by the Government of Canada through omnibus bills in which these are hundreds and hundreds of pages, thousands of pages over two. C-38, hundreds of pages, many, many pieces of legislation, not one amendment, Mr. Speaker. No debate. There was not one Canadian idea that was worthy of consideration in that omnibus bill with all of these regulatory changes.

We heard from the Premier today that this will jeopardize our relationship, and we heard that concern from several people. I would say that the Premier’s comments today will certainly solidify our relationship with the federal government, but I am asking the question, is that the kind of relationship we want when we cannot speak our piece, when we cannot raise concerns.

We have seen dramatic changes, the undermining of legislation developed over decades, with good debate and consultation with Canadians throughout the country, completely removed without debate and not expressing our concerns, not being able to have our Premier step out publicly and say, we disagree with this.

Not only that, but we know you’re only half done. My colleague, Mr. Yakeleya, has mentioned the MVRMA which the Premier says can’t be changed, but we know there are changes coming. He mentioned the NWT Act. He mentioned a number of other pieces of legislation, all of which we know there are changes coming, and we have a record of not being consulted here. Are we still not going to speak out? Are we going to continue to let our voices be repressed rather than knowing there is more coming, that we’re not being approached? Let’s get our perspectives out there now. Let’s talk to them. Let’s assure our citizens that we hear their voices. My e-mail box is full. They are not negative things; they are supporting the direction this motion takes.

The Premier has assured us we have, in fact, not given up on taking over authority for the MVRMA. It may happen sooner, it may happen later, but that is the authority that we are looking for. Fisheries is a federal authority. I haven’t said it is not and I haven’t said it shouldn’t be, but all provinces have jurisdiction on fisheries. How do they do that? They put fish in their Wildlife Act and they have authority over fisheries. So there can be shared participation.

We don’t have authority. We know that there are major gaps and, in fact, I know that Cabinet is aware that there are major gaps in the Northwest Territories created by the changes to the Fisheries Act. I hope we are speaking out on that to the federal government behind closed doors apparently, but one way or the other, I hope we are speaking out as the Premier says we are in some areas. Here we are left with these gaps, not speaking out on it and with no recourse to fill those gaps as most of the provinces have.

The Premier says we must accept the authority of the federal government, but again, what kind of relationship is it when we can’t comment on their actions, especially when they affect us and largely us and often only us? It is affecting legislation that governs the people of the Northwest Territories.

The Premier talks about a respectful approach. Again, what is a respectful approach? To me it’s a democratic approach where full debate is heard, Canadians’ voices are heard and points that they raise are considered.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and Members in the House have raised many issues. Again, there is much other legislation that will undoubtedly be changed, and not necessarily favourably to our situation. We need to be putting our voices out there now so that we can start to try and minimize that.

I know that the recent effects on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board have been mentioned. I haven’t dwelled on that because that’s a funding issue rather than a legislative issue, but certainly it’s an indication of the sorts of things that I don’t think Cabinet wants to see happen. Not having our voices out on this is not helping the situation.

The lack of consultation has been raised by a number of people and certainly there are special considerations with regard to Aboriginal rights there.

Many people have said they are torn and I can completely understand that. I speak out so strongly for the environment because there are so few others that do. It’s always being trumped by economic development, so we are left with these huge global, stale problems that are getting worse and affecting people everywhere, but I understand being torn. I appreciate this process in that it’s an opportunity to focus our considerations, and experience the dilemma, and trying to bring our best deals and our best information on resolving that dilemma.

Something else that was recognized was the leadership opportunity we have here. I’d say that’s largely been usurped, but the vote is still to be had and I hope the Premier does recognize the opportunity that we do have to provide leadership here and will, in fact, let his Cabinet Members have a free voice.

Some have said this is looking back, this is focused on looking back. That’s not the case. I think the motion does say let’s comment on the current situation, but mostly let’s assess where the damage has been done, figure out how to fix that damage when we have the authority to do that, find out what the costs are and figure out how to come up with funding those costs. That’s a pretty straightforward-looking aspect to this motion.

Again, we frequently heard that it might endanger the prize of devolution. To me, that’s sort of a sad comment and certainly does comment on the maturity of our relationship – speaking of maturity – with the federal government.

The omnibus nature of the bill certainly does have that aspect to it and it is simply a reflection of the approach that the federal government is taking in perpetrating these changes to environmental protection.

There were a couple of quotes from some letters, the outrageous changes and the future, and people care greatly about how we treat our land. I don’t doubt that we all care, but there are people who are willing to speak up, at some risk apparently, politically, but they are judging that that’s a fair risk. People want to have their voices heard. They want to see their governments speaking out, because they care very deeply and they see these changes in legislation as outrageous and impacting the future of them and their children.

So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line was the debate was not had in coming up with these regulations. Many have said they’re torn and so on, but thoughtful engagement and debate can be uncomfortable, it’s a necessary step and, once again, I appreciate this House being willing to engage in that debate and bring their very point forward.