Thanks, Madam Minister, for your presence here today on this very important subject for my constituents, the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.
It has been a process that I think has had a conclusion which in some respects doesn't match up with what many of the people who were involved in the consultation had asked for, so that's something we have concerns about. We generally support the bill because it is a step forward. It may not be what all people want in the region. It may not be a complete protection for the ecosystem, and that's very evident because the upper reaches of the Nahanni watershed are not protected and can be subject to mineral development.
Having lived next to a national park, Wood Buffalo, for many years, I understand the impacts that resource development around a park can have on the watershed, on the very integrity of that particular park. Of course, when you have a river that flows directly through the park and is essential to the park, when it is the essential feature of the park.... In the words of my constituents, water is the most significant feature on the land. They like to say “water is life”, in that water must be protected at all costs. That's the attitude of people in the Sahtu region.
In the process of not choosing the larger boundaries, which would have excluded some mineral and resource development from taking place because it would have been within the park boundary, you've made some deliberate choices that didn't really stand up to the opinions of the public. Can you explain why you chose to go with the smaller boundary for the park and exclude these potential developments that if allowed to go ahead would likely have impacts on the pristine nature of the park and of the river system?