Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask, have we been fairly active with our forest fire damage compensation? Have we been giving it to people applying for that compensation?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Bohnet.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are. Anytime we get the request for the disaster compensation, fire compensation, it’s actioned and there’s a process for most of them naturally, if it’s from a forest fire or approved in that there. We usually receive them late in the year. By the time the work’s done, for example, for this fiscal year we received two last week and they’re being processed, they have been approved. So, yes, Mr. Chairman, our level of accuracy is quite good.
Thank you. I certainly know that the people probably appreciate this in our budget here. Have there also been indications where fire damage into harvesters area, a trapline area or harvesters where moose, caribou, berry picking, in plants that there are other ways to compensate people if their area has been burnt out in terms of trappers in that area? Is that something that ENR works closely with ITI in handling situations that may be quite complex?
The issue raised by the Member is one of the areas that’s been addressed in the program review of the Fire Management Program. There’s a number of different items in there, but that was one of the things we’ve recognized, that certain other values that have to be considered on the land that affect trappers, harvesters, any number of people and that program review, as the Minister indicated, will be coming before standing committee and through the system over the next few months. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So in a few months I certainly hope we have a lively debate on this program review in terms of this issue. Hopefully we’ll formulate a new policy in terms of the harvesters and the land and area that we’re talking about that we’d see it before the end of the life of this government. If this has been an issue in the past, I can only imagine the departments have been working quite creatively to put this compensation to test in terms of working with the harvesters on areas that have been damaged by forest fires. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the deputy indicated, as we conclude the reviews the intent is to take it through the process to committee and when there is agreed to recommendations, then we’ll look at the policies being adjusted to reflect whatever changes are finally agreed to. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Once again, committee, page 13-22, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, forest management, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $100,000. Agreed?
Agreed.
Contributions, total contributions, $30,000.
Agreed.
Total grants and contributions, $130,000. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 13-23, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, forest management, active positions. Agreed? Mr. Yakeleya.
I want to state again the wishes of the elders from Colville Lake on the caribou. I heard the Minister talk about the collars on the caribou. It disturbs them quite considerably. How do we monitor our wildlife?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. That’s coming up very shortly on the next page, I believe. So let’s just conclude this page 13-23, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, forest management, active positions. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We’re on page 13-25, and I’ll start with Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The concerns again brought to me by the elders of the community of Colville Lake, they’ve stated to me many times they’re concerned about wildlife technicians, biologists using the collars to monitor the movements of caribou, especially the ones that we use in the Sahtu, Bluenose-East and Bluenose-West, and that the feeling that their method of traditional knowledge is not taken very seriously as the aircraft and collars are used on caribou to give credence and evidence to the scientific papers on caribou. There is some value to it. Again, it rubs against the respect for the animals and by having collars on these animals they feel that it’s going against the laws of animals in the culture of the Colville Lake people. So I want to state for the record that as much as the department is telling us the value of caribou and the value of putting collars on animals, there are some elders there that are very saddened that we’re using this technique and that they should be using traditional knowledge and best practice in terms of monitoring. I’m not too sure if that will ever be discontinued as there are a lot of biologists and technicians that swear to God that collars are probably the best thing for monitoring or managing animals. I’m just stating very clearly that people in Colville Lake are not too happy and they don’t agree with it. They’ve asked me, again, to bring it to the government’s attention and they can have some more discussions if they want. However, I want to state that for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for making this clear on the record. We are very sensitive to the concern about how we work with the animals, how we do it. I point out that traditional knowledge and western science in this case I believe have to be compatible and we want the best all-around knowledge that we can get. We’ll make note of the fact that the Member has raised concerns on behalf of his constituents. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Minister. Anything further, Mr. Yakeleya? I will go next on my list to Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regards to the Wildlife Act, I know that the caribou issue has been very controversial, in some cases it has had an impact on harvesters, especially Aboriginal harvesters in regards to how they have either been dealt with through, I wouldn’t say the courts, but also in regards to being written up and taking their guns away and whatnot, especially with the Porcupine caribou and everybody was pretty clear that the Aboriginal community was saying that there was more caribou out there than what they counted and yet people were prosecuted and people were tarred. But yet now with the numbers that the last count clearly illustrates what the people were telling you in regards to the caribou count wasn’t exactly accurate and we were underestimating those numbers because you haven’t done a count. I think the last time we did a count was 2001, which is almost 10 years ago. I think because of that, people now have criminal records, because of how this issue was managed. I would just like to ask the Minister, exactly what are we going to do to remedy the situation. Do we have those individuals that basically have been written up, have their charges waived, or in some cases totally wiped off the record? Individuals now have a criminal record and in some cases, that basically because of that, they have been written up and it is on the record. I would just like to know, are we looking at the possibility of having a clean slate when it comes to people that were charged improperly knowing that the numbers they were estimating weren’t accurate. If anything, the numbers... Again, this was a volunteer activity that was being carried out as far as to shooting bulls and whatnot, but yet people have been prosecuted, people have records in relation to the regulations, so I am just wondering what are we going to do to remedy that situation.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not aware of any specific charges that were laid on the Northwest Territories side. I know that if there were issues they tended to be on the Yukon side of the border. For us, basically, it is a good news story that there was in fact, that the numbers weren’t as bad as predicted, the numbers that the Northwest Territories subscribed to, in terms of estimates, were considerably higher than those that were contemplated and put forward by the Yukon government. Our numbers were much more consistent with the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, but there are no plans at this point to go back. Decisions were made on the best information of the day and the rules were enforced on that basis. Thank you.
Again, if you are charging somebody on the basis of conservation and you find out that the issue wasn’t really conservation and you have charged somebody and you find out that the issue of conservation wasn’t the factor, the factor was that it was an undercount by way of the lack of or amount of time it took to count the species that is in question, in regards to using conservation as the reason to charge people. Now you find out that the herd is way over or a lot healthier than you basically used the situation of going out there and saying we are down to two caribou. You can’t shoot one because if you do that there is only one left over and we have a healthy herd in regards to the Porcupine caribou herd, but yet people have been charged for a simple thing as going hunting and shooting a cow caribou, because it was a voluntary order in order to shoot bulls. Any Aboriginal person in their right mind will tell you, you do not shoot bulls in the fall time when they are rutting and yet that is when you expect people to be shooting bulls. Traditionally you don’t shoot bulls when they are rutting, traditionally you shoot the cows, you leave the bulls so that they basically can rut and you can’t eat the meat when they are rutting anyhow. Things like that that traditional knowledge would have brought you, which people where telling you that in the first place, but again it just does not meet reason or mind. So, I will ask again, I know that the Minister said sorry because the charges were laid, the charges were laid with bad information and people are now carrying criminal records or have been charged and basically have a record on file that is going to affect them for the rest of their lives.
While I appreciate the Member’s concern, with the benefit of hindsight we know now that the numbers were not as low as where contemplated at the time that these actions were taken, so I don’t see a way to look back and rewrite history. I take the Member’s concern. I guess the only other offer I could make to the Member is if he has specific instances that he wants to share, not in this forum, but if he wants to, we can have a discussion further about any individuals where there may be extenuating circumstances. But as a general rule and practice, I mean, that was then, this is now, now that we have the right information, up-to-date information, things will be adjusted accordingly. But we were operating under precautionary principles at the time and took the steps that were deemed appropriate and necessary by all the parties. Thank you.
I would like to thank the Minister for that and I will be discussing with him further on that issue. Again, I think that, like anything else in the criminal justice system, there is an appeal process and I think that in this case there should be some sort of an appeal process to remedy the situation, because it is no fault of either party. I think that if there is a way we can avoid people having records and avoid them from losing a livelihood simply because they were doing something that they did normally, and basically traditionally, and now they find themselves that they are being written up because of an instance that happened under the assumption that it is conservation that was the issue.
Just in regards to the issue of the Wildlife Act, I know that there has been a lot of hap and holler out there and I think that we have to be realistic, you know. You can pull out the old Wildlife Act, we had group trapping registered areas, we had game preserves in the Northwest Territories, and basically we are off bounds for hunting for a lot of people. People had registered trapping areas in the Mackenzie Delta right up until the late 1960s and people still recognize those registered group trapping areas. Same as the Yukon, they have registered trapping areas. I think that people assume that there have never been regulations or enforcement tools in place and those things were in place prior to the coming into force of treaties. I mean, a lot of these things were established under modern day treaties. Back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, which basically, Fort McPherson Game Preserve was established under a treaty obligation that there was land going to be designated between the Peel River and the Arctic Red River which only treaty Indians were able to trap and hunt it. So I think that nowadays the notion that people out there are making the comparison that Aboriginal people don’t have hunting rights, or basically they have too much hunting rights, back then people had to acquire a licence to trap, just like anything else today, people require a licence to hunt, people require a fishing licence to go fishing, these are processes that have been around for over a hundred years but everybody and their dog that seems to be out there. I was reading the newspaper, there was a full-page ad there, and it makes it sound like we are living in the cave age for the last hundred years and only now we are starting to talk about this issue. This issue has been around just as long as the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or the Dominion of Canada was brought into Confederation, so I think that we have to do a better job of responding to these people out there that make it sound that we basically sound like we have no regimes in place to deal with managing wildlife in the Northwest Territories. Again, I’d like to ask the Minister exactly what are we doing. Maybe we should post the old Wildlife Act going back when it first came into force, which showed that we had areas that were specially designated management areas, such as the Peel River Game Reserve or the reserve that’s established between Fort Providence and Great Slave Lake. These areas were there for a purpose: to protect the Aboriginal trappers and hunters from the non-Aboriginal trappers and hunters who moved up here during the early 1900s in regard to when the depression was on. I think that we’ve got to be realistic.
I would just like to ask the Minister exactly what are we doing to respond to some of these outrageous accusations that are flying around in the newspapers, and more importantly, when are we going to get the facts out there so people can realistically read for themselves on some history of the Northwest Territories when it comes to wildlife management.
As I’ve indicated in the House, we’ve undergone an extensive period of consultation across the North and all the communities with many groups and individuals. As I indicated to the Member, the intention is that if all goes according to plan, that we will give notice of motion on March 7th for a first reading of the Wildlife Act. We’ll take the process time and then we’ll go for first and second reading on the 9th and 10th, I believe. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Committee, we’re on page 13-25, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife. Mr. Yakeleya.
I just have a few questions before we move on. I just want to ask the Minister has his department been keeping a close working relationship with our health department on the fish monitoring situation in the lakes in the north. I know there was an issue that was brought up some time ago with the mercury in our lakes, and the health board and the Sahtu Renewable Resource were looking at closely monitoring those lakes. When I was in Tulita just after Christmas, the Sahtu Renewable Resource Council president had some people coming in from down south to look at these lakes and monitor them. I want to thank the department for keeping close monitoring. That caused a lot of concern for my constituents and probably other constituents in the north that eat fish. Is this something that a report will come forward and we would look at some of the recommendations in the reports as to what’s causing the mercury to go up in our fish up in the Sahtu?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That issue will remain within the purview of the Department of Fisheries. We will be there, as ENR, because it’s related to what we do, but the authority and mandate would be with the Department of Fisheries. As well, our own public health people will be monitoring the outcome, as well, to determine if they have a role to play depending on what the findings are. Thank you.
I also look forward to the Minister working with the federal minister or the federal government with the fish up in Fort Good Hope. I know there was some concern in Fort Good Hope as to the quality of their fish. I heard also in Tulita from a gentleman who lives in Fort Resolution, that he talked about the fish in the Great Slave Lake and some of the fish that they were catching weren’t quite healthy. The first time that this gentleman, and he’s an older gentleman and he could be considered an elder, but the quality of the fish that they caught, they didn’t look quite right.
I want to know if that indication as to the quality of the fish in the future that we’re going to have in the North here, and if the Minister is looking at some fish monitoring stations along the Mackenzie River. I know in the mouth of the Mackenzie there were also considerations about the questions about the quality of fish in the mouth. I guess that might just be down the Mackenzie River there. Fish monitoring is very important. As I indicated yesterday to the Minister in our oral questions, the importance of the fish and the role of this government, the role of this department working with the federal government to look and be responsible for some of the things that might be happening to our fish on the Mackenzie or within the lakes, to take care of them, that’s a concern. I’m not too sure there’s a question in there. It’s also a statement that I’d like to make.
As we proceed with the implementation of our Water Strategy, as we proceed with the work with the federal government about monitoring, and as we proceed with the discussions about taking over more authorities for land and water and resource development, those are the types of efforts we’re going to have to make. That we’re going to have to, as well, rely, and the Member talked about traditional knowledge, the people that are the users of the land and the water and the fish, and ENR will have a clear role to play, because have people on the ground in almost every community that can work with communities and the users, the fishers, the hunters and the trappers, and we can be that connection point to make sure that we work closely with the federal government and the Fisheries folks and Environment Canada as we both do the monitoring and try to backtrack, to make sure we want to know that the water is in as pure a state as possible and if it isn’t, how do we fix it. Those are going to be our challenges going forward. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I bring this up because in the activity description on 13-24 it talks about wildlife health studies. I just wanted to make the importance of fish studies in my regions, in my communities.
Mr. Chair, at one time in my life I did fish studies on the Mackenzie River and we were catching Arctic ciscoes. When we caught the Arctic ciscoes, there’s a little tag on the fish. When we were doing the studies we would take these little tags and then send them out to Vancouver for analysis and when they get the reports back these little tags on these little Arctic ciscoes, they were tagged in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and we were catching them right across from Tulita. When we found out that they were tagged in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, but the fish were also spawning a month earlier. So it tells us change was coming down and people, I guess the elders knew. They knew that change would be coming. They were giving us warning. That’s why I want to ask the Minister, in terms of the wildlife health studies, that these are warnings and we’re being told and I’m hoping that he will put together a comprehensive plan to look at the monitoring of fish. As the elders said, the waters are getting warmer, the fish are getting softer, and there are indications that some of our fish are not healthy. A lot of these elders and my people, they love fish. A lot of them say they live on fish and love, because that’s what their main diet is. That’s why I raise this concern. I think the department has heard me and I just wanted to make sure that we look at the fish right down the valley to right through our whole region right up to the Beaufort Sea. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard the Member’s concern. I have noted it and we will be considering that as we do the work in the coming months. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Committee, once again we are on page 13-25, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, operations expenditure summary, $15.274 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. We are on page 13-26, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, grants and contributions, contributions, $1.069 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. We are on page 13-27, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, wildlife, active positions.
Agreed.
Thank you. We are on page 13-29. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has already been summed up earlier today about the NWT Water Stewardship Strategy. I think the department has a lot done, a really fantastic job, and so far a lot of really good work. I have attended some presentations on it. I am quite happy with what I have seen so far in the department moving forward, but I am concerned about the water flowing into the Northwest Territories.
I recently have read a report by an independent scientist who studied the Slave River downriver from the oil sands project. It pretty much indicated that there were significant amounts of pollution in the water. It is all part of the Mackenzie Basin. We are all part of the Mackenzie Basin. It is great that we are doing such a wonderful job on our Water Stewardship Strategy, but how are we going to make the upriver provinces respect the water? What hammer or what mechanisms are going to exist as strategy that will be enforceable so that we don’t have to have the concerns about the water that we do now? You have heard Mr. Yakeleya talk about the water and some of the changes they are seeing already. I don’t know if those are a result of what is going on upstream, but they could be. Clearly the water coming down the river has some pollution in it. What mechanisms are we going to see and hear, if any, that are going to help us have some confidence that our water is safe and protected?
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, we as a jurisdiction have been getting our thinking clear and our pieces and strategy in place to deal with water issues. There are a number of things that are happening. As I indicated earlier, we are now fully engaged in our transboundary processes with Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, laying out the negotiation process, the fact that we would like to have and we intend... we all want legally binding agreements that are going to speak to the broad areas of quality and quantity which, when you look at them in their individual detail, they are very complex issues tying in with groundwater and air, pollution issues.
The other big thing that I know is working in our favour is that the federal government recently, after a number of reports, the most recent one by Dr. Schindler and Dr. Erin Kelly that prove beyond a shadow of any kind of reasonable doubt that there were significant issues related to the oil sands, such to the degree that the federal government, Mr. Barrett -- I believe. I think it started initially with Minister Prentice -- Minister Barrett picked it up and they committed to a 90-day process, which is currently underway, to set up a monitoring what they have characterized as a world-class monitoring system for this part of the country for the downstream jurisdictions and areas of northern Alberta and, of course, the Northwest Territories. We met with Minister Kent. We made the case that it has to have as broad a scope as possible. They can’t narrow it down so narrow that it doesn’t do the job. We have the benefit of having Dr. Kelly on this board. We also have the benefit the jurisdictions ready to go. We have these pieces in place and we are moving as fast as we can, and the money we have in the budget is going to allow us to move forward to hopefully conclude these transboundary agreements, but we will always have to continue to be vigilant.
The downstream agreements are only going to be as strong as the quality of the monitoring and information that we get that assures us that we are being protected and that the conditions of the agreement are being met. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. Once again, I appreciate all the work that you and your department are doing on this, as many are fond to say, water is life. With respect to the monitoring, what are the feds doing and will we have easy and accessible sort of access to the information that is coming out of that? In particular, where is most of the monitoring taking place? Is it immediately downstream of where the oil sands are located? Is it further downstream? Is there any monitoring going on this side of the NWT/Alberta border that will give us some warning about what is on its way just in case there is anything we can do to stop it from getting into the main part of the basin in the Great Slave Lake and the Mackenzie River? Where is the monitoring taking place? Do we have access to the information from it?
Mr. Chairman, currently if you looked at a map from northern Alberta all the way down to the Arctic, in the NWT I think in the neighbourhood of about 148 different types of monitoring is going on. One of the challenges and problems is that it is often very disconnected, that companies are doing it. Some government agencies are doing it. Other government agencies are doing it. Different levels of government are doing it.
The other question and the big concern around the oil sands is: was it the right kind of monitoring? Were we testing for the right things in all of these exotic substances like naphthenic acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and those types of chemicals and substances that are very specific to that particular industrial activity? The design that the federal government is working on is going to have to capture that. We are going to be involved. We have somebody at the table. We are involved in that. We indicated to Minister Kent that, while we appreciated that, we want to be fully involved. We need to have the bilaterals done. We also made the case that if they want this to be really effective, they should have some Aboriginal representation on that board, as well, which has been one of the downsides to the process to date.
Those pieces are being put in place. Our challenge is going to be to make sure that what is being put in place is going to meet those needs. At the same time, we have to, and we are at work at this, trying to better coordinate the significant amount of monitoring that is already done. That information often goes to different places and there is no one collection area clearinghouse of information. We have our own work to do with the systems we do have as well. Thank you.
