Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this morning about 5:00, I was reading a book...
Oooh.
...Mr. Speaker, and the book is on the Sahtu. I was thinking about the discussions we’ve had the last couple of days about the caribou. In this section, page 46 or so, there’s a discussion about the caribou from the Sahtu perspective. In one of the stories the elders have told, there is a story about near Aklavik there was a discussion, the elders say, about some animals. It was a story about the wolf and the caribou that came together and they were discussing how they were going to live together, Mr. Speaker, and they came to an agreement that the wolf would allow the caribou to live, not wipe out the caribou. That process, I looked at from the caribou and the wolves’ perspective and the elder’s story was a process of consultation where they come to discuss certain things and they come to an agreement. That’s the process of consultation in the old days, Mr. Speaker.
Today we have different versions, different definitions we use in terms of consultation. The aboriginal leaders have their definition, the federal government certainly has their definition of consultation, the territorial government has their view of consultation and the aboriginal elders have their view of consultation. Mr. Speaker, even the courts have weighed in regarding consultation. There is the Sparrow test in terms of certain rights that aboriginal people have.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to say in terms of consultation and going forward with this type of issue that is before us in the House here, it has brought forward many passionate views, different views on how we look at things on the land. It’s good because this important issue is being discussed during the House and gives the people an opportunity down the Mackenzie Valley how we need to work together amongst ourselves, what things need to come together for the survival of this herd, also survival of the aboriginal culture and people of the Northwest Territories.
Northerners are known for working out very important issues, issues that are very important, and the principle of the caribou and the people of the Northwest Territories. I wanted to ask the Minister some questions at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to speak today on the Bathurst caribou issue. Yellowknife has the largest aboriginal population in our Territory. It is home to over 8,000 aboriginal people. I, therefore, have many constituents that are of aboriginal descent and, given the proximity of the communities of Dettah and Ndilo to the City of Yellowknife, the decision to ban hunting in the North Slave region is having a tremendous impact on some of my constituents.
It is very clear the science on the freefall of the Bathurst herd is compelling, but how do over 100,000 caribou disappear in just over five years? One theory is that many have gone east and joined the Ahiak and Qamanirjuaq herds. For most of us, what happened to the 100,000 caribou is certainly a mystery.
The fact is the Bathurst herd, as defined by ENR, is in serious decline. Decisions are required to conserve and protect the herd. However, the Minister of ENR has made a decision which directly impacts the Treaty rights of aboriginal people. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that we are setting ourselves up for a protracted and costly court battle that will only benefit the lawyers that are involved. We need to stay out of court, Mr. Speaker. We need to have a meaningful consultation process with aboriginal governments and leaders. If the consultation process was done the right way, a solution negotiated between the GNWT and aboriginal governments could have been found. My belief is that it’s not too late to do this.
The Minister has to absolutely take every possible step to ensure consultation contains proper representation from all potentially affected groups. Given the way that aboriginal leaders and people have reacted to the government’s decision, this would indicate, quite clearly, that we have not done the job necessary to both conserve the herd or respect treaty rights.
England’s Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized the vast area of this continent as aboriginal hunting grounds. One enduring effect of that proclamation has been settler governments’ acceptance that harvesting fish and game is an integral feature of the aboriginal way of life. For aboriginal people, the implication is much stronger. For them the proclamation and treaties it inspired not only recognized but also protected their hunting and fishing privileges.
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted.
We do need to protect the caribou, but how can the Minister of ENR simply ignore the rights of aboriginal people? The failure to negotiate a solution is going to cost this government dearly. Our credibility is clearly in question.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I at this time would like to rein in regarding the caribou issue. I believe for one involved in the land claims negotiations going back 15 or 20 years, I think this was the fundamental element of the Dene-Métis claim; realizing that they wanted more than just hunting rights. They wanted to have the ability to manage the wildlife, manage the forest, manage the resources through an instrument like a land claim to ensure that they do have the tools to be included, be able to consult with their members and, more importantly, to be involved in the decision-making of policies before government makes the final decision. Allow them to work themselves into systems that allow for the renewable resources board, working with the community renewable resource councils, working with the harvesters, and working with the organizations that are out there. At the end of the day aboriginal people have been maintaining their lifestyle for 10,000 years because of caribou. The importance of caribou that there is on aboriginal culture in the Northwest Territories is important and critical to who they are.
I think it’s essential that this government looks at those instruments and those land claim agreements that have worked in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, that have worked in the Gwich’in Settlement Region, that have worked in the Sahtu region, and now in regard to the Tlicho communities to ensure that those instruments, and those instruments that aren’t in those other regions, work with those harvesters, work with those aboriginal leaders to clearly demonstrate that we are a consensus government in the Northwest Territories.
We try to work things out, we talk things through, we find solutions to these problems, and not impose restrictive measures on people that get their dander up because they’re upset. If you’re going to take someone’s rights away, at least allow them to be consulted, be involved in that decision, so when the decision’s made we have unanimity, we have people onside, we have people knowing what are the options, what are the alternatives. We’ve done that in other areas. We have the Bluenose situation in the Beaufort Sea area in regard to working out with the Bluenose Caribou Management Board from the Sahtu, the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit, to come up with a regime where we have allowed for tags to be issued to communities in regard to that herd so you know how many tags are being used, making sure they have the ability to use those tags. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, is to find a solution to this problem through dialogue, not enforcement of the powers of a Minister…
Mr. Krutko, your time for your Member’s statement has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we cannot use the...(inaudible)...law of the land by way of having a ministerial decision made that is imposed on the people that have depended on subsistence for years. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I will be asking the Minister some questions around this matter in regard to the legal authority that he made this decision on, what legislative tool was used and exactly what instrument of law, of authority, of powers, where did it come from? Thank you.
