Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 26 has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. Blake.
Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 26, Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, moved into Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 26 is moved into Committee of the Whole.
---Consent granted
Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Bill 3, Wildlife Act; Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Education Act; Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Protection Against Family Violence Act; Bill 18, Apology Act; Bill 19, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2013; Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Dental Profession Act; Bill 22, Territorial Emblems and Honours Act; Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act; Committee Report 6-17(4), Report on the Review of Bill 3, Wildlife Act; Committee Report 7-17(4), Report on the Review of Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act; Tabled Document 70-17(4), Electoral Boundaries Commission, Final Report, May 2013; and Tabled Document 107-17(4), NWT Capital Estimates 2014-2015. By the authority given to me as Speaker, by Motion 1-17(4), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider business before the House, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. There are a number of matters before Committee of the Whole today. What is the wish of the committee? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We wish to consider Bill 3, Wildlife Act; and Committee Report 6-17(4), Report on the Review of Bill 3, Wildlife Act.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Agreed, thank you. We’ll resume with that after a brief break.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. The next item on our agenda is the review of Bill 3, Wildlife Act. I would like to ask Minister Miltenberger, the Minister responsible, if he has any opening remarks. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present Bill 3, Wildlife Act. As the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure noted in its review of Bill 3, Wildlife Act, a collaborative approach and extensive consultation was used to develop this legislation before us today. The collaborative process, which began about 20 years ago, is unique in Canada. No other public government has worked so closely with Aboriginal governments to jointly draft legislation on issues of deep and abiding interest to all.
The road to this point was not always smooth and there were a lot of challenges along the way. But we all persevered – governments, Aboriginal leaders, community members, co-management boards, stakeholders and MLAs. We continued to work together to sort out our differences and fulfill our shared vision of legislation that respects all people in the Northwest Territories and protects one of our most precious resources: our wildlife.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work brought to bear on this initiative; without it, this day would not be possible. The Wildlife Act Working Group has been involved in the development of this bill since 2009 when this government decided to incorporate a collaborative drafting process for new wildlife management legislation in the Northwest Territories. The working group included representatives from the Inuvialuit Game Council, Gwich’in Tribal Council, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, Tlicho Government, Northwest Territories Metis Nation, Wildlife Management Advisory Council and the Gwich’in, Sahtu and Wek’eezhii renewable resources boards. The Dehcho First Nations provided input on the legislation.
I would also like to thank the members of the Stakeholders Wildlife Act Advisory Group for its deliberations and input. The advisory group included representatives from NWT Tourism, Association of Mackenzie Mountain Outfitters, NWT Barren Ground Caribou Outfitters Association, NWT Wildlife Federation, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and three resident hunters – Mr. Ken Hall, Mr. David Radcliffe and Mr. Malcolm Stark – who represented the public at large.
In particular, I would like to take a moment to remember a man who was instrumental throughout this entire process, the late Mr. Arthur Pape, legal counsel for the Tlicho Government. Art, who passed away on December 6, 2012, never faltered in his belief that a collaborative approach to wildlife management would not only benefit wildlife, but would benefit all the people of the Northwest Territories as well. Art’s vision was a driving force that helped shape the act we have before us today.
Nowhere else in Canada have so many different groups come together to build a piece of legislation like this. These people, representing a wide range of views and interests, dedicated a great deal of time and energy to develop recommendations, which greatly improved this legislation.
I would also like to recognize the first-rate group of Environment and Natural Resources employees who worked so tirelessly, and creatively, to make this day a reality. In particular, I would like to thank Ms. Susan Fleck, the former director of wildlife, and her successor, Ms. Lynda Yonge, for their efforts to ensure the Wildlife Act would be one of the most advanced pieces of wildlife legislation in the country. The hard work of these groups and individuals has resulted in a well-balanced and fair piece of legislation reflecting the best interests of all residents.
Bill 3 upholds constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and treaty rights and the provisions in land claim agreements, recognizing that land, resources and self-government agreements function as modern treaties. The same consultative and collaborative approach used to shape this important legislation will also be valuable in developing the legislative tools or regulations needed to implement it.
Once enacted, this legislation will be reviewed within five years and then every seven years. This will ensure the legislation continues to provide the most current and effective tools to conserve wildlife for present and future generations. Both Bill 3 and the process used to develop it are to be commended. Bill 3 provides the tools needed to manage and conserve wildlife for the benefit of our residents, now and in the future, and reflects the interests of all residents of the NWT.
I look forward to hearing more discussion on Bill 3, Wildlife Act, during our clause-by-clause review this afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. As Members begin to prepare for general comments, I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber.
Yes, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses in.
Minister Miltenberger, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have with me Deputy Minister Ernie Campbell; director of wildlife, Ms. Lynda Yonge; and Ms. Kelly McLaughlin, director of legal division. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Members, general comments. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. October 17th, the Economic Development and Infrastructure committee read a lengthy report, quite detailed, on some of the issues we’d seen and come across. We don’t go through that report again today, but I’ll use the occasion, as Minister Miltenberger has, to acknowledge that a lot of work and collaboration has gone into the Wildlife Act and the work provided in a small part, in a small way, by the Economic Development and Infrastructure committee was a challenge we were certainly up to.
Although, the Minister has pointed out it’s been almost 20 years to bring this to where it is today, the hard work by many can’t go without acknowledgement. Without partners in Aboriginal governments or working groups or SWAAG group, we could not have been here today. I really appreciate the fact that the Minister took an extra moment to acknowledge Sue Fleck, who we all know has put her life into the development of this Wildlife Act. Without her early stewardship as well as the current folks, we wouldn’t be here today.
Although she’s moved on to retirement and probably quite happy, I’m sure she’d be quite pleased to see the Wildlife Act passed here today, if it is done so through the Assembly process.
With that, as chairman, I don’t have any specific remarks but I just wanted to use the occasion to say it was a work and task we willingly took on and are glad we are here today. However, as we said in our report, the government can anticipate probably some new motions on many particular issues which we’d raised during the public hearings, they raised from mandatory harvesting reporting, training, using of aircraft and a few other mechanisms regarding special harvester licences. But nothing in particular, just more of a general statement of saying it was work, it was hard work and we were certainly glad to be part of it. If the Assembly chooses to move forward on this initiative, we will be glad to see this chapter moved to the next phase.
I would be remiss if I did not mention one more thing, although I was going to leave it at that. A significant amount of regulation power will be invoked once this is done. If this act passes, that is, and it will require significant collaboration, once again, to come to the table to find a way through this. The Minister, through public documentation, or I should say the department has, through public documentation, said that they would use the same collaborative and outreach approach to draw out these regulations. That said, it won’t be easy and I certainly don’t welcome the headaches that I can see coming forward, but wildlife is a resource for everyone and I look forward to the final product that will one day, hopefully in our near future, be fully implemented.
Madam Chair, with that, I just thought I’d lead in with a few opening remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. At the decision of the chair here, if committee agrees, I think that when it is just general comments, there are no questions, please let’s not take the time to have the Minister respond to general comments. Let’s try and save our questions for the detail. As Mr. Hawkins has set the tone here with general comments, indeed those were general comments. So I think what we’ll do is we will forego turning the floor back to the Minister as we normally do. Let’s go on to general comments. Mr. Dolynny, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We face a critical choice between the promise this future bill will mean for our shared public wildlife resource and the prisons of our past between resident and traditional harvester. We can ill afford to duplicate these same errors.
After 15 years in the making, I ask you today, on a scale from nine to 10, how severe is our wildlife issue. How polarized have we become as a society to pit one against the other, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal hunter, treaty holder and non-claimant holder? We are a nation of divide, driven apart when our resolve should be about the management of species and looking after Mother Earth.
I teach my kids about how we have to accept diversity as a society and that every class of citizen deserves to be heard and respected. Yet, when I see, hear and read what the people have said about the Wildlife Act, it is abundantly clear we have a long journey ahead of us accepting this shared responsibility of resource management.
Someone asked my thoughts on this bill. I responded, Bill 3 is far from good, and good from far. I got a puzzled look from this person so I said many issues on this public resource and its stewardship are being cleverly concealed in the regulations yet to be written, which I closed off in saying, a very dangerous precedent, given the polarization of this topic. To be clear, I said these comments a month ago and, sadly, my thoughts have not waned.
I have lived in the NWT most of my adult life. My kids were born in the Northwest Territories and were raised on caribou. This is no different than I as a child growing up in Northern Alberta. I lived off the land then and up to seven years ago I did the same here. I can remember the day my kids asked what is cow when we first served it to them. I can tell you they looked at it funny and smelled their first bite. Thank God for ketchup.
Southerners get a kick out of this when I tell them this story, but the reality is they have grown up now missing out on what I considered my tradition, my heritage as a hunter and a provider of my family. Upon reflection, I remember hearing the blame and the finger pointing for the disappearance of the caribou herds. We all spoke at the coffee shops and the grocery store or the barber, it’s because of this, if only they would play nice in the sandbox, things would be different. We were all mad that we could not hunt and we were upset, knowing certain groups were allowed to continue hunting. All we wanted was fairness, nothing more.
The years have passed now. Some traditions now lost forever and still we deal with the same issues unresolved. In my humble opinion and in the opinion of many residents of Range Lake and in Yellowknife, this bill does not provide the fairness that all Northerners have been waiting for.
Let me explain. I have the right to hunt safely, knowing that everyone on the land knows the rules. Does this bill address this fairly? No. If I have to prove my abilities to hunt, then so should everyone. Does this bill address this fairly? No. If I have the duty to report my harvest to wildlife managers, then so should everyone. Again, does this bill address this fairly? No. Is a stakeholder representing my wildlife management views allowed at the table in the spirit of cooperative wildlife species governance for all Northerners? No. This bill limits species management to only Aboriginal governments and treaty holders.
Finally, we spend millions of public tax dollars promoting hunting, trapping and the fur trade. ENR and ITI even have a Take a Kid Trapping Program to promote trapping with youth, which includes non-Aboriginal youth. However, the NWT is the only jurisdiction in Canada, other than Nunavut, where non-Aboriginals cannot simply apply for a trapping licence. I find this fairly cynical, Madam Chair. In fact, the NWT North Slave office in Yellowknife has never issued a trapping licence to a non-Aboriginal. Why? Because there is no process, there is no committee and there is no appeals mechanism. So does this bill give comfort that non-Aboriginal trappers have a chance that they’re treated fairly? No, it does not.
Much of what we heard today or are about to hear about this bill today allegedly, is that there will be an established process for other individuals and organizations to make submissions on wildlife management issues, and not to worry just because it’s not prescribed in legislation. The public, on the other hand, or at least 50 percent of us, are somehow led to believe things will magically happen.
This bill must be the foundation to which the wildlife management principles of all user groups are stated clearly, with no ambiguity and for the general good of everyone. Wildlife management is people management and without sound public policy, we cannot advance in a meaningful way.
Knowing that much of this act falls into the regulations or under the purview of a Minister offers me very little comfort, knowing that everyone is taking a shared responsibility for the management and stewardship of our public resource.
As much as I appreciate the extremely hard work and efforts of my colleagues and for the communities they visited and listened to, and for all stakeholders, as have been previously mentioned, this bill collides on the many topics left unresolved and it is perceived to be a train wreck that tramples on the rights of many Northerners. We have to do what is right and not what is easy.
With that, it will be very difficult for me to support this bill as presented or with any amendments to it today. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. General comments. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know there’s been a lot of hard work over the past several years and in previous governments on Bill 3. Coming into the mix and being one of the Members that are asked to support the bill and pass the bill through for the Wildlife Act, it is very hard to jump into this looking at all the concerns that are made from several groups across the NWT, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. However, because I do represent the Inuvik region and I do have some organizations that do have a strong commitment to this Wildlife Act and the hard work that they have done in developing this Wildlife Act and the efforts they made in the last Assembly to ensure that the Wildlife Act was not going to be able to go through to third reading based on some things that contribute, some of the land claim rights and some of our roles and responsibilities of some of these groups.
More specifically, on October 17th, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, we did receive a letter from the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Gwich’in Tribal Council as well as the NWT Metis Nation, and they expressed a lot of concerns in some of the amendments that were brought forth by SCEDI, the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure. Being a Member that’s responsible for bringing these views to the table as we go through the clause-by-clause reviews, there are going to be some amendments and clauses that I probably will not be able to support. Going forward into reading and passing of Bill 3, I will have to do some more consultation before making sure that this bill actually goes through.
We do have three Aboriginal groups here that have done a lot of work, as well as the Government of the Northwest Territories, to try to bring a bill forward that would allow everybody the same rights and give everybody an equal chance to either have a general hunting licence, specialty harvesting licence, but there are provisions within the NWT in that we are unique in that sense, and as I mentioned earlier, as we go through the clause-by-clause we will have to see what amendments and motions are passed through with the bill. But it will be very difficult to support a bill with some of our Aboriginal groups that have really put a lot of input and a lot of interest into this bill going forward. As we move forward, we will see how the process unfolds and respect every Member’s decisions and comments on the bill today. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Next I have Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of brief comments I wanted to make on the Wildlife Act. I would like to start off by commending this government for implementing many of the land claim rights and inherent rights of Aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. The land claim groups have had a very difficult challenge over the last 20 years implementing their land claims and this is one area that the land claim groups have struggled with over the years. I know this government has been working with those Aboriginal governments with many of the issues that have arisen.
In the consultation process, I was hoping to see a lot more representation at our consultation as we met with the committee. Many of the concerns that have come out of those consultations have been implemented into the changes we are about to see here today. I was just hoping we had more people attending. I know a lot of concerns have come out of the changes that were made, but I was really surprised not to see those working groups at our public consultations.
I just wanted to commend this government once again. I know there are concerns of mandatory reporting, also giving the Minister the ultimate authority on approving some situations that may arise if the community or RCs do not approve. I know that was one of the major concerns, but I believe those issues will be resolved in the near future. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was pleased to be on the committee that worked on public consultations and traveled with the bill. As well, I would like to commend government on all the hard pre-work that they did before they introduced the bill to the House. I know in the last Legislature, in the final hours when we were trying to pass the bill in the late stages of the government, there were many, many last minute changes to be done. Members on this side always said, if they make any changes, they would like to do a proper consultation.
I think this term a lot of proper consultation was done. I will be supporting this bill as we progress it through here at Committee of the Whole and through to third reading. We are committee members that will be proposing some amendments, but they are minor. For me, it is about ensuring that Aboriginal rights will not be abrogated or derogated. Through it all, the Minister assures us that won’t be the case.
With that, once again, I will be supporting the new Wildlife Act. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next I have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This matter was referred to the committee on which I serve. At this moment, of course, I have an obligation as an MLA to serve the constituents that put their confidence in me to be their voice here within the House. At the same time, I serve on this committee, and this initiative here has led us to this day. I have to acknowledge that, from my observation, there have been extensive consultations with the word collaboration. I see governments work along with First Nations, whether it was a separate claim or else unsettled area. There have been great efforts to try to come up with a simple plan solely for the purposes of setting up a wildlife management regime for the NWT and putting the interest of the wildlife as paramount. In that instance, I think we still have some concerns, especially from my perspective.
What’s front and centre about this whole matter is treaty and Aboriginal rights. The area that I represent obviously has an unsettled region as historical treaties. Of course, how that goes is that Section 35 rights in terms of how it is that governments work with First Nations. That, of course, is a big proviso in terms of my mission to ensure that we have due diligence and discussions. I think to a point I have raised these questions on numerous occasions and I am doing this exercise of reviewing the Wildlife Act.
What really stands out for me is in terms of the Wildlife Act in its preamble and its provisions affecting treaty and Aboriginal rights in the sense that we will not abrogate or derogate from treaty and Aboriginal rights. I did raise a question at the very outset. Understanding that, at what instance would the Wildlife Act interfere with those rights? I know, with our recent experience with the caribou decline, there were moments when there had to be rights or measures invoked, which brought into question that very reality. Of course, that’s a challenge we all face in terms of setting up a regime. That question still remains front and centre to my deliberations of this very matter.
Some very specific concerns have been brought to my attention. GHL is one example in terms of whether, indeed, people that have these rights currently and why they should have to prove their rights again to harvest wildlife. The other matter that was brought to me, of course, was residency, whether we could reduce the residency from two to one year. Those are concerns that have been brought to my attention and perhaps I will bring those to the forefront of discussion at a later time.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Next I have Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank all those people who put all the hard work in the years before us. I would like to thank all the Members that are in the EDI committee and all the Regular Members that sat in and were involved. It was a great pleasure to travel around the North, getting feedback from the public.
This being probably one of the biggest acts that I’ve been involved with in my short period as an MLA, it is very difficult. You are being pulled from one direction to another. You tweak one of the sections and then another group would be involved, either an organization or non-Aboriginal groups or Aboriginal groups that would have concern with the wording. So it’s very complex when you’re dealing with these acts. Some of the tweaking that we’re looking at has to be done in regulations, so some of my colleagues have talked about that. Skepticism from all organizations about what the regulations are going to read and how they’re going to read and what are those regulations are going to have as an impact on the whole act.
The whole fact is it does polarize the territory. We need to distinguish non-Aboriginal rights, Aboriginal rights and where those are. It seems like to the non-Aboriginals, we get concerns from them that it seems like there is a two-tiered system, but on the other hand, the Constitution of Canada recognizes those treaty rights. Coming from an area where it’s Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, coming from an area where the community right next to us is not settled, there are a whole bunch of different issues that my colleague just mentioned. Even the issue of residency, we went into one community and they say it should be two years and another group says, well, one year. Even following that, they would say, well, it should be one year if they have approval from the community or somebody marries an Aboriginal person from the community. So we have varying decisions from varying people, depending on who we talk to.
Even the simplest concepts of training and reporting, people would like to know what’s being taken so we can manage. Some of the Aboriginal groups feel that steps on their rights. I mean, some of that stuff I know they’re just as interested in making sure that the people who are out there hunting are safe and we want to get some sort of indication from an elder or somebody who says, yes, this person is a safe hunter, safe trapper. So it’s very difficult. I would compare it to probably my carpentry skills and trying to put up boards around my house, where I cut one piece and I think it fits, and then I cut it again and it doesn’t quite fit, so I have to start over again. Some of the pieces in this act that we’ve tried to change and tweak are very difficult to please everybody, but I think we’re at the point where the majority of people are in favour of the majority of what’s being put in the bill. Yes, the regulations are probably going to tweak that and there’s going to be a big discussion on that.
Obviously, working with committee, I’ve put my two cents in and I think this is as close to a good act that we can get. Is it perfect? No, it’s not going to be perfect for everybody. You talk to all the groups and they have some sort of concerns. Obviously, how it’s going to be implemented is the biggest issue there.
That being said, I’m definitely supportive of it. I think we’re at the point where we can justify with most people why we’ve gone this way. We’ve even come up recently with some amendments. Speaking with the Minister’s office, we’ve softened some of the wording to allow him the flexibility, and make sure there’s flexibility in the Aboriginal groups to allow them to feel that their rights are not being affected.
Again, I’d like to finish by just thanking the Minister and everybody who has been involved, all the organizations and all the MLAs who were before us who have put time into it and our current MLAs who have put all their time into it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. General comments. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This Wildlife Act is a very contentious piece of legislation even leading up to this. When you look at the Wildlife Act, it’s been over 30 years of any type of very significant changes to it, since ’78-79. When you look at the history of Aboriginal rights and title, even with the Wildlife Act in place since ’78-79, it certainly did not recognize Aboriginal rights or titles, or even have a constitution in place that gives First Nation people this recognition.
Certainly the courts have ruled on significant cases of law that give credence to Aboriginal rights or Aboriginal titles to land and to animals and to practise their ceremonies as a people, a First Nations people of Canada. Again, the Wildlife Act that we’re making changes to today, the old Wildlife Act doesn’t recognize this and that is not right. Things have changed and the courts have ruled on some of these changes that people are bringing forward, such as the First Nations people. Even in the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho have settled their land claims and have structured decision-making bodies such as our renewable resource boards to advance further our wildlife management than we have in the act right now. So this act is recognizing that and catching up. We’re catching up to what’s already out there, settled and dealt with.
The Wildlife Act certainly has a lot to do with the attitudinal changes that come with it. That is something that needs to happen.
In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 25 – and I always stated that – there is a clause in the Charter that protects the Aboriginal people as a nation of people that gives them that special shield. This was negotiated at the provincial and federal level by Aboriginal organizations. It’s in the Charter that gives them that shield, to recognize that as First Nations of Canada – and the courts have ruled on it significantly in some of the court cases – Aboriginal people have special rights, and Section 25 protects those special rights. That says you can’t treat everybody the same and you can’t use that, because that shield is there to protect that, the special rights of Aboriginal people being the first peoples in Canada. That’s why it’s there, and that shield protects them from that type of discussion, and the land claims also speak to that.
I know when I went home to the Sahtu, even the residency is too short for some people. One year is too short. They wanted three to five years. Once you’re here for one year, a teacher or an RCMP or the Northern Store workers or any non-Aboriginal people coming into their community, they only need to stay a year and then after that they can go hunt, providing they pass certain standards and qualifications for them to hunt. But that’s too fast. That’s too fast for the old people. They’re saying that’s too short for us.
I also understand there has to be compromise in how we help each other out. There are constitutional rights that need to be recognized and protected in the Wildlife Act. We’re also seeing a change of lifestyles amongst our people in our communities.
In the ‘60s and ‘70s, we in the small communities were primarily people who lived off the land more strongly than today. Even in the ‘50s, people were slow in coming out of the mountains and the bush to live in communities. Government had a policy to encourage people to go live in the small communities, go to the schools, go live in the government houses in the ‘70s. That was a strong encouragement to get us off the land and to go that way. We were strong out there. But the change of lifestyle today is different. We still have that yearning to go in the bush in the fall time and for the spring hunt. We also have a respect that if my friend next to me, if they are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal and I know that they need food to feed their family, then we’ll help them. That’s in small communities. We really don’t distinguish, well, you’re non-Aboriginal so you can’t come with us. That’s not right. We would help them just as much as that person would help us. And that’s what we’re coming to. I think we’ve pushed this Wildlife Act as far as we can.
We do have an issue if someone comes to our small communities and they think they have rights right away because they’re there for a year, two years or three years. That’s too short. They’re not staying with us very long. Pretty soon they’re leaving. Even five years is a short time and then they take off and they don’t come around. That’s pretty hard for some people to accept that a teacher can be there for three years and then they’re gone. We don’t see them again. We don’t see them back in our community or our region. They take off. So these rights are very personal and very significant with wildlife. We understand that long-term Northerners who stay in our communities and our region that raise their families, that’s different. We help many people in those situations. There’s also a point where this Wildlife Act now is catching up to our land claims settlements. These land claims settlements are far in advance of what we have today. So I do have some concerns with the Wildlife Act. I do have some issues such as the residency clause. It’s way, way, way too short. I do recognize that this could be perceived as unjust; however, I will be going through it and making my decisions as we go through it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Members, could you join me in recognizing in the gallery our Minister’s brother, a Hay River South constituent, Jean-Marc Miltenberger, and how appropriate it is for him to be here today as his brother marshals this historic piece of legislation through this process. Welcome to the Chamber.
---Applause
Next for general comments, I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, Madam Chair, I want to, as other Members have indicated, express my appreciation for the work that’s gone into this act but also for the previous act, which came through at the end of the 16th Assembly.
This act has been many years in the making and many people have worked on it. In my mind, it’s unfortunate that this act has been as divisive as it has been. It has pitted Northern residents against Northern residents. That’s been the unfortunate part of the act for me.
However, on the positive side, there has been a huge amount of cooperation amongst groups, organizations, staff, MLAs, various and sundry groups, and that cooperation has led to a better act today than what we had two years ago.
I do have some concerns, though, with a number of provisions in the act. I believe – and I don’t think the act states it firmly enough – that wildlife is a resource that belongs to all NWT residents and that it belongs to all NWT residents equally.
I am concerned in terms of the focus, some of the focus, a lot of the focus in the act on rights and so on. I want to read something that I stated two years ago when this act came forward and didn’t then go through third reading and has been amended quite a bit since then. At that time I said, “There’s far too big a focus on rights that are already covered in other legislation and agreements. This should be a management act, but it goes beyond that with the clauses that focus on rights. On the other hand, there’s a noticeable lack of definition and description of the rights for non-Aboriginal residents. The act should recognize that non-Aboriginal residents deserve the same access to wildlife as our Aboriginal residents.” I still believe that. My mind has not changed at all in that regard.
I think a number of Members have spoken about rights of Aboriginals and I will never stand in the way and say that they do not have special rights, but in my mind, special rights do not mean exclusive rights. I don’t understand why we can’t say these rights are guaranteed for these people. They’re not guaranteed for this group of people, but that doesn’t mean that the second group of people can’t access wildlife as the first group does. That’s where I find this act fails a bit.
I have concerns – and some of these amendments will come forward later – in terms of the training that’s required, according to the act or according to the regulations, however it’s determined, with the harvest reporting. In terms of conservation, I think we are doing a big disservice if we don’t require harvest reporting from everybody. I think there’s way too much left to regulations and it’s a major concern for me.
Lastly, in terms of the management council, it doesn’t include non-Aboriginal hunters. Again, I go back to my statement that I believe the wildlife resource belongs to all Northerners and I think all Northerners should have a hand in managing that resource.
So I will have some comments when it comes to specific clauses, Madam Chair. That’s it for now. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Any further general comments? Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I also would like to join my colleagues in saying that a massive amount of work has been done towards this legislation and I would like to compliment the Minister and his staff on their efforts and attempts to deal with and wrestle with, really, the considerable shortcomings of past work. I’d also like to acknowledge our chair and colleagues on the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure which have also had many prolonged discussions and fruitful consultations with people across the Northwest Territories. Thanks to all of those. Those have been real and meaningful conversations because wildlife is of such critical importance to the people of the Northwest Territories.
Wildlife are a form of life which all of us understand are representative of the natural world and our dependence on it and our relationship with it. We all come from the natural world, as I have noted before, and we will all return there. We could say we have a molecular connection to wildlife that is perhaps even closer than other parts of our ecosystem, all which are crucial in providing the ecological services we depend on. I think we’re basically born with this knowledge as creatures of the natural world. As a result, it is no surprise that looking after and using wildlife is so critical to people and even an emotional issue for many.
I would like to quote from the last time I spoke to this bill, as well, where I said, “We as a government have an opportunity and responsibility to respond to our residents in the responsible management of such an esteemed public resource as our wildlife and their habitat. In reviewing the bill, I look for recognition that this is a public resource, I look for acknowledgement of special Aboriginal and treaty rights, I look for inclusiveness in management and I look for evidence of full consultation with all our residents. Finally, while fully accounting for the special Aboriginal and treaty rights provided by law, I expect to see a commitment to acknowledging all people’s interest in using wildlife and to maximizing their opportunity within the bounds of conservation.” That stands true today, as I look over the current bill before us. Because of treaties and land claims, there is not an equal opportunity to use wildlife for all residents. Special rights are preserved for those with Aboriginal and treaty rights. These are not available to others. This is a potentially divisive issue, but in my work as a wildlife biologist in a past life, working on the land with Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people, I have seen the potential that can be achieved when, as the elders say, we all work together, this potential divisiveness disappears. Unfortunately, although this bill recognizes the overriding precedence of land claims legislation, it does not serve the purpose of bringing all people together in the management of this public resource. Instead, it is divisive and does not ensure a single tent under which we would gather annually for a full discussion. The collaboration that Art was looking for remains incomplete.
There are no provisions to ensure that decisions made by those with authority are made in an open and transparent manner. While this doesn’t mean it won’t happen, to me this is not something that should be left to chance. We need to provide a clear format within which all Northerners can shine.
Much of what should be in the act, actual wildlife management, is left to regulations or completely unaddressed. In contrast, much of what is already law and should be addressed in regulations is laboriously and confusingly dwelled upon in excessive, painful detail in the act. Major decisions and mechanisms for dealing with issues remain unresolved, again left to regulations and their development.
The public and Members demand a clear and public commitment for meaningful involvement in the development of these regulations, but this is a vulnerable commitment as Ministers can change such commitments that have no legal substance. It is not right that the public should be left in this position.
The absence of draft regulations before dealing with this bill makes it difficult to understand the full implications of the legislation. Again, we’re being asked to pass this law blindly, then go to a lottery later to find out what it means in translation into regulations.
Because of its unnecessary length and tangled forest of detail, the public is left with a confusing and opaque situation that, once passed, will only be resolved by a massive public information campaign, with clear and transparent maps and information on who can hunt, what, where and when, with what permits and under which authority. I do not envy the hunters’ dilemma whether he be one with Aboriginal treaty rights or not, he or she.
There was a somewhat improved attempt to consult the 50 percent of our residents without Aboriginal and treaty rights. I want to fully acknowledge that. That hadn’t been done in the past. It was a very shallow, if any, effort in the past and I’d say this time there was a very specific effort. But unfortunately, according to all reports, there was very little weight given to their input. That is obviously problematic. So that, again, makes this a somewhat hollow achievement. Nevertheless, to me it’s a fundamental step in the right direction and I want to thank the Minister for that action. Obviously, were this only true in the act, I’d be much happier.
As the MLA for Weledeh, it is of concern that the Yellowknives Dene First Nation have, at a very high level, decided not to participate in the development of this legislation and they do not support it. Also, I’ve been contacted by other constituent groups that oppose this legislation. These are obviously of concern and indicate, perhaps what other colleagues have already said, that this is a very challenging piece of legislation. It’s very difficult to please everybody here.
I want to acknowledge that some changes have been made and my quote from my earlier comments, the acknowledgement of public resource, there has been an attempt. Although the preamble is a non-legal part of this legal document, there was objection from different fronts to recognizing the public nature of this resource, but some wording was put forward and is in the current version suggesting that wildlife is a natural resource and as that there’s a responsibility for stewardship of wildlife and habitat. So there was some attempt. That was a common comment that the committee heard. Perhaps not common, but a frequent comment. I think other amendments were made as an attempt to address some of the concerns and those, for example, on reporting harvest training and so on, appeal process, were not successful.
So, I’m running out of time I see. The Minister may seem committed to dealing with these other issues through the development of regulations, but is this right? Is that the way legislation should be handled? Can the fundamental basis for wildlife management measuring harvests be left out of regulations or left out of legislation and left to regulations still to be developed through an unknown process?
So that’s it. I look forward to further discussion and consideration of any amendments that may come forward. I will be keenly listening and monitoring the support of the House in hopes to try and make this a piece of legislation that I can support. With that, I conclude my comments. Mahsi.
Thank you, Members. Any further general comments? I’ll give the Minister an opportunity, if he would like to respond to some of the general comments that have been made. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the Members for their comments and just acknowledge that this has been a very complex process and a long process, decades in length. At least probably five governments have been working on this particular issue.
As the comments indicate, there is still not anonymity. I’m hoping that there will be critical support to move this forward to the next phase and that at this juncture, after all this work, that we can take that leap of faith from an archaic, old piece of legislation that originally came to us from the 1950s and is thoroughly and sorely outdated.
So we will be supporting the seven motions that we worked on with committee that are coming forward, amendments that we will be concurring with. We’ve worked hard with committee and I appreciate all of the work that they’ve done to make necessary amendments that would give everybody enough comfort to move forward, recognizing the consensus government and the need for compromise.
This bill, when it is passed, should it be passed, will be exemplary in both the process and the content and I look forward to the clause-by-clause review and the debate and discussion that will follow with the motions, but I’m really hopeful that we will actually be able to close the file on this Wildlife Act, get the regulations done and in the life of this government have a fully functioning act and regulations. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. If there are no further general comments, does the committee agree to proceed with clause-by-clause review of Bill 3, Wildlife Act?
Agreed.
Agreed, thank you. Does committee agree to review the clauses in groups?
Agreed.
Thank you. The committee agrees to conduct a clause-by-clause review of Bill 3. Let’s turn to page 12 of the bill and begin with the preamble. Any questions on the preamble? Agreed?
---Preamble approved
Thank you. Clauses 1 to 14. Any questions or comments?
---Clause 1 to 14 inclusive approved
Thank you. Clause 15. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 15, unfortunately, is where we start running into problems in the act. Again, I’m generally supportive of this clause except that – again, as poor old Art tried to get collaboration and so on – unfortunately, it’s collaboration between just a select group here. I want to recognize again, very plainly, that I acknowledge and respect those who have decision-making authority for wildlife management. We need a process again, a one-tenth process, to enable everybody to hear the same information, otherwise this becomes a divisive process.
In clause 16 – and I refer to that because it is relevant to clause 15 – there is a process made for those without management authority to make submissions and recommendations on the conservation and management of wildlife and those are made public; they’re made available for public review. My concern is that requirement, which recognizes the need for openness and transparency and gives us the opportunity to work together as our elders have called for, is blocked and it becomes a barrier.
As I mentioned in my remarks, this may not happen, but it’s probably not something that should be left to, perhaps, category. I’m suggesting that, in fact, with a very minor change in clause 15, the adding of the word “public” before the word “meeting,” that we convene a “public” meeting, we can actually develop a transparent and public process that everybody can support because it would bring everybody under one tent. On that basis, I would like to propose a motion.
