Thank you, Mr. Bromley. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.
We have been working on this bill for years. We’ve had agreement with committee. Now we have this one motion. I have been in this business long enough to know one word can be important. While we appreciate the intent and will live with the will of the House, our concern is that the issue of the public meetings versus the ability of the groups to have a meeting that may require in camera sessions, others sessions that are tying their hands, we have committed to a public process, transparent process, but getting down to the level of telling them that you are required to have…you are going to meet once a year and it has to be a public meeting is something that, in our mind, given the amount of consultation we’ve done, is something that would require some consultation at this point and we’re not prepared to support the amendment just because this has just been dropped on our desk. We prided ourselves and learned the hard lesson that you have to be able to walk these through. But we are prepared to accept the will of the House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to note that this concern was repeatedly raised with the Minister during a review of this act, the need to develop a truly collaborative process and to provide an opportunity for everybody to hear the same information so that when decisions were made, there was some transparency on why they were made in the way that they’re made, and also to provide a critical opportunity for everybody to have input to all of the decision-makers. As it currently stands, the input would be made to the Minister on issues that would not even be clear, because not all management authorities would be in the Minister’s office and, of course, would be at the discretion of the Minister for whether they be carried forward or not. It is only through a truly collaborative approach and getting together, rubbing shoulders and having coffee, chatting with each other, of course the best of all would be to be out on the land together, as my colleague from the Sahtu had mentioned. That’s where the real good stuff happens. But next best thing would be to have a meeting that’s public. That’s not to say that the management authorities – they are the authorities – could seclude themselves for the actual decision-making, but the discussions would largely be held in public to provide the transparency and openness of the public, again as called for. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Defeated
Clause 15. Agreed?
---Clause 15 approved
Thank you. Clauses 16 to 25.
---Clause 16 to 25 inclusive approved
Thank you. Clause 26. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to read in a motion for the record. I move that clause 26 of Bill 3 be amended by adding the following after subclause (2):
(3) A person who has not received a written response from a local harvesting committee, local band council or Metis council within 60 days after making a written request to the organization for a recommendation for a special harvester licence may, in writing, request the Minister to contact the organization to inquire about the status of the request.
(4) On receiving a request under subsection (3), the Minister may contact the local harvesting committee, local band council or Metis council to inquire about the status of the request.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Clause 26 as amended.
---Clause 26 as amended approved
Thank you. Clauses 27 to 47.
---Clause 27 to 47 inclusive approved
Thank you. Clause 48. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move another motion. I move that Bill 3 be amended by
(a) renumbering clause 48 as subclause 48(2); and
(b) adding the following immediately preceding subclause 48(2):
48.(1) Unless exempted by the regulations, a person shall not hunt or otherwise harvest wildlife until he or she has successfully completed an approved harvester training course.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this has been an issue that has been raised quite extensively. There are a couple of components to it. One is safety and the other is conservation. As we know from our situation with caribou, we’re faced with the need to stipulate male or female caribou when harvesters are out, be they Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, so everybody needs that. So this has conservation implications as well as safety implications. It goes, obviously, well beyond the normal course of things dealt with in land claims.
I guess my question would be: Why do we need an exemption in the regulations here when, obviously, everybody should have an approved harvester training course or the equivalent. I like the idea of mentoring, for example. That’s a typical approach within Aboriginal cultures that I very much respect, and in some other cultures. So why do we need to have exemptions here? Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Ms. Chair. We will be supporting the motion. There are two areas that are affected by this. Should an individual have training in another area that’s recognized, then they would be exempted, plus there’s an Aboriginal right to hunt and to harvest. You can’t put any conditions on that. It’s clear. People will agree to it. We will work out how we… Everybody wants to have safe hunting practices within law. You cannot constrain that right that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Clause 48 as amended.
---Clause 48 as amended approved
Agreed, thank you. Committee, in light of that motion to amend being carried, we now have a consequential amendment to make to clause 26.1. Do we have unanimous consent to return to clause 26.1?
---Unanimous consent granted
Let us briefly return to clause 26. Clause 26.1. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a motion to move. I move that Bill 3 be amended by deleting clause 26.1. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Clause 26.1 as amended.
---Clause 26.1 as amended approved
Agreed. Thank you. Now we will go to clauses 49 to 61. Any questions? Comments?
---Clause 49 to 61 inclusive approved
Clause 62. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to move a motion again. I move that Bill 3 be amended by adding the following after clause 62:
Harvesting Restriction
62.1. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the regulations, no person who has been on an aircraft while it was in flight shall harvest prescribed wildlife within a prescribed time period after the termination of the flight.
(2)
Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a regularly scheduled flight operated by a commercial airline company from one airport to another.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Clause 62 as amended.
---Clause 62 as amended approved
Clauses 63 to 80. Agreed?
---Clause 63 to 80 inclusive approved
Clauses 81 to 97.
---Clause 81 to 97 inclusive approved
Clause 98. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 3 be amended by adding the following after clause 98:
Mandatory Reporting Requirement
98.1 A person who harvests wildlife in the Northwest Territories shall report the wounding, killing or capture of big game or other prescribed wildlife when requested by the Minister or in accordance with the regulations.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
