Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources in follow-up of my Member’s statement where I was talking about the consultation process for the proposed new Wildlife Act.
I attended the meeting with the NWT Wildlife Federation on the 15th of January and at that meeting the director of wildlife started off saying we want to hear what you’ve had to say, we want you to tell us what’s wrong so that we can fix it. Towards the end of the presentation the same director said, you know, we’re going to be putting this bill in front of the House in late February or early March and we’re not planning to make any substantive changes, we’ll make some editorial changes, which seems like a giant contradiction to me. This is supposed to be public consultation. How can we have confidence that this consultation that’s been going on since before Christmas is open and real and genuine when the director is saying clearly that they’re not planning to make any substantive changes, only editorial changes? How can the public have confidence that their voices are being heard with respect to the new proposed Wildlife Act? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Wildlife Act was identified by this Assembly and by this Cabinet and government as one of the big pieces of legislation they wanted to see done after a process of some 10 years or so of work. We, as well, developed a unique approach with Aboriginal governments towards drafting this legislation where we had lawyers, working group members from the Aboriginal governments, as well as GNWT staff and lawyers working, and they’ve been working and put in thousands of hours over the last couple of years. They’ve gone to every community. They have come up with a process that’s unique and does not exist anywhere in this country that I know of.
It’s unfortunate the Member has chosen on the basis of one comment that he thought he heard in one meeting, at the tail end of one meeting, in spite of the hundreds and thousands of hours, the hundreds of hours of work and all the communities that have been visited and the dozens and dozens of groups that have been consulted with, to condemn the whole process outright.
There have been 54 drafts done of this bill; 54, Mr. Speaker, based on all the work that’s been done, the feedback we’ve gotten. I’ve got a list here of 56 pages of the feedback that we’ve received and that we’ve responded to. So for the Member to say how can we have confidence, the proof will be in the pudding.
If you took the first draft and the 54th draft, I can tell you we haven’t just been spending our time changing commas and looking at making it a little tighter from a grammatical point of view. So the process is there. It’s been bought into by all the Aboriginal governments, it’s a unique process and it’s going to bring to the table a piece of legislation that is 10 years overdue. Thank you.
Hear! Hear!
For the record, I said earlier that I actually applaud the department and the Minister for the unique process that they put in place. I think it’s important, I think they did the right thing, but we’re still a public government and we still need to make sure that we hear the other half of the population, 50 percent of the population that don’t feel that they’ve been heard, and it’s the consultation process. Hay River had a problem with the consultation process. The Minister’s department went in there, they advertised somewhere, nobody is quite sure because nobody showed up. Turns out there was no advertising or not adequate advertising in Inuvik and they’ve had to rerun those same meetings. That’s clear that consultation is not going as clearly or as well as the Minister thinks.
Also, just for the point, it’s not something I thought I heard at the meeting with the NWT Wildlife Federation. The director said it. I was there. I heard the director say exactly what I said she said. That concerns me. If they’re only planning to do editorial amendments, are they listening to the people?
The Minister has said they’ve had 54 drafts. I’ve got a question for the Minister. If there were 54 drafts, how many of those drafts, those drafts where it’s gone or changed significantly, have occurred since this consultation has ended? How many have resulted since the consultation ended in January? How many have resulted in substantial changes, or is it all just editorial? Thank you.
We’re going to be briefing committee and we’ll provide you with the very many pages of all the groups that were consulted, all the individual feedback we received, public from all corners of the Northwest Territories. There has been full and adequate consultation. This is the most consulted on bill, in my memory as a legislator here for 15 and a half years. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, thousands of hours of time and we’ve gone to every community and we’ve asked for feedback, and there have been substantive changes. The Member should know this. You’re not going to do 54 different drafts on editorial comments. You will see that there have been substantive changes and there are some issues in there of great concern to the NWT Wildlife Federation. Though I must point out, Mr. Speaker, the Wildlife Federation has shown a resurgence as of late. While this government says we fully support and recognize Aboriginal governments, that we respect Section 35, this group advertised their meeting to say that the changes have less to do with the preservation of wildlife than with the granting of special and exclusive privileges to special interest groups in the Northwest Territories.
So we have a fundamental disagreement, but in spite of that, we have made substantive changes, and yes, we went back to Hay River, we’ve gone back to the places we’ve been asked to go. So no one can say that there has not been consultation, that there has not been involvement and that we are not serious about the changes. We’re bringing forward the best possible act possible. Thank you.
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I still question the comments that were made by the director and that were actually made, I just didn’t think I heard them. I’m still concerned that the consultations ended in January. They plan to put a bill in front of us in late February or early March. I want to know that the groups have been heard and what kind of changes have taken place since the last round of consultations. Can he guarantee to me that they have heard these individuals and that since the last round of consultation there’s been more than just editorial changes, as the director said they were planning, and that people have been heard and, where appropriate, substantive changes have been made? That’s what I’m asking. Thank you.
I’ll get back to the point of the Member based on attendance at one meeting, one comment, and he’s prepared to negate years of work, thousands of hours of investment and it’s unfortunate. I’ll give him one example of the issue that’s in there that I know has been an issue. That’s been the residency requirement to go hunting. It used to be I think it was four years, they’ve cut it down to two. Now, there have been a lot of concerns raised and the draft that’s going to be coming forward is going to indicate that we’re proposing one year. That’s a significant issue and there’s been huge debate on this and there is not unanimity. We recognize we’re a public government and we are making the choices to bring forward a balanced, fair piece of legislation. The Aboriginal governments have worked with us collectively and collaboratively. We’ve drafted this document and it’s going to reflect what we think is in the best interests of all Northerners. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your time for question period has expired; however, I’ll allow the Member a final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I am in no way, shape or form negating all the hard work that’s been done by this department with respect to the Wildlife Act. I respect the unique approach that they’ve taken with respect to involving the Aboriginal governments. In fact, I applaud it. I think it’s exactly the right thing to do. I am also not getting specifically into detail of the act. We can do that at another time. I’m talking about consultation process. I’m talking about listening to the people of Northwest Territories. I’m talking about hearing what they have to say and assuring them that we are hearing them and not saying things like we don’t plan to make any substantive changes, we’re only making editorial changes. That’s what I’m talking about.
This government doesn’t have a great record of consultation. Information sessions, on the other hand, we’re really good at. Unfortunately, we call much of our information sessions “consultations.” We do have a problem there. What I’m talking about is this process and how do we ensure confidence that people can feel that they have been heard. I’m telling you that they don’t feel that they’ve been heard. That’s what I’m talking about. How can the Minister assure people that they’ve been heard, that their input has been taken seriously, and that this act will represent 24,000 people in the Northwest Territories? Sorry, 44,000 people in the Northwest Territories. All the residents, not just half.
The Member is making a very strong assertion here that this is a biased piece of legislation that only represents half the people of the Northwest Territories. That’s categorically and unequivocally false. It’s egregious that he would even mention that in this Assembly. I’m surprised that the Member would stoop to such rhetoric on a bill of this importance.
The reality is, we did not just sit there and think, let me see, one year, there’s a good idea. We went from every community. We even talked to hundreds of people, groups across the land. This is the working group with all the Aboriginal governments involved as well as the territorial government. We’re coming forward with a bill that’s going to be representative of what we think is in the best interest for wildlife, for the environment, it’s going to have the support of all the governments and it’s going to represent, we think, the North.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The time for question period has expired. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
