Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I spoke at length of the relationship First Nations have with waterways and riverbanks. The small community of Kakisa has been denied access to a riverbank to build an arbor. Mind you, there is a new community hall that is built right next to the riverbank. There's a road marked on the community map by the GNWT, and that is right near and on top of the riverbank. The Indian Affairs branch has lands on the riverbank, and the community has built lookouts at these locations without being threatened of any legal action.
My question to the Minister is when was the community land use plan imposed by the GNWT to the community of Kakisa? Mahsi.
Thank you, Member for Deh Cho. Minister responsible for Lands.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, community land use plans are actually communities. In 2007, the community of Kakisa developed it with the support of Municipal and Community Affairs. In 2017, the community redid their draft or looked at improving it and, again, without anybody's help except from the community's level. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker, and mahsi to the Minister for that answer. I'm not sure who the leadership of the day were at the time, but we have to be mindful of the fact that there's never any meaningful consultation by the federal government, nor the Government of the Northwest Territories in deciding to a impose land use plan into many communities, including this community. And a lot of times, they go on a plan, well, this is square so we're going to keep it square. You know, it's so...
Can the Minister enlighten this House to whether or not the First Nations community was invited for input on the government imposed land use plan and did they have any consultants that were working with them on their behalf? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I should reiterate, the community developed the plan in 2007 with the help of Municipal and Community Affairs. They reached out to Municipal and Community Affairs and asked to be part of it, asked them to be part of it so they could develop it. In 2017, the community went and redid the plan. They did it, not the federal government or GNWT. It was the community that dealt with it, and then in 2017 it's my understanding it's still the same Chief that is presently there now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, and mahsi to the Minister for that. The Minister, in email, states buildings should be set back a hundred feet from an ordinary high watermark. The ordinary high watermark at this small community has ever only gone over the boat dock. It has never, in history, crested the riverbank. If it ever does, and probably will never, then the whole community would be flooded. Why worry about what is on the riverbank and don't forget there are currently many buildings and establishments on top of riverbanks in every community up and down the valley.
Can the Minister revisit his decision and stance and allow a simple arbor to be built on the riverbank as per the First Nations wishes? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would never ever say never. I live in the community of Fort Simpson. I represent the community of Jean Marie. We saw our arbor go under water. So we saw that impact. We've seen what the floods do. The fallback plan is a hundred feet is across if -- the Member talked about the K'atl'odeeche , their arbor; the one in Fort Res; the one in Fort Simpson. It is actually further than a hundred feet back there. So, again, we need to be respectful that Mother Nature does not allow us to do it, because sometimes they do the 200-year flood which what I've seen in my community of Fort Simpson. So there is a community plan in place. We've reached out to them to come up with an alternative solution. So we've been talking with them.
And you heard today from another Member here talked about the flood in BC. That is the reality of Mother Nature and climate change right now. So we need to be respectful of that. So, no, I'm not going to revisit it. We need to follow what our rules and guidelines are. But we're willing to work with the community, and our staff have been reaching out to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary. Member for Deh Cho.
Mr. Speaker, and mahsi, Minister, for that. He talks about floods and everything. But First Nations people have lived on these lands for centuries. You would think that they would know that if they would ever have floods or any problems along the riverbank.
Mr. Speaker, government is great at suppressing and taking away life's liberties to First Nations for centuries. This government is no different from those governments. That is a shame. This government talks about reconciliation with First Nations but does not walk the talk. The Minister should be mindful that he represents a majority of First Nations communities in his riding. Government should be mindful that they are to represent all First Nations communities in their day-to-day decisions.
Will the Minister revisit his decision and stance on the riverbank issue and allow dwellings such as arbors at the wish of the First Nations community of Kakisa? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quick answer, no, I'm not going to revisit it. The flood that happened in Fort Simpson and Jean Marie. You listen to the historical history from our elders there, I had an elder who is very much a supporter of mine who gives me advice, and when we were sitting there talking about the flood in Fort Simpson, he said oh, don't worry about it, Shane, it's never ever happened. Then he went, oops, it happened. That is the reality of it.
And the Member talks about working with Indigenous governments. We are very much working with Indigenous governments. We're talking with the Band. We're talking to them about alternative solutions. We've reached out to them. And we're trying to come up with a solution that works for the rules and regulations that we do have and that helps the community build the arbor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
