Thank you. The honourable Member for Aivilik, Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that it could be a problem in the open country, like the western Arctic, where you have access to anywhere where there is a road. But a remote island, like Coral Harbour, you probably can put to a specific program that it is unlikely that poachers will be flying in to start collecting... I appreciate what you are getting at, but regarding this, even if it is illegal, wherever they want to, they could fly in their helicopters and take gall bladders from polar bears from the moving ice. They could do that right now. Is this kind of question being placed so that a maximum amount of return can be had from what Mr. Ng is asking? If you have a quota on that island for the hunters with a tag, can you not make it a miniature tag or some kind of idea that, instead of wasting what could be valuable to the hunter, because hunters don't get very much, if you could help if you do it properly instead of outright banning it? Is it out of the question? Can it be discussed along that line, what is possible, controversial and what can be arranged if we do it properly or carefully?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Qujannamiik. Mr. Arvaluk.

I don't know if this fits under general comments, but I have a question about section 2.6 under principles of the strategy. Can we go into that now, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Since we have not got into the details of the 1994-95 main estimates of the Department of Renewable Resources, by all means, Mr. Arvaluk, you can ask questions on the tabled document, Traditions and Change.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 2.6, line four, reads "Commercial development of renewable resources will be encouraged, where resources are surplus to domestic needs." I am not arguing with that, but section 2.6 does not really cover situations about the Sachs Harbour muskox overpopulation or the Coral Harbour caribou overpopulation. Is there any measure anywhere in this document that covers those kinds of things, so that the animals will not overpopulate themselves by means of isolation?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you. Mr. Arvaluk, I believe that your concern is to a degree, in a broader sense, addressed under point seven of 2.6. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that this can be looked at. But we are being told right now, before the wildlife management board is recognized or active, that Coral Harbour can go ahead and start killing about -- I don't know, perhaps the Minister knows about the figure better than I -- 2,000 to 4,000 animals and if they don't start doing that, the same incident is going to occur that has occurred in Coats Island a few years back. I don't know if they got sick, but most of them starved to death there because they over grazed the island.

It is not strange or unusual, and they've probably been doing that for thousands and thousands of years. But we, who became landlords of the whole globe, don't want to see that happen because we should be able to manage the population by changing the old methods, and by providing animals for commercial products.

I understand there were 500 caribou harvested for commercial use in Rae-Edzo not too long ago. This population is not in danger of overpopulation. I haven't heard that the caribou population was in danger of overpopulation. Whereas, in Coral Harbour, you have that problem. Why didn't the department say that this population is not in danger, but they are in another area, so why don't we try to do something about it and have the commercial hunt in that area?

I guess I'm not a very good politician, but I see common sense in controlling the population at the same time, where it is needed. My question under 2.6, Mr. Chairman, is why is this kind of conservation program to control possible overpopulation not in the principle of the strategy?

Mr. Minister.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Aivilik, Mr. Arvaluk.

I am not interested in the Minister starting promotion of commercial hunts and things like that. I am just talking about quota too. I think what we are looking at here is the department made a scientific mistake in the past by holding back so long in starting to harvest the animals over there, to the point where the growth rate was so fast. After that certain point, by the time they introduced the unlimited quota for subsistence hunting, the community was not big enough to sustain that or keep that population under control. That is why I think it is extremely important that the department tell the NWT Development Corporation, Japan or other people. Some department should do something in stating that we have a very good and healthy caribou herd and we need to do something about it.

Thank you. That was just a comment. I have Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of other issues that I wanted to touch on. The Minister is aware that I did write him a letter regarding Albert Norwegian. He is in the wood cutting business. He has to get all of these different permits in order for him to be in that business. He also pays up front about $1,000 for fees. I can't believe for a simple business like that, things are so complicated. I think he gets six different permits to cut wood that is no longer alive. I find that quite disturbing. I thought I would bring that up to the Minister.

In regard to general hunting licences, I realize all status people get them and other people get different kinds of licences too. For people who live up here, especially non-aboriginal people who marry aboriginal women, I want to make sure that many of those people who marry aboriginal women commit themselves to living up here for the rest of their natural days. For those people, I would like to ask them if they look at providing them with the general hunting licence that status people have when they get support of the bands or the hunters and trappers. I know I wrote the Minister on one individual who has asked to be considered for one of those general hunting licences that would allow him to harvest year-round. He is also married to a local girl.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak on the Tabled Document 34-12(5), Tradition and Change, A Strategy for Renewable Resource Development in the NWT, February 1994, since it is part of the discussion here. In that strategy, I had a chance to look at it and I had some research done. I want to make a number of comments on that.

In the principles of the strategy, it refers to the importance of participation of northern residents and states that local efforts to initiate and develop effective use of renewable resources will be encouraged. However, I just wanted to point out that it does not seem to recognize the aboriginal treaty rights of treaty Indians in the north where the agreement they have with Canada is for hunting, trapping and fishing rights. In a strategy like this, it should be noted as a principle, I think, because if you just go by it, we don't know what's going to happen down in the future years. It might just be ignored, and I just want to make it for the record that this should be as a point of principle.

The other principle in the strategy is that nowhere in this strategy does it recognize the community resource management initiatives taken on by a number of communities such as Denendeh Resources in Fort Simpson, the Nahendeh integrated resource management project in Fort Liard, the Fort Providence integrated resource management plan development or the Wrigley integrated resource management planning strategy.

As you know, the Fort Liard project was intended to be a pilot project for mutual learning by both the community and the government to learn new ways of working together cooperatively. However, the only reference in the strategy to the co-management approach to working with the community is in the context of land claims which is in section 4.1.

This community resource management initiative shows that communities are being proactive in resource management. They are no longer content to play solely a consultative or advisory role. Their full participation in decisions in their community-based resource management initiatives must be recognized by the Renewable Resources department. The strategy should reflect this kind of partnership in resource management. In the integrated resource development, the strategy refers to integrated resource management in section 2.4 and section 5.3 in forestry, yet the strategy itself does not reflect an integrated approach to resources.

This strategy focuses on resource development with less emphasis on resource conservation. While the strategy refers to other tools used to achieve sustainable development, it is not clear whether this resource development strategy is a primary guiding document for the department, or if they intend to develop, for example, a resource conservation strategy as well. What has happened to the sustainable development policy from several years ago? The question is, I guess, does this new emphasis of resource development replace the more balanced approach of the sustainable development policy?

For example, the resource section 5.4 states that integrated resource management plans will address resource development potential and minimize land use conflicts. This narrowly-defined approach doesn't reflect integration of conservation and development of the forest. Taking a sectoral approach to resources makes integrated resource management even more difficult.

Integrated resource management is referred to under forests, although it should be considered a cross-sectoral activity with linkages with wildlife, fisheries, agriculture and fur. The only reference to cross-sectoral initiatives is the inter-departmental committee on renewable resource development and the demonstration project fund committee. Although the action plan for these items states the department will work cooperatively with aboriginal groups, there is no provision for their participation on cross-sectoral coordination.

In traditional environmental knowledge, or TEK, although the importance of this traditional environmental knowledge is recognized, there is little mention in the action as to how it will be acknowledged and incorporated. One reference in the forest action plan, section 10.3, states that work will begin on the traditional resource maps of the North Slave to facilitate integrated resource management planning. Many communities in the Deh Cho are working on integrated resource management. Will the department support their efforts by assisting with mapping, if required? That is a question. The use of TEK in resource management planning is fundamental to community-based resource management initiatives mentioned above, and working cooperatively with these community initiatives would contribute to incorporating traditional environmental knowledge into resource management practices.

In the forests area, particularly 5.3, the sector objectives, the move to integrate resource management in forests is welcome, particularly with decision-making based on the needs and objectives of people of the Northwest Territories. The Fort Simpson band council, in its comments on the forest management policy discussion paper, indicated its support for this approach, and it also should avoid the type of situation recently in Fort Simpson where Renewable Resources issued the timber license to Anderson Mills in spite of the objections of the band and families traditionally harvesting the area, although the band later indicated that they are willing to support Anderson Mills in another site. The longer term integrated planning approach should prevent the ad hoc and short-sighted decision-making that resulted in the Anderson Mills situation.

On the action plan, there was a recent Denendeh resource assembly in Fort Simpson which was attended by the deputy minister, Mr. Joe Handley. The subject of big game outfitting and caribou populations in the Mackenzie mountains were discussed. The traditional harvesters of this area indicated the importance of knowing what is happening with wildlife in this area. The Fort Simpson band has indicated its support for a cooperative caribou study in the mountains with Nahanni National Park and Renewable Resources. The action plan does not make any mention of the importance of wildlife research, particularly caribou study in the Mackenzie mountains.

With fur, the NWT fur strategy will be welcome, particularly in dealing with the stabilization of trapper incomes. The community harvesters' assistance program and trappers' initiatives are not mentioned in the action plan. They should remain in place until any revised programs arising from the fur strategy are implemented.

The action plan refers to action by Renewable Resources for trapper training. In Fort Simpson, the Denendeh Resources has carried out successful trapper training, some in partnership with Interprovincial Pipeline Limited, in which experienced trappers take out young people to train them in trapping and bush skills. This community-based approach should be incorporated into the actions proposed by Renewable Resources.

Just a further comment on fur -- I know what Renewable Resources and the Minister are attempting to do in trying to deal with stabilizing the fur industry, and I said previously in this House in a Member's statement and through questions, that Renewable Resources has spent, to date, $1.9 million, in dealing with the fur with the European markets. I totally support the move that the Minister has indicated in the department's document about trying to develop our own fur industry in the north, perhaps even looking into marketing the furs directly from the north, as an exclusive type of fur rather than mixing it with southern furs and competing with the world in that area.

I know that the Russian sable is comparable to our marten in the north. It is the same kind of quality, and some of it is even better yet the price for Russian sable, because it is Russian sable, the finished product is much more expensive than our fur. Why is that? Can we develop our own fur industry in the north so that we keep our northern furs up here and develop the industry up here right up to the finished product? Has the department looked at that? Is it part of the overall fur strategy that you are developing?

I think that's the direction we should go. It might cost a substantial amount of money up front, but I think that's an area where the other departments can get involved, particularly the department of Economic Development and Tourism. With the NWT Development Corporation money, they could develop institutions up here to develop the fur industry. Rather than looking at trying to save the European market, why can't we spend some money up front? It might be substantial, but in the long run, it might pay off and create a lot of jobs.

A lot of our trappers are not trapping any more because of the poor quality of fur and because of the instability of the whole fur industry. The whole direction of the fur industry is controlled in Europe and we seem to have very little influence over there and even in the southern auction markets. Why can't we develop something in the north? We have a good product and we could develop a marketing and production strategy. Even though we will be spending money up front, eventually it might save our fur industry.