Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak in support of the bill. I think Mr. Dent has fairly extensive history with this issue and that he has acted in the best interest of his constituents in bringing this forward. I share that constituency base and I feel that I have a support and obligation to help see this through. The discussion has been very, very helpful to me, Mr. Chairman, even as a resident of 35 or 36 years now in the Northwest Territories and part of that in the Yukon.

The attachment and the values accorded to wildlife I have felt was always something I understood. This whole process has really helped to illustrate the depth and the scope that our people attach to wildlife and access to it. It was very illustrative to see how aboriginal and non-aboriginal people regard this. There is an equal degree of intensity on this, but coming from very divergent, a sense of values and ideals.

One of the things I would like to stress is that as a jurisdictional area, the bill does not, to my understanding, impose anything at all that would inhibit the access of aboriginal people to wildlife. These are rights and privileges that they already enjoy. They have been hard won over the years and should stay in place. The jurisdiction here though is in Crown lands, outside of those specially negotiated areas and from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, had a lot to do with the access of all Canadians to a resource that they can get enjoyment from, that they can get sustenance from. The restriction of two years residency on any Canadian to have access to this resource, I felt in agreement with Mr. Dent, was excessive and we could afford to open this up. So it is on that principal, Mr. Chairman, that I find I can continue to support this bill.

The argument of process and how this initiative was skirting the already extensive and well-established consultation process that was going on into the Wildlife Act is a powerful argument and one that I cannot really challenge. It certainly did seem to be an initiative from the point of view of those involved in the consultation process and from the government side, to be something that was an interference.

In that respect, I want to acknowledge that process is in place and is one that should not lightly be tampered with. I will return to that particular principle of the idea that this bill is an initiative that really does grant something that all Canadians should have access to. I think it was just in this morning's CBC newscast that there was a story, I believe, from Inuvik that talked about a resident of Inuvik, a relatively new resident of Inuvik from Newfoundland, who felt so strongly about this and was so upset that he could not go out and get a moose in the NWT that he went back to Newfoundland, got a moose and brought it back to the NWT. That is a very interesting illustration of the value and the significance that some people put on wildlife. As I say, Mr. Chairman, it really has been illustrated for me how strongly people feel about this.

We have had many, many different positions put down. I hope the discussions we have had and the positions that people have taken will not polarize the larger discussion on the review of the Wildlife Act. It seems that the overall residency clause is one that will still be open after this debate tonight in this Assembly and I do hope that everybody still continues to have an open mind. Even though a lot of fur has been flying on this one and a lot of feathers ruffled, we have locked a lot of horns -- should I keep going or should I stop there?

This is a very useful debate and a significant one and it is not over yet, but there is that very strong principle of access that Canadians should have to the resource. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks in support of the bill.