Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In speaking to the bill before us, it has been a difficult process. I come from a family that for years have survived with subsistence harvesting as a main part of our diet as we grew up as children back home in Inuvik. My father still today goes out and takes part in harvesting activities and trapping and hunting, and my brother continues. I have many aunts and uncles who take part in a yearly activity, whether it is beluga whale hunting or caribou hunting, moose hunting. As well, I have a lot of long-term Northerners born in the Territories who take part, not to the same degree as the Inuvialuit or the Gwich'in or the other aboriginal people of the Territories.

It is still difficult when we come to an issue like this and listening to the people who spoke and presented to the committee made the decision no easier.

At second reading, I supported this bill to get it to the process of going through the public hearing so that we could get more input from the people of the Territories, and that we did, Mr. Chairman.

For myself as a Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, having two claimant groups settled in the area and having established their wildlife management regimes and having those in place, I do not have as much concern. However, I also hear other Members where negotiations are still ongoing, that there are some concerns there.

During committee process, I found myself in another difficult position -- being chairman of the committee when the vote, as I stated in our report, was a slim majority. It was slim majority because it required the chairperson to break a tie. For allowing again, public process, I supported moving it back into committee of the whole. Then I stated at that time on the record that I did so not because it was my personal agreement with the bill, but the fact of following convention as chairperson. I did inform them that my opinion would change once we got to this scenario when we came to the committee of the whole process.

Again, in stating that, the bill as it stands, and listening to a lot of the people in the Territories, going from two years to six months was just too much. As well, the concern with consultation with aboriginal groups was a very significant one. At one point, I requested a legal opinion from our Law Clerk, who was with the committee, as to our responsibility as a committee when it comes to consultations with land claim groups that have claims in place and that require consultation on any change to the Wildlife Act. Upon receiving information back and an opinion, it was clear that in fact, when it comes to the act itself, the law itself, the committee has the ability to carry on.

However, the emphasis lies on the government, that being Cabinet and specifically the department, to ensure that groups are informed. I think we need to clarify that very clearly so that we do not have another situation where a private Member's bill may come in and cause so much concern with process. With that opinion, Mr. Chairman, I found and understand our position is we can move forward on this. There are concerns out there that again the time limit is too much of a change and we actually heard the otherwise, that some groups would rather see the time be lengthened and that some courses be taken before a new resident of the Territory will be allowed to go and hunt. That as well could be as much controversial, in that sense.

To the bill itself, Mr. Chairman, as the bill sits, I cannot support the bill. That is why in looking at and reviewing the bill, I had requested some amendments be worked on and as we go clause by clause, I will be presenting two amendments to this bill. I will address it in this way, Mr. Chairman. Again, the concern of the timing and the amount of time going from two years to six months was too much, and again, I am trying to address the concerns of my constituency and be fair.

As I stated, when I spoke to this bill at second reading, it is a difficult position on one hand to look at my own ancestry and put a position forward, but then as well, to look at my responsibility as a Member elected to this Assembly by people who cast their vote in an open system. I feel I have to try to work with both ends, traditional as well as the population and society as it changes. We need to adapt to a certain degree as well. So I have looked at the six-month category and as we go through this and go into the clauses, I will make an amendment that will increase the time line to go in between what is proposed and what is existing. I am suggesting that potentially we look at a 12-month period.

Another area is trying to make sure we cover the consultation phase properly. With that, I would propose again as we go through this, I would add another clause to the fact that this bill, if it is passed, that it does not come into force until June of 2002. That would give the department time to consult and find out if this is something that could even be looked at.

I also hear from the Members here and I understand. Again, it is very controversial in the sense of the processes we are involved in. It is a difficult position but I think there is a need to try to address this in one form or another. That is why I have had some work done in looking at amendments to the amendment that is being proposed by Mr. Dent. I guess it comes to times like this when we, as a majority, will decide on how things go. I will respect the majority of this House. Thank you.