Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just looking at Clause 5(2)(b). I was wondering about the wording there. I am not sure if I am reading it wrong or on subsection (1)(ii) -- a truck being operated within a municipality or settlement at less than 30 km an hour been made permitting a person to ride in the box of a truck and...is that worded right or am I missing something there?

Could you point out where you are at, Mr. Delorey?

-- Interjection

Page 3, 5.1. Agreed?

Clause 6.

Clause 7.

Bill as a whole?

Does the committee agree that Bill 8 is ready for third reading?

Bill 8 is now ready for third reading. With that, I would like to thank the Minister and his witnesses. Thank you. The next bill to deal with is Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act. It is a private Member's bill. The sponsor of the bill, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee Members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of Bill 12 is to reduce the period required to achieve resident status for purposes of harvesting wildlife from two years to six months.

Currently, the Wildlife Act defines non-residents as people who have lived in the Northwest Territories for less than two years, the most stringent residency requirement found in any provincial or territorial wildlife statute. By moving to the Northwest Territories, people are immediately eligible to transfer their current driver's licence for a Northwest Territories driver's licence. After three months, they qualify as residents for Northwest Territories health care and after three months, they may purchase a sports fishing licence as residents.

People can live in our communities, pay income tax to the territorial government, vote for community council and their MLA, but they must wait two years before being residents under the Wildlife Act.

The current Wildlife Act is over 20 years old. My constituents and I have heard for a long time that a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act, including the residency requirements, would soon be done yet it never seems to come to conclusion. For over ten years, successive governments have been talking about completing a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act. As everyone here knows, the consultation process is underway.

Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that we will see a new Wildlife Act during the life of the 14th Assembly. For that reason, I decided it was time to bring this minor amendment forward now.

I initially became interested in reducing the residency requirement after several constituents, who are either RCMP officers or members of the Armed Forces, complained to me that they wanted to fully enjoy the outdoor experience offered in the Northwest Territories, but were often transferred before they had the opportunity to hunt. In several other provinces in Canada, RCMP and DND members are given special exemptions, but it appears those exemptions were put in place before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed.

I know many RCMP and DND members seek northern transfers because of the wilderness experience that the northern lifestyle can offer. However, not being able to hunt may make it more difficult for us to attract personnel to the North. I have received a letter from the outgoing commanding officer of the RCMP, noting that the number of volunteers for northern services is declining. He makes the point that allowing the RCMP the legal right to enjoy the privileges of an NWT resident would assist in marketing the North to attract volunteers.

Mr. Chairman, this is a quality of life issue for more than RCMP or DND personnel. I have often heard Members in this Assembly talk about the quality of life in the North as one of the advantages that we need to use to attract health professionals. Being able to fully enjoy the outdoors by hunting as a resident is part of the quality of life that we need to be able to use when trying to attract professionals to the Territories.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development has stated that the development of a new Wildlife Act is a priority. During session last June, the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development advised the House that the most optimistic new wildlife legislation would be brought forward by the fall of 2002. In talking about that proposed time table, Mr. Handley also said in the House that revising the Wildlife Act is a very complex process and noted that other priorities and other legislation could affect the timing.

A couple of weeks ago at a constituency meeting here in Yellowknife, Mr. Handley told the audience that while he was still aiming for introduction of legislation in the fall of 2002, if more consultation was required, he was willing to allow time for it.

Again, I am not convinced that we will see new legislation during the life of this Assembly. In the meantime, I propose that we do the right thing immediately and make a simple amendment to our current Wildlife Act, an amendment that has no impact on aboriginal harvesting rights and should have no impact on animal populations, since the government still has all of the tools to ensure conservation of the herds.

Mr. Chairman, conservation is achieved by regulating the number of animals and the areas where game may be harvested, not imposing an arbitrary residency requirement. Conservation issues should be addressed on a species by species basis as the need arises. There are many tools in wildlife legislation to do this. Quotas set for non-aboriginal residents, for example. Those do not depend on residency, which disenfranchises people across the board, not just for a species that is in trouble.

Each year, Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development uses a system of licences, tags, quotas, seasons and wildlife management areas to regulate the level of resident hunting. The wildlife harvest is constantly monitored in this manner. As the number of resident sports hunters increases or decreases, the hunting regulations are adjusted to ensure that animal populations stay healthy. This is the way to ensure conservation, not by imposing unreasonable residency requirements.

Mr. Chairman, it is also important to note that changes in the residency requirement will have no impact on the holders of general hunting licences, or GHLs. The older of GHL may hunt virtually without restriction throughout areas of the Northwest Territories that do not have settled land claims. Aboriginal people hunting for food will still have first call on animal populations. Only when there will be sufficient numbers of animals after the aboriginal harvest are quotas set for resident sports hunters. That situation will not change with this amendment. This amendment will be compatible with and have no affect on land claim agreements or aboriginal hunting rights. The amendment will only impact resident sports hunters.

Mr. Chairman, aboriginal people have a right to hunt. Non-aboriginal people who have to purchase a resident sports hunting licence do not have a right to hunt, but hunt as a privilege. Governments can change the hunting privileges enjoyed by non-aboriginal people without constitutional impact. If that privilege to hunt ever starts to interfere with aboriginal peoples' ability to harvest wildlife for food, resident sports hunters would lose some or even all of their privileges to hunt under our existing Wildlife Act.

To put it another way, RWED has to look at how many animals can be harvested in order to ensure that the population stays at a healthy level. The harvest by aboriginal people comes first and then they assess what the excess population is that can be made available to commercial or sports hunters. If there are only 2,500 caribou over and above the number needed by aboriginal people, 2,500 caribou tags must be divided up among the number of sports hunters who apply for caribou tags.

Government has a constitutional obligation to protect aboriginal harvesting opportunities. Those rights are given priority in law and the GNWT would be obliged to reduce resident harvesting through quotas if aboriginal harvesting was threatened. If the government did not meet these legal obligations, legal action could be taken by aboriginal governments.

If there were no animals over and above the number that aboriginal people need, current legislation gives RWED all the tools they need to issue no caribou tags to resident sports hunters if animal populations require protection. If there were only 100 animals available for resident sports hunters, a draw system, such as that used now for bison, might have to be introduced. The committee heard from resident sports hunters at the public hearings that that was understood and accepted.

Mr. Chairman, we would have to assume that RWED would take no regulatory action and simply let resident harvesting adversely affect aboriginal harvesting to believe that this bill would have any impact on aboriginal harvesting. If RWED meets its legal obligations to aboriginal people, Bill 12 cannot impact on aboriginal harvesting opportunities. Mr. Chairman, if there is a concern that RWED cannot or will not meet those legal obligations, that concern should be addressed and corrected.

Some have brought up a concern that our population shifts may impact on the sustainability of the harvest. Mr. Chairman, the population of the Northwest Territories has grown over the past ten years by about 1,000 people, or about 3.6 percent. In that same period, the number of resident sports hunting licences issued has dropped by nearly 25 percent to just over 1,600. There is a declining demand on animal populations by resident sports hunters already.

Mr. Chairman, over the past two years, we have had 4,733 people move to the Northwest Territories. Just 3,665 of those were 15 or older. Of a total population of about 21,000 non-aboriginal people in the NWT now, only 7 to 8 percent purchase a hunting licence. If we take 8 percent of the new people in the Northwest Territories over the past two years, which assumes that none have arrived in the last six months, we could be talking about adding 290 extra hunters with the adoption of Bill 12. However, that ignores the fact that even more people left the Northwest Territories than moved here, so we likely lost more resident sports hunters than we could have increased with the adoption of Bill 12. Our high birth rate is the only thing that accounts for growth in population in the Northwest Territories.

It is important too to remember what is required to be classified as resident. Someone cannot work in a mine and maintain a residence in Leduc and be considered a resident. A person who works on a pipeline and lives in a camp for six months still does not meet the definition of resident. Massive non-renewable resource development will not significantly increase our population. People have to really move to the Northwest Territories to be considered residents.

Mr. Chairman, right now, resident sports hunters harvest about 10 percent of the caribou taken each year in the Northwest Territories. By adopting Bill 12, that number will not be changed significantly.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that Members will agree to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. I would like to call on the Chair of the committee responsible for reviewing the bill and to make any recommendations on the bill. At this time, I will call on Mr. Roland, Chair of the GED committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development conducted a comprehensive public review of Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act, in Yellowknife on October 18 and November 1, 2001. Bill 12 is a private Member's public bill sponsored by the Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake, Mr. Charles Dent.

The committee also heard comments on this bill during meetings held in a number of other NWT communities. During the public hearing process, committee members heard from the following stakeholders: in Fort Simpson, Mr. Duncan Canvin, a resident; in Fort Smith, Mr. Wayne Sterling, a resident, and Mr. Clayton Burke, vice-president of the Fort Smith Chamber of Commerce; in Norman Wells, Mr. Winter Lennie, chair of the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board; in Yellowknife, Mr. Charles Dent, MLA for Frame Lake; Mr. John Donihee, legal counsel for Mr. Dent; Mr. Gordon Hamre, a Yellowknife resident; Mr. Barry Taylor from the Yellowknife Shooting Club; Mr. Jonas Antoine, representing the Deh Cho First Nations; Mr. Clem Paul, president of the North Slave Metis Alliance; Mr. Ian McRae, also a Yellowknife resident; Chief Charlie Furlong, Gwich'in Tribal Council; Mr. Bill Erasmus, National Chief of the Dene Nation; and Mr. Lorne Schollar, representing the NWT Wildlife Federation.

The committee would like to thank Mr. Dent and his legal counsel for presenting the bill. The bill would amend the Wildlife Act to reduce the period required to achieve resident status for the purposes of harvesting wildlife from two years to six months.

During discussion on the bill, some members expressed concern that the amendment may infringe upon land claim agreements, compromise current wildlife and harvesting management practices and unnecessarily complicate the concurrent review of the Wildlife Act. The sponsor of the bill advised the committee that in his opinion, the proposed amendment would not infringe upon land claim agreements. Territorial legislation must not be inconsistent with provisions of land claim agreements.

Many stakeholders and some members stated that land claim agreements require mandatory consultation with claimant groups regarding any changes to harvesting or wildlife management in their regions and that the sponsor of the bill did not conduct the required consultation with the claimant groups. The committee notes that the mandatory requirement of consultation applies to the government and not to a private Member sponsoring a bill.

A number of presenters and committee members also expressed concern that a decrease in the residency requirements may result in more hunters and subsequently less game for aboriginal harvesters and other long-term residents. Many aboriginal and long-term residents are dependent upon game as a food source. The inclusion of additional resident sport hunters may compromise that food source.

The presenter of the bill replied that if the privilege to hunt ever interfered with aboriginal peoples' ability to harvest wildlife for food, resident sport hunters or non-aboriginal hunters would lose some or even all of their privileges to hunt under the existing Wildlife Act.

Finally, a significant number of the presenters and committee members were perplexed as to why the amendment was proposed at this particular time. They noted that a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act is already underway and further consultation is scheduled during the next two fiscal years. The sponsor of the bill explained that the Wildlife Act review is a lengthy process and this amendment will allow more residents to enjoy harvesting and hunting rights without further delay.

Mr. Chairman, the committee was divided in this matter and following the committee's review, a motion was carried by a slim majority to report Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act, to the Assembly as ready for the committee of the whole. Additional comments or questions of Members may be posed as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. At this time, I would like to ask the presenter of the bill if he is going to be bringing in any witnesses. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, no, I do not have any witnesses.

Thank you. General comments? Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Members know, there is a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act in progress with an anticipated completion of that task by the end of this Legislative Assembly. We are now in a public review consultation stage. This is the second review we have undertaken. It is a very thorough exercise. We are looking at beginning to draft legislation as early as next spring and bringing it forward next fall. I am optimistic that this is going to be completed within two years. I do not share the same pessimism that Mr. Dent does that we are not going to be able to complete this task within the life of this Assembly.

Bill 12 has created a lot of confusion with the public. People did not understand that this was not a piece of government legislation. I had numerous letters from people objecting to it, asking why we were picking out this piece and dealing with it in isolation with the rest. I finally had to send a letter out to many people saying this is separate, that this is a private Member's bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think picking out specific, favourite pieces is a healthy way to approach a comprehensive review of a piece of legislation. I think it threatens a lot of the coordination that is held together as you do a comprehensive review. In fact, it may jeopardize the public support we have had so far for the overall comprehensive review of the act. That could in itself jeopardize our ability to complete the revision of the Wildlife Act during the life of this Assembly.

I believe we must support the legislative review we have all agreed to as Members of the Legislative Assembly. We cannot each be taking out a piece that we would like to see move ahead more quickly. I think we all have to support the timetable of having this piece completed during the life of the Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, if we were not undergoing a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act I might feel differently, but because we already have an exercise in place, I cannot support picking out pieces and dealing with them in advance of the overall review. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be voting against this particular bill.

Thank you. General comments? Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. General comments? Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The current Wildlife Act is out of date and certainly in need of an overhaul. The government has made a commitment though, Mr. Chairman, to develop a new Wildlife Act and to have this legislation finalized during this session of this Legislative Assembly, the 14th Legislative Assembly. I am very encouraged by what I have been told by Mr. Handley on this approach and with the timetable that he has committed to. There is a comprehensive public review underway and it is touching base with all stakeholders throughout the Northwest Territories. Meetings and workshops have been held in most communities, including Yellowknife, to draft a new Wildlife Act.

I certainly support the need for updating this legislation. Since the time that Bill 12 was first introduced, I have had an opportunity to check up on the government's approach to this and to review the updated information package that RWED has put into place. Based on this new information, I am satisfied that the concepts embodied in the bill before us now are being considered by the department and the advisory group. As a matter of fact, it has a number of options in the document called "Drafting a New Wildlife Act" on resident hunting licenses.

I am satisfied that the consultation is broad and that it is thorough. If this review was not going to be forthcoming in this Assembly, I might feel differently, but I am confident that it will be coming forward. It is important, in my opinion, that all stakeholders reach consensus on this. We know that in the Territory, we work on that basis on this issue, as well as other issues. The process established by RWED and the advisory group is the appropriate and coordinated way to do it. We must allow the department and the advisory group to be able to finish their work and for this government to bring forward a new Wildlife Act, Mr. Chairman.

I feel that the appropriate process is to follow the work being done by the department and by this government to incorporate any changes. I specifically feel that way at this point because of the time frame that seems to be achievable for us now. Thank you.