Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Dent has done a very good job of researching and presenting this bill, Bill 12. I commend him for his efforts. However, I do not believe the Member has the resources to really give us the comfort that although this bill seems to be worded so that it is geared towards hunters in the Yellowknife area, and probably would be geared for hunting caribou, we have to realize this bill goes across the board and affects all the different regions.

I have a lot of concern because I do not believe we have been able to take the moose population, for example, and go out there. There is no mechanism in his tool bag to tell us what that population is. We know in the regions that moose are harder to get, woodland caribou are harder to get. In the region I represent, the area of hunting is becoming smaller. The larger snowmobiles, easier access to snowmobiles and faster boats, all make our hunting areas smaller. Some of us have hunting areas that border other regions. In my case, in the communities that I represent, we border along the Dogrib Nation, the Akaitcho Territory and South Slave regions. So no matter which way you go to hunt, you are going to run into people from other communities, other areas. So we have to remember that this bill is aimed at the short-term or new residents, and not at the long-term resident hunters. There is an opportunity for people to hunt and it is just a small population. However, it will impact us in terms of activity and it will affect us across the board.

I had an opportunity to talk to several people in my riding and many people feel that six months is not long enough for people to move here from a different area, from different cultures and different histories and different traditions to come here, to live here amongst us and to gain a respect of our land, of our people, of our culture, of our traditions. So therefore, I have a lot of problem with this, especially to compound that with the fact the Wildlife Act is currently under review. A comprehensive review is underway and I feel that this attempt to introduce this bill at this time is an attempt to short-cut the system and I do not appreciate that.

We also have to remember that there are many land claim negotiations underway, many self-government negotiations still in process. This is an issue that is on the table for them. If that is the case, then there should be a mechanism for aboriginal people to have a vote, especially the ones who will be affected, that have processes in place. They should be allowed to have a say in the matter and the process that has been introduced by my colleague just does not allow them to be consulted and have a say, so I am going to be voting against it. I cannot support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too have some real problems with regard to this introduction of this bill at this time. We have an obligation to consult. There is a process in place. For me, the big issue on this one is the whole aspect of looking at wildlife, the human activities that happen in the North and also looking at the ability of ourselves as a government and as people to manage our resources and to have the tools to ensure the protection of our wildlife.

Yes, everyone would like to have the Wildlife Act amended yesterday but it has been a long term. As Mr. Dent states, it has been 20 years. A lot has happened in the North in the last 20 years. We have seen some major impacts with regard to how activities happen in the North. We have entrenchment of people, roads, activities in the Northwest Territories that have an effect on the environment, on our resources, especially on wildlife. We have a lot of outdated laws and regulations. For me, if anything, the big thing is the enforcement abilities of ourselves as government, as wildlife officers to do an adequate job to ensure the protection of our wildlife by way of establishing legislation.

Right now, someone can go out and break the law with regard to the Wildlife Act by poaching, hunting out of season or even where it pays to break the law, knowing the penalties we have in our legislation are so weak that it pays to allow an outfitter or big game hunter to take the other game because he knows for the amount of money he will bring in, the penalties we have are so small that it does not affect them. Under the legislation, there is nothing we can do about it because the way the legislation is drafted, it does not do justice.

I think we have to allow for the process to take place so we do not just deal with one little issue, such as the resident thing, but look at the overall Wildlife Act to ensure that we do a thorough review, take the time, do it right. For Mr. Dent and the people he says he represents, the people who are classed as not having that ability, for them to be able to have an opportunity, for them to air their concerns at the public review process that everyone else is taking advantage of right now.

The public hearings today are taking place in the Beaufort-Delta region. Those processes are ongoing. We have to realize that we do not want to undermine a process that has been long overdue. You have to realize that the issues at hand are a lot bigger than just the residency clause. We have to look at the enforcement side. We have to look at ensuring that the quota systems we have are fair and just. Also, we have to ensure that the wildlife officers and the people we depend on to ensure the protection of wildlife and protection for future generations have the tools to do their job. Unless we make some major sweeping amendments to the overall act, other than just one amendment, it does not really justify the cause.

I do have a major concern with regard to Mr. Dent's amendment, where he says there is no real impact with regard to aboriginal hunting rights and aboriginal claims rights. That is where I have a problem. Being a negotiator with the Dene/Métis claim process, and then the Gwich'in claim and then the Sahtu claim, this section of the land claim agreement, the wildlife sections of all three of those processes was the primary concentrated effort by the First Nations for negotiating rights in the Northwest Territories. For them, it was crucial that they have control, they have a say on wildlife harvesting and they want a management say that is meaningful. They want to be responsible to manage wildlife and have a system in place that is there to ensure the integrity of wildlife in the Northwest Territories will be looked at with regard to how people will be able to allocate licences. What type of licences are going to be allocated? How will quotas be set? How much of a species can be taken? We have to protect the health and well being of those species for future generations.

I will use an example. We can sit here and say we still have a lot of wildlife species. We talk about the Porcupine Caribou herd. In 20 years, the Porcupine caribou herd, the size of the herd 20 years ago from where it is today has dropped by 50,000 animals in 20 years. So if one herd can drop by that large a number, by 50,000 animals, think of where we will be in the next 20 years. I think we have to plan long term. We cannot just be shortsighted and focus on one thing. We have to focus on the whole aspect of wildlife and as legislators, we have to do this right and realize this is the only chance we are going to get to do a thorough review of the Wildlife Act in the Northwest Territories, to bring it in line with the rest of Canada and also bring it in line with other jurisdictions.

If you break the law, you will get fined $100,000. In the Northwest Territories, you break the law, the most you can get fined is $10,000. It pays to break the law in the Northwest Territories. I think it is important that we focus on those types of things.

With regard to land claim agreements, it is clear that the powers of the boards that are established through land claim agreements will have the ability to establish policies and propose regulations to this Legislature to clearly state how wildlife harvesting will take place by a person, including the class of person. So you people who come up here for two months or three months, you can have a process in place through this system that they are going to have through the wildlife board reviews that people will be able to hunt, not use the excuse I cannot hunt because I am up here -- for them, it is a means of managing the wildlife. That is also being able to have that opportunity for First Nations, aboriginal groups and the wildlife boards to ensure there is a means of being able to control the population of the herd by establishing quota systems and wildlife enforcement.

I think on this one, we do have to take the time and we have to look at all aspects, not just focusing on strictly an application process, saying it is not going to affect anything because it is only such a small majority. We have to, through land claim agreements and aboriginal rights, ensure that we do not undermine the process.

I think the First Nations government and the Premier of the Northwest Territories, and even the Minister of Indian Affairs, should seriously look at what implications there are if there are no allowable efforts that an individual Member of the Legislature can overrule a constitutional and protected agreement by making an amendment to a process, without having to consult with those people that they will affect directly, by making piecemeal amendments to take out certain sections of a specific act that has to be amended to bring on land claim agreements, which override the ability of those land claim agreements to do what they were set out to do, such as manage wildlife and also establish policy and procedures to allow for harvesting activities to take place in land claim areas.

I think that it is important that we take the time, we allow for the process to take place. Mr. Dent and the people he is speaking for have an opportunity to due process. They should take advantage of the public process that they are able to go to and state what their concerns are on the residency requirement, say exactly where they want to go.

That is where I am coming from. I think we have to allow for due process. We cannot simply make an amendment here because I think that it is going to be a disadvantage for the people of the Northwest Territories by not allowing due process. By making a simple amendment, I think we can jeopardize the relationship between ourselves, the First Nations governments and claim agreements that have been constitutionally negotiated and are protected under the Canadian Constitution. With that, I will not be supporting this amendment because I believe that there is a process for it to follow and we should follow that process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I expected that there might be more people waiting to speak. I just wanted to say a few things to put on the record. When this bill was up for second reading, I supported the bill because I was answering to some of the constituents in my riding who are employed with the RCMP as well as the DND. I had stated my reasons for supporting it then. Also, I wanted to take it out to the public and have an opportunity to have a discussion on it.

I was a member of the Committee who had public hearings on this and it has become a lot more complex, this bill, than I had expected. We had presentations, as the Chair of the Governance Committee had indicated earlier, from various aboriginal leaders. It was an opportunity for me to learn a lot about the environment, which this bill has to consider.

I want to thank the Member for Frame Lake for the work that he has done in bringing this forward. I know there is a pocket of people in Yellowknife, and probably throughout the Territory, who would like to see the residency requirement and the time reduced. However, I want to put on the record that I am going to vote against this bill for a number of reasons.

One, I do believe the process we have going in terms of holding public hearings on the amendments or establishing the new Wildlife Act to accommodate the provisions and conditions that are being set out in the ongoing land claims and aboriginal self-government negotiations has to be respected and reflected.

I want to be clear that I support the intent and spirit of this bill. I do believe that I still would like to see a situation where the people who move here from the south could come here and hunt as early as they can elsewhere. I still believe that people are not going to all of a sudden go out and hunt animals after six months or two years just because the licensing is allowed. I think this is an exclusive thing for those who are into this sort of thing. However, for those who respect nature and who want to engage in hunting, it is very near and dear to their hearts. So I respect the desire for those who want to be able to hunt as soon as possible.

I just think this is not good timing, in light of all that is happening in the Territories. I am not interested in creating a very deep gulf or a difference of understanding between this government and the aboriginal government at this juncture.

I also want to add that to my surprise, I have been approached by a lot of Yellowknifers, long-term Yellowknifers -- non-aboriginal, to be specific -- who have stated that they do not agree with changing the residency requirement to six months. It was a surprise to me because I would be lined up for a coffee and there were more people talking to be about this bill than even the highway commercial truck permit fee.

This has not been easy for me, but I have cased a vote for and against and based on what my constituents have been telling me, in light of the fact that there is a question about process that had to be followed in a bill like this that affects the Wildlife regulations in the Territory, and in light of the respect that I have for how deeply offended the aboriginal leaders are about this bill, I have to come to this conclusion. I do still believe the intent and purpose of this bill really does not interfere with the aboriginal government's power to control. I will just close my rambling on by saying I am going to vote against this bill. Thank you.

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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Dent for coming forward with this proposal. I know he personally spent a lot of time and effort on this, doing the research and compiling the information that Members see here before us. I would like to thank him for that. I know it has been a long time in getting this together.

I have a couple of points that I would like to make in speaking to this. I will acknowledge, as the government has been clear to point out, that there is a process underway. They are conducting a review of the Wildlife Act. Unfortunately, this is about a ten-year process and I, like some of the speakers who have presented here today, am not convinced that this review will be concluded before the end of this Assembly. I do not think the government can give us any assurance and I do not that this will be the case. It is unfortunate that newcomers to the North are inhibited by not being able to hunt.

On the one hand, there are very good reasons why people should at least have spent a meaningful amount of time here so that they do understand the land and cultures of the Northwest Territories before they go out to hunt. On the other hand, the time should not be so onerous that people who have spent a significant amount of time here still are unable to hunt. We do have the strictest regulations for residency in this area in the country, as I understand.

Another point that was made earlier that I agree with is that conservation is achieved by regulating the number of animals in areas where game may be harvested, not by imposing an arbitrary residency requirement. I think this is true. If we want to talk about conservation, and if there are issues about conservation, it is up to this government to investigate and use some of the tools at its disposal to make sure that wildlife species are not at risk, and to make sure that aboriginal people who rely on animals for subsistence come first. I think that this government has an obligation under the Wildlife Act to do just that. If there are concerns about that, certainly this government has to look at that.

I do agree that, as the act states, it is implicit that if the 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. That gives me some comfort that as long as we monitor the situation, adding more hunters -- as long as we do not go crazy with the number of animals that can be harvested -- should not be a concern.

The one thing that I would like to make clear, Mr. Chairman, is that I do not think six months is a significant amount of time so that people do have an appreciation for the area and the culture in the Northwest Territories.

Like Mr. Roland, I agree that a longer period of time, somewhere in the middle, probably a year, would be more acceptable to me. Certainly a coming-into-effect date later next year would also be more agreeable so that there is a chance to do some consultation and let people know exactly what this means. The government can take it out there and reassure residents and reassure all the people of the Northwest Territories that this does not mean there is going to be a run on the number of animals harvested.

Mr. Chairman, I would not support the bill in its current form but I would support it if we expanded the residency requirement to a year instead of six months and looked at a date in the summer for a coming-into-effect date. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been aware of this private Member's bill and have not had the opportunity, like some Members, to hear some of the public input on it. It has not been something that has been brought to my attention by constituents. However, just listening to the debate here in the House tonight on it, some of the arguments that have been made on both sides are not entirely rational to my way of thinking. I hear that perhaps extending the residency requirement from six months to 12 months is somehow going to affect the applicant's knowledge and respect for the land, and somehow affect the kind of respect that they would show when they are out there hunting. That to me is just not a rational kind of argument.

On the other hand, I hear the concern of some of the aboriginal presenters to the committee, thinking that even two years is not long enough for somebody to be here to gain access to this kind of a privilege. On the other hand of that, there are ways and means of managing the inventory of the herds and the numbers so that we are not into a situation where we are depleting the herds or animals inventory. It seems like that is not really an issue or a problem either. I do not know. Some of the arguments that I hear being brought forward here tonight are a little bit shaky.

I think that although sports hunting is not something that is very dear to my heart, I can understand why some people coming here would think that this would be a great opportunity for them. I know of young people who have come here, even to teach school, that have come from other provinces and probably could make this their home, that could be a drawing card for them if they had access to hunting rights.

This is a tough one because of the process that is already underway as well. I am not overly optimistic that this is something that is going to happen, this revision to the legislation in a timely fashion, so I guess I am going o go with the compromise here tonight and go with the suggestion that Mr. Roland has made that perhaps going from two years to six months is too much of a leap. If it is any consolation to the people who are concerned about the residency to go to a one-year requirement, I could see that being a compromise and serving the interests of those who would like a shorter waiting period and hopefully also respecting the interests of those who feel six months is too short.

I will support the bill with the amendments that have been put forward by Mr. Roland. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as everybody knows, I seconded this motion when it first came forward to this bill. I would like to thank Mr. Dent for all the work that he has done in bringing this private Member's bill forward. He has done an awful lot of research and did a very good job in presenting it to us.

I was also on the committee that went around the North doing public consultation on this bill. I know that in Yellowknife, there was a large turnout here for comments on the bill. It certainly was not totally negative. There were a number of groups represented in support of this bill.

I have also been talking to a number of people in Hay River, where I come from. I must say that for the people who have come forward and talked to me on this bill, I would have to say that it was pretty well 50/50 as far as supporters of this bill and people against it.

However, some of the things I have heard on the negative side of this is they did not want it to happen because what it would do to them -- and I am talking here about resident hunters who have already been here for over two years -- their opposition to it was just the fact that if more hunters come along and the game population drops down, they would be affected by it, so a not-in-my-backyard type of thing, I guess.

I have other problems with the opposition to this bill for reasons of the number of hunters that it would create and the number of animals that would be taken from it. There are things happening in the Territories that when I look at it, especially when you go in the Norman Wells area and you see plane loads of hunters getting off all dressed in camouflage outfits, going in simply because they have a lot of money and are willing to pay, can go in the bush and kill game, pretty well guaranteed that they are going to get some of our best wildlife. I guess, to the same extent, resident hunters or non-resident hunters that want to pay large sums of money can go out, pay an outfitter, go out and hunt.

So to me, that does not tell me that it is a case of not having enough game or that more hunters are going to deplete our game populations. It simply tells me that if you have the money, you can do it, whereas a resident who has been here for whatever the required amount of time is, if he cannot afford to do it, then he is going to be left out. That creates a problem for me.

When we say that conservation is a big issue, I think conservation is something that we are responsible for. RWED or the aboriginal groups that are controlling game on their lands, if they have the proper quotas in place and the people to enforce the amount of hunting that is going on to supply the data, how much game is being taken and what is sustainable, then I think that is our area. I think the government should have good data as to what game we have and how much game is being harvested.

I have been in the Territories for 32 years and I have done some hunting in the Territories but I do not hunt anymore. I think what Mr. Dent has said about the number of resident hunters decreasing, I go along with that because I have seen it. I have also seen though that the game populations have been dropping, especially in our area. I can remember I rode on trains for just about 30 years between High Level and Hay River. We used to see an awful lot more game than what we do now, especially woodland caribou.

At the same time, I would not say that the reason that the game is no longer there or the game populations have dropped, I cannot rightfully say that those reasons are all because of resident hunters. As a matter of fact, I know that is not the reason, or not totally the reason.

We also heard from people that have presented to us that you cannot manage wildlife. Wildlife manages itself. All we can do is put regulations in place and make sure that the amount of harvesting that we are allowing, from whoever it is, whether it is a resident or a non-resident or aboriginal, if we are allowing over-hunting, then we will deplete the game that we have. As far as the management of it, they will manage themselves.

I know there is a concern about saying if we reduce the residency to six months or a year, that it is going to create a huge influx of people coming just to hunt. I just do not see that. Right across the country, if you go, you will see the number of hunters are dropping, especially in the younger generation. There is not the interest in hunting that there used to be. It is the same in Nova Scotia. There is still a lot of game down there but there just are not the hunters that there used to be.

As far as people coming into camps that are coming on eight-month jobs, I do not see where they would have any chance of being a resident anyway. There is still criteria they have to meet to become residents. I just do not see where that would be a big thing.

I know though that when we encourage people to come to the North and work here, we do not hesitate to encourage them to buy houses and pay taxes and contribute to the economy and the Territory, so I tend to think that if we penalize them for a year by making them wait to hunt for a year or so, that would be long enough. I think that as Canadians, we all have the right to move around and enjoy wherever we choose to settle down or live, whatever there is to offer there. I think we have a right to enjoy some of that.

Maybe six months is a little bit short. I would be quite willing to support a one-year residency clause. If that amendment comes through, I would be supporting that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Maybe it is something that the Minister can check into. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have to commend the Member for his determination in bringing the bill forward, even though he knew that there was a lot of opposition to the proposal. I think it may have served one good thing and that is to highlight the need for review of the Wildlife Act. That seems to have been a message come out from the general public very strong that they would like to see that act brought forward for amendment. I noticed that the government is working on that.

I have a couple of points to bring out on the bill. I note that neither the committee nor the Member toured my riding to get input on this bill. I note that there is a meeting in Paulatuk right now this evening on amendments to the bill and I know that a lot of people are wondering why we are trying to vote on this here when they are still trying to think about it over there. So there is obviously going to be confusion of that nature for a while, until this is resolved.

In the Member's overall statement, he recognized the fact that the same discussion took place 20 years ago. I took part in a lot of those discussions. I do not hear much different concerns being expressed then as there are now. It is very much similar concerns, both for and against. In the end, after long debates, the decision was to go to two years. I have been a professional hunter for many years -- all my life, as a matter of fact. I do not think that I would feel confident in moving to a new area and hunting in that area in less then two years. I do not feel comfortable to go into Fort Smith and start hunting buffalo. I have never done it. I would not be sure that I would be qualified to do it, even though I have been hunting all my life. The same; I question Mr. Miltenberger's ability to hunt polar bear down in my area.

There are a lot of points, Mr. Chairman, that are not really being brought out at this time. Hopefully, they will be brought out as the department does its consultations. I cannot go along with a suggestion of less than two years.

I know there are very serious considerations to go away from two years to any amount. I believe that time lines should be different, even in some areas. As a matter of fact, there are different time lines and there are different regulations for hunting different species right now. All this has to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the Members efforts in bringing to the attention of this government the need to review that bill as soon as possible.

With that, I will be voting along with Cabinet to oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. General comments. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. General comments? Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have waited to respond to some of the issues that have been raised until I thought that all Members had concluded and before we go into the clause by clause. I guess I would have to say Minister Handley accused me of being a pessimist. After you have heard the comments around the table tonight, I would say I was an optimist if I am coming forward with this legislation right now.

However, what I would like to do first of all is just respond to the concern that Mr. Handley first raised, which was the issue of the process that is underway right now and why I would be moving forward with this. If you look back into Hansard, March 25, 1993, you find the Minister for Renewable Resources talking about a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act of the Northwest Territories, that at that point had been underway for some time.

If you move on through Hansard to November of 1993, there has been a change in the Ministers. Now, the Minister is the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi. At that time, in responding to a question about the time he was going to take to revise the Wildlife Act, Minister Kakfwi said, "This has been something that has been worked on for at least the last six years that I have been around."

So in 1993, the comprehensive review had been underway for six years. Why have I chosen to move ahead with one little aspect of it? I think that, Mr. Chairman, answers the question, is that this comprehensive review has been underway in various forms, various manners for that long. For ten years that I have been a Member, I have seen the process undertaken. I think that after ten years, in another eight years, Minister Handley has not been a Member yet for quite two, but perhaps when he reaches ten years, he will not be quite as optimistic about what government consultations will be concluded in the next two years either. Given the experience with what I have seen, I have very little confidence that he will be anywhere near as confident then as he is now.

As Minister Ootes pointed out, part of what we have to try to do here is have all stakeholders reach consensus and that is what has caused us to take so long. The first go-round when Minister Kakfwi was talking about it having been six years, that was -- at that point, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was eight years old. It was eight years after that final agreement before the government was even looking at doing something on it. It took six years of consultation to try and get somewhere on it.

Talking about looking at how things were being done, there never really was a consensus reached on it. What the government finally did was they took the wording on wildlife from the final agreement and just brought it into the Wildlife Act. There was never any consensus reached by all the stakeholders about how to address it in a comprehensive way.

My concern is that we are going to wind up with that same sort of situation here. I think that, as Minister Ootes says, we have to try and reach that consensus. It is very important. We have a responsibility that you, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out, to consult and to respect what has been negotiated in agreements with aboriginal governments to make sure that sort of process is followed through. We do have to make sure that there is a sincere attempt to reach consensus. We cannot be rushed.

I do not think we can say with any sense of certainty that it is going to happen in the next two years. If the time is not right, then it will take longer than two years. I think we have to respect that is what is going to have to happen.

I think part of the problem has been -- probably the biggest problem has been because there is, I believe, a very emotional, visceral reaction to anything that has to do with wildlife among many northern residents. I have come to understand that better through this whole process.

I have obviously been unsuccessful at convincing a number of people that all we are talking about here is non-aboriginal people's privileges. This government has a legal responsibility to ensure that the boards that you talked about, Mr. Chairman, are respected in their views when it comes to hunting rights in the Northwest Territories.

We are talking about only the animal populations that are left over after the rights of those who have the right to hunt are protected because those of us who are non-aboriginal do not have that right.

It is something that if there is a situation where there would be any interference with the number of people to be out there hunting, or if there would be any interference with aboriginal people's ability to hunt, then the treaty and legal rights would have to be respected and that could cut into the privileges of non-aboriginal people. That might mean that they do not get to hunt anymore. That is really what it might mean.

I think clearly Minister Antoine talked about how people perceived this in his region and talked about, I think he said wide-ranging ramifications over wildlife and treaty issues. Again, that obviously indicates that people have not been convinced that we are talking about is a small number of animals that have to be divided up among those in the Territories who have a privilege to hunt. If it ever gets to the point where those who hunt with a privilege start to interfere with those who hunt by right, then those who hunt with a privilege will lose that privilege.

I guess that is where I maybe failed in this bill. Part of that comes back to again, it is something that you brought up, Mr. Chairman, was consultation. I agree that it is absolutely imperative that there be consultation on changes in wildlife legislation. I think that is set out in all of the agreements that have been set.

As Mr. Roland pointed out, the legal advice that I had and that his committee also received, that responsibility falls on the government. An individual Member does not have the resources to undertake the sort of consultation that needs to be done.

For that reason, I welcome the amendment that Mr. Roland has proposed. A coming-into-force date I think would allow that sort of thing to happen. It is obviously an issue we are going to have to deal with here in terms of private Member's bills because given the number of agreements we have in the Territories, what is the process for consultation? Private Members cannot be expected to undertake the consultation that is required and yet we should not be limited from being able to bring forward proposals for legislation. Every Legislature in the Commonwealth allows private Member's bills to come forward and be considered.

So what happens here is that we have run into a bit of a problem with our process because private Members do not have the resources to undertake the sort of consultation that is now envisioned in a lot of these agreements.

I think maybe because there has been a failure for people to recognize the difference between rights and privileges of some people, it is going to be difficult to move this one along as quickly as I think it should be. As I said, I have been elected for ten years. I first asked the Minister of Renewable Resources about this issue I think nine and a half years ago and was assured that the comprehensive review was underway and I would see the results before the next election.

Well, two elections have come and gone since then. I am afraid that there is going to be a third election come and go before we get anywhere on this thing. That is why I thought that given the legal advice that I had, Mr. Chairman, that said that this change would impact only on non-aboriginal people and not on aboriginal people's rights, I felt it was something that could be severed from the rest of the consultation process and move on.

I am prepared to accept and support Mr. Roland's amendments, both of them, as a compromise to see if we move this along. I guess all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that I hope Members will give it some consideration.

One last thing I should say has to do with a comment made by Mr. Lafferty. There are perhaps some resident sport hunters who might be categorized as having a lot of money and therefore able to purchase meat without needing to hunt it, but I could certainly take Members from this House around my constituency and introduce you to people who depend on being able to hunt for food and who depend on country foods quite a bit in order to ensure that they have a healthy amount of food.

I think it is worth remembering too that our food basket rates and income support were set with the understanding that people would be able to supplement that food with country food. There are a number of people who are disqualified from being able to do that with our current regulations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Any other general comments? If not, does the committee agree to proceed with a clause-by-clause review of Bill 12?