Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, although I am a Member of the Executive Council, I am first an MLA representing a riding of people heavily dependent on subsistence hunting. This particular issue would have a direct impact on these people.

I believe that these people, through this process or through the process the government is proposing and initiating to review the Wildlife Act, will allow people to bring forward their concerns as to whether or not we should amend the time allotted for residence to qualify as residents under the Wildlife Act.

However, I think that regardless of whether it is through this process or through the government process in place, the committee that is taking on this responsibility, should this bill be before the committee, should take seriously their responsibility to hear from my small communities, because they are going to be heavily impacted by what happens here.

I urge the committee, if there is a committee, to not only concentrate on the larger centres when they do their hearings, because it is the larger centres that are going to have the populations that are going to want to amend this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am also aware that there is legislation in place requiring the government to consult with the aboriginal groups in any changes to any legislation of this nature that would directly affect them. So I am confident that there are opportunities for people to have their say.

However, from the perspective of my people back home, it would not be right for me not to raise this issue in the House on their behalf, and this is what I am doing.

I am also, Mr. Speaker, aware that as a past chair of the NWT Game Council, this issue was debated, debated and debated. In the end, it was decided that a two-year residency was most appropriate. It was debated for exactly the same reasons that Members have addressed today; to attract people, to allow residents the benefit of living off some of our wildlife resources, as well as supplement their income. This is a way of attracting them. It was also looked at as a way of recreation. Regardless of what the result was, the end result was that people preferred that there be a two-year residency.

That is not to say that it should stay as it is. Twenty years ago is a long time and people may have changed their outlook, but nevertheless, they will express those concerns if they have any. I do know that one of the concerns were whether these people with residency licences have the ability to take care of themselves out on the land. That was one of the major concerns; whether they have the ability to effectively hunt wildlife in a professional manner. We should keep in mind that one of the major issues here is going to be that if you are a resident, you no longer require a guide. That is one of the major issues that has not been mentioned so far.

I think all this will come out in due course, but really, I am here to voice the concerns of my people that we would like to be heard if this thing is going to go before committee and participate.