Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the priorities that has been in this House year after year, from one Legislature to another, is the Wildlife Act. The Inuvialuit signed their land claim agreement in 1984, and that agreement has a very large component that deals with the wildlife aspect of those agreements. The Gwich’in signed their agreement in 1992; the Sahtu, in 1994; and now the Tlicho agreement. Yet we spend millions of dollars on consultations, lawyers and meetings.
I think we have to bring closure to this legislation and allow it to see the light of day. We can talk about the environment and protection of the wildlife, but you have to have the legislative tools, the authorities, to be able to allow those land claim agreements, those regulatory bodies that are established under those arrangements, to have a say in wildlife management, land and water management, and protection of the environment.
Those land claim agreements weren’t negotiated lightly. It’s been in process for 20 years, and I think it’s important to realize. I
noticed that in your
opening comments you talked about how the government wants to take control of lands, resources and wildlife environments. A lot of those lands you’re talking about are First Nations lands. A lot of the responsibilities are already in place by way of land claim agreements and wildlife legislative authorities. Basically, provisions of those land claim agreements are paramount over territorial legislation.
It’s the same thing in regard to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which flowed from the Dene/Métis claim process into the Gwich’in claim, the Sahtu, and now the Tlicho.
I think it’s important to realize that with this endeavour we’re on, we seem to build up a bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy. But when it comes to actually seeing some physical proof that we’re really seeing a change, legislative change, it seems to move at a snail’s pace into this legislature to be passed and put into force.
For me, a first priority has always been the Wildlife Act. We spend a lot of time and emphasis on species at risk. There is a federal responsibility under that, and yes, we have some responsibility, but I think the Wildlife Act is more important than the Species at Risk legislation.
In regard to the NWT Water Strategy, we already have a legislative framework or tool to work from, which is the Mackenzie Valley basin management agreement, which has been signed and which I was part of back in 1985–86. All the jurisdictions where the Mackenzie basin flows, from Saskatchewan to Alberta to B.C. to the Yukon to the Northwest Territories, are signatories to that water basin agreement. If anything, we should be building on that and signing off on these bilateral agreements between the different provinces and territories so we can have control of that resource.
What’s happening in Fort McMurray and the threats you hear from the community of Fort Chipewyan: we’re not immune to that. They’re looking at uranium development in the region I represent in regard to the headwaters of the Peel River, which flows into the Mackenzie Delta and into the Arctic Ocean.
With these developments, regardless of whether it’s the Fort McMurray development of fossil fuels or mining development of uranium, from what happened on Great Bear Lake and Uranium City to uranium developments in a lot of our watersheds.... In regard to different sanctuaries we have, I think it’s important that as governments we build on what’s already there and not start something that’s going to take a lot of resources and money — that we be realistic about what goals and objectives we’re trying to meet.
Like I stated when I started talking, the Wildlife Act is something we’ve been talking about forever. Until we really want to make a difference and put the resources and the manpower behind this legislation and get it passed in this Legislature.... I think this department is too top-heavy and dealing with other issues that, basically, this government has no authority to be involved in the first place. I think we’re doing stuff the federal government has the legislative authority to do until those authorities are transferred through devolution in regard to the management of land, water and resource development, through that devolution process.
Also, without having the support of the First Nations governments, which a lot of these authorities flow through, I see it not really allowing those legislative agreements to be developed so that they can implement all those sections of those agreements that have been negotiated.
It’s important that as a government we work with those First Nations governments and with those land claim agreements by way of bilateral agreements, to use those as the basis of whatever we’re doing here.
In regard to the other issue, on forestry, I think this government spends too much money in regard to forest management and very little by way of producing a product out of our forest sector. We have potential in communities. In communities I represent, they made a decision several years ago to purchase wood mizers to use the forest products, to cut the product in the regions and use it for housing materials to build people’s homes on the land or even for different community projects. Again, that’s a very unique opportunity for communities. It generates employment. It generates income for a lot of people who are on income support.
More importantly, we are managing the forests by harvesting them and not simply responding to a fire and spending millions of dollars on water bombers and fire support. If anything, we should be doing a better job of developing the forest sector as a unique economic opportunity, as we have with the commercial industries by way of commercial fishing, harvesting and agriculture in the Northwest Territories.
The other issue is around the government’s cuts they’ve made. It seems like it’s easy to cut individuals who are on seasonal employment, who might be lucky to make $20,000 a year as forest fire fighters. Yet those contracts we have in communities with this government, in some cases, are the only means for a lot of people in those communities to bring income to their families to get them through the winter.
Those little things we see happening in our communities are the first things that get cut when government decides to cut budget items. It’s the easy stuff. You guys don’t see it, but we MLAs do, who basically represent these people and know these individuals personally. These people have spent years training for these positions. In regard to fire safety, they’ve gone in some cases all the way to the United States to fight fires on behalf of this government, yet we’re the first ones to cut them when it comes to making cuts in this government.
I totally disagree with that style of cut. If you’re going to cut something, why don’t you cut one of your big water bomber contracts, which is worth in
excess of $18 million, and chip away at that? Save a bunch of positions in our communities and really make a difference by forcing this government to put money into producing from the forestry industry, allowing the communities to economically and socially benefit from the forest sector instead of simply bringing in wood pellets from Alberta, putting them in bags, taking them into our communities and telling people: “Well, sorry. You don’t have to cut wood now because we have a new initiative, and we’re going to import wood pellets from Alberta.”
What’s the difference between that and transporting fuel up a rail system, putting it onto a barge and taking it to our communities, the environmental insanity of that? If anything, we should be promoting people’s harvesting of our forests and the opportunities around our communities by way of taking stock of the potential of our forest sector and forest industry.
People are basically struggling with high-cost issues. Sometimes when this government comes up with some plans, I
wonder if we’re going
backwards in time simply for the benefit of an entrepreneur or businessperson who got the attention of a Minister for the sake of promoting his business; he has a monopoly on an opportunity in northern Canada because he has an item that has the potential of an economic business dollar-sign stamped on it.
Again, I think this government’s process of cutting the jobs and opportunities by way of community fire suppression issues around our communities for safety.... I’m also looking at jobs. So when we get to the appropriate item on the agenda, I’d like to take another crack at it, because I’m not too sure if I’m getting through to this department.