Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some comments which are very similar to some of the comments which have already been made, but I feel that I would like to express my point of view.

The act is described as a management act but I think some of the clauses within that act are more than a management of wildlife act. I also believe

that there are some inequities within some of the clauses in the act and I think those need to be addressed. Hopefully they will be over time.

I’ve expressed a number of concerns previously about some of the clauses and provisions within the act. I’m particularly concerned for our outfitters. I think that the act inhibits them growing and developing and adding to our economy.

The other area I’m concerned about is exploration and mining and other economic development activities which can be perhaps inhibited by some of the clauses within the act.

I’ve said before, and I still feel, that the representation on the conference of management authorities is not what it should be. The Minister has advised us that the GNWT is going to represent all the people who are not specifically represented by wildlife management boards or by Aboriginal governments. I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough. I feel there needs to be representation for other groups. As an example, I’m not suggesting they should be there, but the NWT Wildlife Federation is such a group who could possibly represent non-Aboriginal people and other people who are not represented by wildlife management boards.

I think probably my biggest concern is with the lack of information from the time that the act was given to the general public in a specific form and now when it’s been tabled in this House and read into this House. There have been changes made along the way, the Minister has told us that, but nobody knows what they are. I think that’s a very difficult thing for the general public to look at the act and to know the act that they were informed on in November or December of 2010, what are the differences between that act and what’s now in the House and being considered. So I totally support the request from two of my other colleagues that the department prepare a comparison document which shows the act that was put out for public information and/or consultation, depending upon how you look at it, and the act that we now have before us and where the changes have occurred. We’ve been advised that changes have been made based on the concerns that were heard from the public but, again, who knows what they are.

The other thing that I’m concerned about, and it was referenced by one of the other speakers, is the response from the department to all the comments that were made during the consultation, what they call the consultation phase. There were many, many people who spoke and expressed concerns. The department said, basically, we hear you, but there were many questions asked to which nobody has received answers. At one point when I asked questions of the Minister, I believe he said that there would be a document that would come out in April. I think he said the end of April. Well, really, that’s far too late a time for people who have asked

questions to get an answer at the end of April when probably most of the public hearings on this bill are going to be concluded. So that information needs to come forward from the department much sooner than later.

I do look forward to the public hearings that are going to come forward. I think they are certainly going to be informative. I think particularly -- and I address this to every Member and every person in the general public who has an interest in this bill -- I hope that we can, all of us, keep an open mind. That we can look at the issues that are before us and the concerns that are brought forward, that we can consider them rationally and consider them with a view to getting a bill that is workable and that is a good piece of legislation.