Thank you, Madam Chair. This matter was referred to the committee on which I serve. At this moment, of course, I have an obligation as an MLA to serve the constituents that put their confidence in me to be their voice here within the House. At the same time, I serve on this committee, and this initiative here has led us to this day. I have to acknowledge that, from my observation, there have been extensive consultations with the word collaboration. I see governments work along with First Nations, whether it was a separate claim or else unsettled area. There have been great efforts to try to come up with a simple plan solely for the purposes of setting up a wildlife management regime for the NWT and putting the interest of the wildlife as paramount. In that instance, I think we still have some concerns, especially from my perspective.

What’s front and centre about this whole matter is treaty and Aboriginal rights. The area that I represent obviously has an unsettled region as historical treaties. Of course, how that goes is that Section 35 rights in terms of how it is that governments work with First Nations. That, of course, is a big proviso in terms of my mission to ensure that we have due diligence and discussions. I think to a point I have raised these questions on numerous occasions and I am doing this exercise of reviewing the Wildlife Act.

What really stands out for me is in terms of the Wildlife Act in its preamble and its provisions affecting treaty and Aboriginal rights in the sense that we will not abrogate or derogate from treaty and Aboriginal rights. I did raise a question at the very outset. Understanding that, at what instance would the Wildlife Act interfere with those rights? I know, with our recent experience with the caribou decline, there were moments when there had to be rights or measures invoked, which brought into question that very reality. Of course, that’s a challenge we all face in terms of setting up a regime. That question still remains front and centre to my deliberations of this very matter.

Some very specific concerns have been brought to my attention. GHL is one example in terms of whether, indeed, people that have these rights currently and why they should have to prove their rights again to harvest wildlife. The other matter that was brought to me, of course, was residency, whether we could reduce the residency from two to one year. Those are concerns that have been brought to my attention and perhaps I will bring those to the forefront of discussion at a later time.