I didn’t really hear an answer to the question there. I guess I would like to ask the Minister if he will consider meeting with these

outfitters to discuss the possibility. I fully understand that there may be restrictions.

Secondly, I have to ask the Minister when we will know whether or not there are restrictions on the Bluenose-East herd. I don’t have the numbers. I think Mr. Bromley probably has the numbers of animals, total animals in the herd and number of animals harvested. I don’t have them with me, unfortunately, but I think should it be proven that the herd is sustainable with both an unrestricted Aboriginal harvest and a limited or unrestricted caribou harvest and there’s still some caribou left over, why can’t we give out those tags? Those two things: Are there restrictions on the Bluenose-East herd and, if not, when will we know, and secondly, will the Minister consider meeting with the outfitters?

What exists today is voluntary targets for the Bluenose-East, no resident harvest, no outfitters, no commercial harvest. Just a voluntary harvest for Aboriginal subsistence hunting. So what we have started is the process, given the numbers that we do have that tell us the Bluenose-East, in our opinion, even though we weren’t able to complete the full survey, are in the hundred thousand animal range, that we’re back to being able to sustain additional harvest.

That process has to go through not just ourselves and myself as Minister making the determination, but we have to work with all the appropriate boards, the Wek’eezhii board, the Sahtu board, the Inuvialuit board. We’ve initiated that process to have that discussion. We’ll look at what’s possible.

Right now we’re looking at reinstating the resident harvest. If in fact the discussions lead us down the path that Ms. Bisaro referenced where the general determination in the minds of all the folks that are involved in this are that it could in fact be expanded, then we’ll, of course, look at those recommendations from the various boards as well. It’s very rare that a Minister will reject the recommendations of boards. It’s remote but, yes, we’re going to look for the advice of the boards based on the best information we have.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro, your time is up. We can put you back in the queue if need be. Next on my list I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to pick up with the same subject Ms. Bisaro has raised. Specifically two areas I’d like to discuss.

In my Member’s statement and questions back in October, I talked about identifying what’s considered a number that will trigger our system to be re-engaged on an outfitter participation level. That would be question one. Recently in some discussions with some outfitters, as few as a

hundred tags could make that much of a difference and we would no longer have to subsidize their lodges. It could get them back into business. Two questions there.

Would the Minister be able to do some work on and evaluate and possibly support 100 tags per outfitter, and at the same time, when is the work coming forward that would help identify normal thresholds when we can get them back into the business of outfitting?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work on thresholds is underway. There has been a singular success at this point with the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. The agreement they reached in the very complex political jurisdiction with the threshold I believe the Member is talking about, that triggers certain responses without any politics, it’s just based on the science and the numbers. In my opinion, that approach would serve as well across the North. We are working towards that.

Having said that, at this point the boards have been requested to review the numbers of the Bluenose-East, and the request that they consider that they look at supporting and seeing if the numbers support reinstating the resident harvest. That work is underway. We are aiming towards next fall and we’re doing it on the Ahiak-Beverly-Qamanirjuaq as well. So that process will be reviewed, and if, as I just indicated to Ms. Bisaro, the discussion and numbers are such that there is a general consensus and recommendation that we can go beyond reinstating the resident harvest but go back to unsustained Aboriginal resident harvest as well as back to commercial, we’ll seriously consider the recommendations and they’re going to be based on the same science that we all have available to us.

Finally, if I may just reach back a bit, I did not answer part of Ms. Bisaro’s question. Yes, we’d be happy to sit down with the outfitters to talk about where we are and what the world looks like on a go-forward basis here for the coming year or coming couple of years.

I appreciate the answers from the Minister. I would like to come back to the issue of 100 tags per outfitter. I would not try to characterize that I know the science or the numbers best, so I’m not going to imply that in any way, but what I would say is anecdotally at the same time I would say that the impact of that 100 tags per outfitter, I don’t see that as causing an irreparable ripple effect to the system, especially when we have the Bluenose-East growing in the manner it’s demonstrating itself in. Would that not be a position that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources could offer their expertise and knowledge to the board for their consideration and, furthermore, for the

department’s willingness to support? In essence, would the department support a 100 tag allocation per outfitter?

These are public boards. We have our officials involved with the boards, as well as we provide, with the Wek’eezhii especially, advice and recommendations, along with the Tlicho Government, to the boards on various matters of interest before the board.

I don’t think it would be appropriate for us to sit here today and pick a number out of the air and do wildlife management, caribou management in the bounds of this Assembly. I appreciate the Member’s intent, and we are looking at what’s possible given the numbers that we do think are there, even though we could not conclude all the work that we needed to do to get a more accurate count on the Bluenose-East.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the Minister’s response. The issue of what’s possible, is this a concept that the department could get behind and evaluate, investigate and perhaps provide some consideration for the board? I’m not going to split hairs, 90 tags, 110 tags. Let the experts help drive that answer that makes sense. Caribou tags at 100 tags per outfitter, which I think we’re only talking about five outfitters here that are probably active that could be saved. Is that something that your department could investigate and see whether they could support and perhaps provide some information to the board to allow them to make their decision?

The issue here that can’t be forgotten is that the outfitters are an un-resourced organization, so all their studies and work are done on their own. They’re just trying to save their outfitting lodges, and provide tourism opportunities and employment opportunities here in the North. As we all know, upwards of 75 percent or more of that actual caribou meat is given back to the people who need it. There are a lot of plusses in this matrix of opportunity here.

Back to the point, which is, is that something that your department could investigate and see if you could help support and provide information to the board to allow them to make their final decision?

Before we leapfrog to the outfitters, we have to first sort out the resident harvest, which right now there is none, and what type of modest reinstatement could there be. Are we back to the stage, not only in addition to the resident harvest, but are we back to the stage of unrestricted Aboriginal harvest? If those two questions get answered in the affirmative, I would suggest to the Member, then, that yes, part of the discussion would be what else is possible in terms of trying to get harvesting back to its full status that

it was prior to the various restrictions given the plummeting numbers of the various herds.

I would disagree with one area: that we may never be back to full harvesting status. I’m not sure what that would look like, nor am I in the business to understand fully what that looks like. It could look like a combination of things and that’s why I’m asking about what support the Minister can offer in looking at this perspective from the outfitter point of view of keeping their lodges open.

I’m not going to ask him, and I know he won’t answer by saying how many tags are you prepared to offer today. We have to look at science; I agree with that point. We have to reinstate Aboriginal First Nation unrestricted hunting. I support that. I certainly can’t disagree with resident hunters being looked at in succession to those things. I just see that the missed opportunity here, as the herd grows, is that the outfitters might be ignored. It’s the balance of asking from their perspective of when is the government ready to get behind them.

I appreciate how the Minister is trying to line them up as Lego pieces and saying, well, we don’t get to the third or fourth one until we get through this first and second one, but we have to look at this as a bigger project and bigger support, because too much delay without a real incentive in the sense that something is going happen, we’ll in essence lose this industry and perhaps maybe forever, because nobody’s going to want to come back in the outfitting industry after the type of crash we’ve had.

We are intending to go back this spring to see if we can harden up the estimates of the Bluenose-East. At this point we have to work with the processes that are there. We have to err on the side of not overdoing the harvest.

The folks, the various boards and ourselves will look at all of the information that we currently have. In fact, we are going back in the spring to try and harden up those numbers. Collectively, we’ll work with the various boards to come up with their best recommendations and we’ll look at that. We can’t just manufacture herd numbers. They are what the science tells us, the counts tell us. If that changes in the spring and it’s a much bigger number, then clearly we’ll have more latitude. Right now we have some harvest restrictions all the way up and down the ladder. There’s voluntary harvest for Aboriginal subsistence harvest, no resident harvest, no commercial harvests or outfitters.

We would be as happy as everybody else would be in the North if the numbers of the herds rebounded to the point where there was absolutely no need to worry about looking to the future, other than managing ourselves so that we avoid similar circumstances that we are now in. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Hawkins, your time is up. We are moving on with questions. I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start with the Bathurst herd of caribou. As we all know, they have essentially been closed for just about three years. With the residential harvest being well below a few hundred for several years before that, I know many harvesters that quit hunting three or four years before the closure, as did I. Yet there’s been essentially no recovery and certainly not in the reproductive potential of this herd where there’s been no change in the number of females. I’m wondering if the Minister knows why and what additional measures are being taken this year to address this very serious and delicate situation of the severely depleted herd and one that happens to serve some of our major population centres.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll make some general comments and then I’ll ask the deputy, who is much more knowledgeable about this than I am. We had a herd that was in a precipitous decline, that if we had not have stepped in, in my humble opinion as Minister, would now have ceased to exist if we had just let hunting proceed. It’s been under significant trauma. I agree with the Member that there’s only been stabilized with a marginal increase probably within the margin of error that they have for these kind of counts.

Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I’ll ask the deputy to speak further to what some of the possible reasons or why the number of females, the cow/calf recruitment hasn’t really rebounded.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Chair, there are some great mysteries out there and there doesn’t seem to be anything else we can do. I am aware that we are permitting some harvest on this herd, despite this situation and failure to recover after three years of closure. I even have heard that those tags we do permit are not able to be fulfilled because of the small population and difficulty in finding these caribou. It’s, indeed, a grave situation. I know there’s certainly cultural loss happening amongst many cultures, perhaps all cultures of the Northwest Territories, as a result of this situation.

I agree with the Minister; they had to step in. I am just very disappointed that they didn’t step in much before this. It certainly wasn’t news to anybody. There was a trend over many, many surveys, as the Minister well knows, and the destruction that was going on along the winter road was obvious to many people. Yet we are allowing some harvests to continue because we are taking a responsible approach and we recognize a need out there.

However, let me contrast that with the Bluenose-East where, for three years now, we are in the third year now, where this population has been at, according to our survey information, near record numbers. Our policy, as I understand it, is there’s a 4 percent harvestable surplus of a herd especially once it reaches those kinds of numbers. That is 4,000 animals. We decided to permit, as a government, 2,400 with open harvest by Aboriginal people, as is correct given their special rights. Those people have been taking under 1,900 caribou. For years now, others who have been completely closed, no recognition that they have an interest either, completely closed out from this harvestable surplus.

I appreciate the Minister is finally going to move on this and encourage the board to look at it, but I just don’t get the sense that there is anybody speaking up for those without Aboriginal rights here. I’m wondering – the Minister wants the new numbers – are we going to set the standard before we get the new numbers or are we going to change it after we get the numbers. People are becoming suspect. I hope the Minister will consider those sorts of things.

I completely agree that conservation is first and foremost and I agree with order. We need to provide for Aboriginal rights. We need to provide for resident hunters. We need to provide for the sport harvest for outfitters. But here we have 4,000 surplus animals, according to government policy,

and at least 2,100 of those are not being taken advantage of, or any portion thereof. Again, I think resident harvesters are talking pretty modest numbers to make people happy. We are talking opportunity, not necessarily animals.

Our outfitters, I understand that there are two of them that are in the area that biologists have told them they are taking Bluenose-East caribou primarily, perhaps almost exclusively. Those are the outfitters that I think we are completely concerned about in this case, because the Bathurst simply cannot take any more harvest. We know that. Whereas the Bluenose has sat there unharvested, despite demonstrable surplus. That is where we’d like the Minister to not just pose a question to the board but encourage the board to consider opportunity.

These outfitters, again, are faced with the substantial costs of maintenance, basic maintenance, insurance and so on. They’re getting to the point where they’ll have to walk away from it because of bankruptcy. And we know that because the government waited until the very last moment to cancel tags, they were left with a whole year’s resupply. So there’s a lot of fuel, for example, sitting out in these sites deteriorating over time and these outfitters have no resources to clean that fuel up. So there are environmental cleanup aspects as well.

I’m sure the Minister is aware of these sorts of things. He says he needs to take some careful steps. I just wonder if there’s a double standard here. I’m all for careful steps, but I think we should have careful steps for everybody, and when we have a herd that’s up at 100,000 with a surplus of 4,000 according to our policy, and we’re harvesting under 1,900 of those with an open harvest for some of the people, there are some opportunities that I think we’re being irresponsible with.

So I’d appreciate some comments and assurances from the Minister on what we’re going to do to correct this situation, and I do agree with the suggestion to make these automatic, ideally before we go out and survey herds and can change our stance. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, the government, myself as Minister, my obligation is to all Northerners, recognizing our unique circumstances, structures and processes, which is why we have initiated the process to go to the boards to ask and suggest that there is now enough numbers that we know, and that there’s a need to reconsider and relook at the other restricted harvests, the resident harvests as a first step. I’ve indicated if the discussions are such that it leads to not only the resident harvest, but the suggestion that we can sustain at least for the outfitters in that

area, that we’d return to that outfitters’ harvest and that recommendation comes back, we will absolutely look at that with great interest. As I’ve indicated to a previous answer, it’s very seldom in my history that I can recollect ever turning down recommendations from the boards that provide very well-thought-out, good advice.

So we do have a standard. We have a standard we’re trying to apply fairly and we will look at this. We’re pushing it so that we can have a decision made by the upcoming hunting season, the fall of 2013, and we’re not going to change the numbers. We’re basing it on the numbers we now know, which will give us a good starting point. We don’t want to sit and wait here until the spring because the weather doesn’t permit. We will have lost a number of months here that we need to actually do the work with the various boards. So we’re going to do that and the Member and I agree, and I’ve said this ever since I became involved with the Porcupine Caribou Board, the need for that same type of approach, I think, is critical in all these areas, especially where you have areas where there’s overlapping jurisdiction with boards. It would make life simpler and much clearer and cleaner for everybody in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, your time is up. If you’d like to go back on… Thank you. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the Minister’s comments. I hope that the boards are aware of the science that’s available on what is harvestable for the caribou in a conservative way, and that their decisions are based on that best information and, in fact, that they can be encouraged to make timely decisions when the evidence is clear.

I would like to ask a question with regard to the Wildlife Act. I know we’re still working at it and I’m hoping that it gets tabled soon. I do appreciate the Minister’s support. I believe he formed a committee he’s calling SWAAG, I believe it’s the Stakeholders Working Group. I’m not sure what the SWAAG stands for, but I believe they did get support to draft a report. They submitted that report some time ago. My understanding is that they still have not got a response. My further understanding is that they were assured that they would have the opportunity for an iterative back and forth approach as all other stakeholders have had an opportunity to get a response from the government and respond again to that response. So if the tabling of this act is imminent, obviously the opportunity is going to be very, very modest to non-existent here, and I guess my question is: Will the Minister assure that there is a good healthy opportunity for this group to finish their input to the Wildlife Act before its tabled in the House for our consideration? I am looking forward to that tabling. Thank you.