Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The acronym SWAAG stands for Stakeholders Wildlife Act Advisory Group, there’s a double A in there that tends to throw people off.

They did provide a report and we’ve been looking at that work along with all the last-minute work that the working group has been taking care of. I just signed, this very day, the letter, the response to the report with, as well, a copy or a confidential draft copy of all the work that’s been done in terms of rewriting the legislation and I will be meeting next week with the board, sorry, with the advisory group, to talk about and go over the work that they did, the response that we’ve provided and the act as it has now been crafted. So that work, we’re just trying to conclude that. The intent is to bring it into the House for first and second reading, the Wildlife Act, early in March to give us a chance to conclude these final important meetings. Thank you.

That’s good that we’re finally getting a response back to this working group. Now, my experience is that there’s generally a 10-day mailing period if it’s mailed by the government when they say it’s mailed in Yellowknife to a group in Yellowknife, is that the sort of timeframe we’re looking at here?

The intent is to use the fastest means we have available, electronically probably, to get the information disseminated. Like I indicated, we’re sending out the work today with a plan to sit down I think mid-week or so next week to have a meeting with the SWAAG folks. So those are the timelines, keeping our eye on the calendar where we want to introduce this for first and second reading early in March so we can get it into the legislative process for committee before this session is concluded. Thank you.

Thanks for that comment. I hope the Minister does use the fastest way to get that information out there. These days it’s possible.

My last question has to do with bison, Mr. Chair. I know we’ve gone through, again, some serious kafuffles with the bison herd, the Mackenzie Bison herd. I know at one point we had opened harvest up to those with Aboriginal and treaty rights to shoot cows and calves and whatever they wanted along the road and so on, or even off the road, shortly before we had the anthrax issue and now we’ve got a decimated herd. I don’t believe there were any extraordinary harvest opportunities given to those without these sorts of rights. Of course, this is a new species of wildlife in much of the range that’s never been there before within our living memory and so on. Is that the sort of approach we can expect with these sorts of harvesting opportunities? I know I am responding to a lot of

concern I’m hearing from constituents. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the anthrax outbreak, as the Member said, it came pretty close to decimating the herd. I mean, we cut it down significantly, as much as 40 percent. We didn’t find all the animals that were killed by anthrax, so there’s a total no harvesting ban. We are going to do a survey in March to see what the herd numbers tell us. These are a threatened species. This is a management area, so we have to look at keeping somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 1,000 animals, what’s considered acceptable for mammals like that as a healthy herd. We allowed tags, once we knew they were at that level or exceeded that.

Once again, as we go forward, they’ve had draws before in Providence and I would anticipate, once again, everything will depend on the herd health and what’s possible. Same criteria apply as it does for caribou for subsistence harvesting. So we’ll see what that work tells us in terms of the count. Then we’ll be able to have that discussion about what’s possible. Thank you.

I am all for being careful, very careful, when our herds decline like that. Perhaps the Minister can consider all people of the Northwest Territories who he does represent as the herd recovers – hopefully they will recover with our careful management – and consider increasing the opportunity for all people of the Northwest Territories that might be interested in harvesting bison. Not that there’s a lot of them but, as the Minister knows, the cost of living is high. We want people to be on the land, and tied to the land and recognizing value of the land, so they will fight for it when they need to and look after it. So I appreciate his commitment to fulfilling that representation for all people when making harvest decisions. Thank you.

I want to assure the Member again that I am very aware that I am a Minister for the territorial government representing all Northerners and we are charged with representing everybody. In this case, we have been working to do that, recognizing the circumstances.

I’d point out, in the South Slave, for example, we are taking the steps to reinstitute the bison harvest for non-Aboriginal people and we have other species where there are still tags available for moose and such. So when conservation issues come to bear and become a priority, we take the decisions necessary, hard as though they may be at times. I’ve been called a number of things, from what I can recollect over the last number of years. I’ve been called a conservative, racist, bigot. I’ve been called any number of things, but in this job you have to do the right thing. I’m very committed to

representing all Northerners. I was Health Minister for five and a half years and I can assure you we have some of the best systems in place for all Northerners. I take this job very, very seriously, as I do the requirement, my obligation, my fundamental, absolute obligation of representing everybody fairly. Thank you.

Committee, we are on page 13-25, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, operations expenditure summary, $15.286 million.

Thank you. Page 13-26, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, grants and contributions, contributions, $973,000.

Thank you. Page 13-27, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, wildlife, active positions. Any questions?

Seeing none, page 13-28 and 13-29, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, land and water, operations expenditure summary, $5.752 million.

Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions here. The first has to do with municipal wastewater and federal regulations which seem to be downloaded, so to speak, to municipalities. I’m not sure; I presume, since this is water, I can discuss this here. My concern has to do with the need for communities to adhere to regulations or whatever has been imposed upon them by the federal government. I’d like to know from the Minister whether or not there is an agreement between the NWT and the federal government to require all NWT municipalities to adhere to the new and updated regulations regarding municipal wastewater. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The regulations are, in fact, guidelines that the Member is referring to. There has been a lot of discussion around the FPT table with Environment Ministers. They are looking, especially in the North, at some of the challenges that those guidelines could have. The federal government has told us clearly that they’re working on the guidelines, but don’t expect any more money than you already have through the various funding sources that are already there. There is a huge concern by all jurisdictions that there could be

significant costs attached to whatever is agreed to. So it’s being looked at very carefully. At the same time, people are working towards it and we want to make sure we can reassure people, and people know that they have proper drinking water, and we do the right things when it comes to treating water and releasing it back into the environment. Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister for that response and for correcting me. Thank you. I recognize they are guidelines, but they seem to be… The impression I get is, yes, they are guidelines, but you’d better adhere to them. I’m glad to hear that this is a concern across the country. I think particularly for some of our smaller communities and some of our more northern communities, it’s going to be a lot harder for them to adhere to these guidelines.

Does the government have any policy in terms of assisting communities to improve their systems or wastewater systems to match the guidelines the government is putting forward? I heard the Minister say there’s no money from the federal government, but do we as a territorial government maybe recognize that municipalities can’t handle these things on their own, and do we have any policy to financially assist municipalities trying to upgrade their wastewater systems? Thank you.

That would be a question best posed in due course to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. We have assistance to communities for water and waste treatment. We have subsidy programs. At the same time, we also do have standards. They aren’t just all guidelines. We have Health departments involved. We have concern as a government. We want to be involved basically from the headwaters, which is why we’re negotiating transboundary water agreements to the tap so when people turn on the tap, they can do so in comfort and confidence that the water meets the best Canadian standards. So that assistance is available to communities, but I don’t have that information available here in this budget that’s before us.

Thanks to the Minister for that. My other question has to do with our Protected Areas Strategy. It’s been moving along. We’ve been adding sites and approving sites over time. I wondered if the Minister could indicate, first of all, the number of protected area sites. I guess I want to know between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Have we approved, has there been a trend, a downward trend or an upward trend, I guess is what I’m trying to say, in the number of protected areas and number of sites that we’ve added to our strategy?

The Protected Areas Strategy is one that’s under review with both ourselves and the federal government. There are currently six candidate areas that we’re looking at

that have reached, I think it’s about step five or so of an eight step process, consolidating all of the information. As we move towards devolution, the issue of how do we manage this is becoming more critical.

We’re pulling together all of the work and reports and recommendations. There are national wildlife areas that are being proposed. In some cases we have a major area, Edehzhie in the Deh Cho that has been under discussion now for some time. We are, we believe, very, very close, if not in agreement with all parties on that particular site. There are five other ones that are under discussion and review. We’re working with the federal government, who has some money in their base, to deal with those particular areas. What’s the best way to proceed which gets us, if I may, back up to a higher level here?

One of the things in the Deh Cho, for example, that we want to look and focus on, is coming to grips with the land use plan. The land use plan will set the plan for the region and will help inform what the best way to proceed with those various sites that have now been nominated. We need that plan so that we’re clear that we’re not just doing protected areas strategies and over here we’re going to have some development, we think we’re going to have a park over here. We have to get our thinking clear.

Then if I can back up one more step, the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that we’re doing as a government is providing us with a frame to be able to approach with clear thinking, and clear policies and guidelines on how we approach the table for land use planning. It also captures the economic strategy that Mr. Ramsay is talking about, the Mineral Resource Strategy that he’s talking about. Even the Water Strategy fits under that broad Land Use Sustainability Framework.

The protected area is one piece and we’re going to get to that and deal with it in due course. We have to get some of these other pieces sorted out and clarified so that we make the best informed decision possible.

Thanks to the Minister for that comprehensive answer. I didn’t really hear whether or not the number of our protected areas sites has gone up or down over the last little while. I gather that if there’s a review happening, we’re not adding any more protected areas sites. Is that correct?