Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 9-17(4), NWT Main Estimates, 2013-2014. We will deliberate Environment and Natural Resources as well as Industry, Tourism and Investment.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Does committee agree?

We will commence after a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

Welcome back, committee. I’d like to turn our attention to Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Miltenberger, do you have witnesses you’d like to bring in the Chamber?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does committee agree?

Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, can you please escort the witnesses in, please.

Minister Miltenberger, if you care to introduce your witnesses to the House, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Ernie Campbell, deputy minister of Environment and Natural Resources; and Nancy Magrum, the director of shared services for ITI and ENR. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell, Ms. Magrum, welcome back to the House. Committee, we are on page 13-21, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, forest management, operations expenditures, $32.067. Does committee agree?

Thank you very much. Moving on to 13-22, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, forest management,

grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $100,000.

Contributions, total contributions, $100,000, total grants and contributions, $200,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Page 13-23, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, forest management, active positions. Any questions?

Seeing none, 13-24 and 13-25, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, operations expenditure summary, $15.286 million. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some questions here with regard to caribou management and caribou quotas and so on. I heard the Minister say when he responded to opening comments where he talked about the resident harvest and that there’s a possibility the resident harvest might be opened up in the fall of this year, of 2013. I didn’t hear him say anything about an opportunity for outfitters to have tags in the fall of 2013 or fall and winter 2013-14.

I am really concerned that our caribou hunt outfitters are in great distress. I know that they have had some assistance through the Sport Hunt Outfitters Marketing Program, but to have facilities sit and basically deteriorate over time through lack of use, that’s what most of them are doing.

It would seem to me that we should be able to provide some tags this fall for outfitters. My understanding, in speaking with the outfitters, is that they don’t want tags for the Bathurst herd. Not all of them, but the majority of them, from what I understand, don’t hunt the Bathurst caribou anyway. They hunt the Bluenose-East and the Ahiak herd. So it would seem to me that if we’re going to open up the Bluenose-East herd to resident hunters, we would also be able to open it up to outfitters and sport hunt outfitters.

So I’d like to know from the Minister, first of all, if there has been any consideration given to providing tags for the caribou outfitters, and I’m coming again from the perspective of a number of these businesses are within the city of Yellowknife. They may not necessarily be my constituents, but they are constituents certainly of other Yellowknife Members and, like I say, they are really struggling. Their businesses are quite likely to fold if we don’t get them some tags sometime soon. So, again, my question with regard to the possibility of providing some caribou tags to outfitters in the fall winter of 13-14. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding – and I’ll ask Mr. Campbell to speak further to this – is that the majority of outfitters that the Member is talking about harvest the Bathurst herd for the most part. We have commenced discussions with the various boards, with the Bluenose-East as well. We’re having discussions with Nunavut as well as the Beverly Qamanirjuaq Board and we’ll be talking to the appropriate Aboriginal governments, as well, about the Ahiak-Beverly herd and the numbers that have come in. At this point the restrictions in the Bathurst ban area are going to continue until the next census and the population count is done.

So chances are there will be no change to those conditions in the banned area, and we are working, as I indicated, with the various appropriate parties and governments and boards to review the resident hunter harvest as a first step towards getting back so that Northerners can all harvest, keeping in mind that before we can actually move to the full unrestricted harvest for everybody, we also have to be prepared to say the herds can sustain unrestricted Aboriginal harvest as well. So we have some careful steps that we do have to follow. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I’d ask Mr. Campbell to speak a little more specifically about the location of the various outfitters. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the Minister and the deputy minister. I want to emphasize that I am not asking on behalf of the outfitters for tags for the Bathurst caribou. That’s not what they’re asking. They’re asking for tags for the Bluenose-East, and I was pleased to hear the deputy minister mention Point Lake because that is one area, one outfitter who specifically believes that the Bluenose-East are near their camp and would like some tags for the Bluenose-East herd.

So it seems to me that we’ve got perhaps not a lack of communication per se, but a lack of full understanding of where each party stands, perhaps.

I guess my next question to the Minister would be whether or not he and the department would initiate a discussion with the outfitters, certainly the outfitters towards the northern end of the range, I guess. My real concern is that if we don’t get tags to the outfitters within this next 12 months, so to speak, that they’re going to fold. They cannot keep operating with no business and they have tried to diversify, but even the diversification has been a real struggle and they’re basically losing money every year.

The outfitting business was bringing millions and millions of dollars into Yellowknife and the NWT and we have lost that revenue. I think there’s still an opportunity to get it back. I think there’s still some interest in caribou hunts from the people that take advantage of it. Apparently they’re still getting requests from clients. Are there caribou tags? We want to come and do hunts. That interest is only going to last for a short period of time. Odds are pretty good that if there are no tags next winter and the winter after that, the inquiries are going to stop coming and then these guys are truly out of luck.

Will the department look at meeting with the outfitters that some of us Members have been talking to and seriously considering their request for a limited number of tags for the Bluenose-East herd in fall-winter 2013-2014?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue with the caribou is a wildlife management conservation issue first and foremost. As our system is set up, the Aboriginal subsistence harvest has priority, followed by the resident harvest and followed by outfitters, commercial harvesters. When there are any restrictions, when we have a voluntary harvest quota on the Bluenose-East, we have to be prepared to say that before we can open up outfitters’ harvest to the Bluenose-East, for example, we have to be prepared to say that the herd can sustain unrestricted Aboriginal harvest as well as the resident harvest, which used to be, at one time, five tags and has been reduced to one and then to none.

On the Ahiak-Beverly side, the east side, the same criteria apply, but that’s well outside the zone of any outfitters. That continues to be the reality before us here today.

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. 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.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

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?

Yes, at this point we’re consolidating and examining what the best tools are, and we’re also very interested in using northern tools in addition to strictly relying on the federal government who will soon be vacating the field anyways through devolution.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

Moving on with questions I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some quick follow-ups there. I know the Protected Areas Strategy is going through a number of five-year plans. I think the average to actually get a nominated area protected, should it be protected eventually, is in the area of 12 to 15 years. What is the general status of the Protected Areas Strategy? Where are we at? Perhaps that’s a question being asked in the reviews that are going on, but perhaps I could just pose it as what have we achieved of what we set out to achieve, and when can we expect to see the results of the reviews, and what input will committee have on those reviews?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this juncture, as I laid out for Ms. Bisaro, we’re consolidating and trying to make sure we have all these other broad planning pieces in place before we proceed any farther or faster with existing wildlife areas that have been nominated and definitely not adding any others at this point. I will ask the deputy minister if he could give some of the background information of the sites and any sort of catalogue of the work that’s been done over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that information. The regional land use programs are referred to on the narrative side of this and integrate environmental, social, cultural and economic interests. Obviously this would be important for our economic development and mineral development strategies and so on. What regional land use plans that do this integration do we have in place?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gwich’in Land Use Plan is complete. The Sahtu Land Use Plan is down to, I think, some final issues that are going to get resolved. I think that’s going to be concluded in the coming few months. The Deh Cho Land Use Plan,

of course, is a subject that we have been talking in the Deh Cho about and we are interested in seeing if we could come to a conclusion on that as well, keeping in mind that there are politics that have happened there with Edehzhie and the K’atlodeeche folks pulling out of the process. In the South and North Slave we have no land use planning underway that I’m aware of in any substantive nature.

I guess there’s the obvious concern that this government is pushing very hard on development of resource extraction and we’re doing this in the absence of these land use plans. Obviously we need to take a cautious approach in the absence of these plans. How is the weight being given to that cautious approach, just as in managing wildlife?

I point out, as well, that I looked over one. The Tlicho as well have concluded, I understand, their land use plan.

One of our priorities in this Assembly that has been handed down from Assembly to Assembly for 17 Assemblies now is the whole issue of the sustainability, the balance between economic development and the environment, the land, the water, the animals. We still have that as a fundamental principle that guides us. We’re spending an enormous amount of time and money and effort not only to look and see if we can support economic development, but we’re doing many, many things on the environmental side with alternative energies, with the work on water, with the work on wildlife, to make sure that both those areas get the attention they deserve.

In this forum here, the debate is always there, trying to make sure we have that balance and can demonstrate that. That is our ongoing commitment.

Just generally looking at this division, what proportion of our budget is going to land use plans, water and environmental assessment?

We have $4.699 million for land and water and $1.053 million for environmental assessment and monitoring.

What of those dollars are going to land use planning?

I don’t have that specific level of detail, but we are active, we have a full contingent at the Sahtu Land Use Planning Process, full contingent with the Deh Cho as we get back to that one, and we are fully engaged with our own staff, as well, concluding the land use and sustainability framework. We have a significant amount of time and our people and resources tied up, as well, on the water side, which is tied into land use planning, as well, I would submit.

Thanks for those comments from the Minister. On the environmental assessment monitoring side where we do screenings and then the higher level environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews, these are real opportunities to put conditions on projects. What sort of conditions are we pursuing in the order of greenhouse gas emissions to work towards the obvious need to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions in the Northwest Territories?

One of the biggest generators of greenhouse gases, of course, is the generation of energy. I would suggest to you as we come forward in the coming weeks with our plan for the hydro development transmission line and grid hookups so we could have available for resource development reasonably priced locally generated energy that will probably be one of the single biggest deterrents to the increase of greenhouse gases. We look and we don’t have to tell the resource operators like the mines, for example, which put in millions of dollars into wind energy how to cut their greenhouse gases because it’s money for them if they do. We want to encourage them to follow along the steps that Diavik did. Of course, conservation is one area where there’s huge opportunity to save money, because right now you can’t get away from using diesel.

We’re taking a very broad, comprehensive approach to this and we want to have the discussion not just on a project-by-project basis, but what we’re going to do as a government to make sure we provide those necessary critical services, and one of the most critical ones is reasonable energy that is as green as possible.

Thanks for the Minister’s comments there. I don’t think they’re very accurate, obviously. I guess I would like to ask the Minister, what has been the greenhouse gas reductions net reductions in these industry emissions in the Northwest Territories for whatever time frame he cares to talk about. I’m very happy to see Diavik taking a leadership role on their own, and I think they’re talking about 4 to 6 percent of their energy being from wind compared to zero from renewable energy. That’s significant. The opportunity, as the Minister said, is there in a way that saves money. It’s not being taken up. Just like people have difficulties with those front-end costs even though it’s clear that they save money doing it, as well as generate jobs, et cetera. I would be happy to have the Minister correct me and say, yes, this lackadaisical approach – do what you want to do out here with greenhouse gas emissions – has shown reductions. I’ve seen no evidence of it.

The Greenhouse Gas Strategy is a broad framework strategy and I’d point out that we have invested

millions in developing biomass first, the market, and now the industry. We are breaking good new ground on how we do solar. We’re looking at some major, major hydro initiatives with transmission, generation over the next five to 10 years that we want to finalize and come out with.

If you put all of those together, those are part of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy. The Greenhouse Gas Strategy is not sitting out there separate by itself. We’ve done all of these subsidiary strategies that allow us to meet the targets in that Greenhouse Gas Strategy. Plus we have industry on our own volition because it makes good economic sense, making significant advancements, for example, in wind.

So I think we’re anything but lackadaisical. I know we live in a cold climate, we do have a strong reliance on fossil fuels, but as a territory we’re taking very significant steps to reduce our reliance on that both for ourselves and the mid and longer term for industry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, your time has expired. I have no one else on the list. Would you like to have any questions now? Thank you. Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, land and water, operations expenditure summary, $5.752 million. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Page 13-30, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, land and water, grants and contributions, contributions, $550,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Page 13-31, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, land and water, active positions. Any questions?

Page 13-32, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, lease commitments - infrastructure. Are there any questions?

Seeing none, 13-33, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, Environment Fund. Any questions? Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just have one question here with regard to the surplus under the Environment Fund. It’s down quite a bit from the revised estimates figure for 2012-13, but it’s equal to pretty much the mains from ‘12-13, but it’s down quite a bit from the actuals in ‘11-12. I wondered if I can get an explanation on that as to the why. My

other question has to do with what do we do with this money? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that answer we’ll go to Ms. Magrum.

Thanks for the explanation, Ms. Magrum. So am I right in seeing, then, that there’s $2.3 million or so? As a closing balance that would be what the surplus is I think. What sorts of things do we use this for? That’s a fair bit of money. I understand we use it for something, but could I get a couple of examples of what we use it for? Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just one last question here. The Minister talked about moving on to e-waste I think in this next fiscal year. Of this $1.3 million that we have to play with, so to speak, is it currently specifically intended for e-waste or have we not yet decided what we’re going to do with this $1.3 million? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next major initiative that we spent some time getting ready to address is the e-waste one. As we sort out the arrangements with Alberta, and the costs and they’re going to accrue both for gathering the e-waste in the North and shipping it and doing the things we need to do, that money will come into play there as our next priority. Thank you.