Mr. Speaker, I moved this motion for the following reason, and the most important reason I see to ensure is that our policies and legislation are consistent with final agreements, provisions, as well as the spirit and intent of those agreements. Those agreements I speak of, colleagues, were actually -- we are actually signatories to those agreements.
Mr. Speaker, an example of what I'm referring to is in my region. We have the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, an agreement that is constitutionally-protected, an agreement that provides for certain rights to Inuvialuit to access and establish camps as part of exercising their right to harvest, an agreement that we as the GNWT signed.
Some of the relevant provisions from the IFA include -- and I will be reading legislation because that's what we do in this House -- under section 14, wildlife harvesting and management,
Section 14.(6): This agreement provides the Inuvialuit with certain harvesting rights to wildlife in the Western Arctic region. The exercise of Inuvialuit rights to harvest is subject to laws of general application respecting public safety and conservation.
Then, in section 14.(23), the provision of subsection 12.(36), 12.(37), and 12.(38), and (40) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to harvest of wildlife under this section.
Mr. Speaker, when we read these documents, like the land claim, we have to jump around to understand and clearly interpret what is being said in other sections. So let's skip to the section that's being referenced.
In this section, it talks about the national park on the North Slope but let's remember 14.(23) said that in the section of that -- this applies to the section 14 that I just read, and then this section speaks to the Inuvialuit settlement region and historical harvesting areas.
12.(36): the right to harvest game includes the right to use present and traditional methods of harvesting and the right to possess and use all equipment reasonably needed to exercise that right subject to international agreements with Canada, is a party to the laws of general application respecting public safety and conservation.
12.(37): Subject to subsection (38), the right to harvest game includes the right to travel and establish camps as necessary to exercise that right.
12.(39): The Inuvialuit not need to obtain permits, licenses, or other authorizations to harvest game but may be required to show proof of status as Inuvialuit beneficiaries where, for the purpose of conservation, permits, licenses, or other authorizations are required by appropriate Ministers or on the recommendation of the Wildlife Management Advisory Council or the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. The Inuvialuit should have the right to receive such permits, licenses, or other authorizations from the local authority at no cost.
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement specifically states that the Inuvialuit need not pay fees to exercise their right to harvest, colleagues, including their rights to establish camps. We can't and should not be passing legislation or regulations that are inconsistent with final agreements and treaty rights.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak to the devolution agreement for lands and resources in the NWT. This devolution agreement is the father of our lands agreement as we did not have lands in the GNWT until devolution.
And in that agreement, the paramouncy 2.(4): Nothing in this agreement shall be construed so as to prevent an Act of Parliament from prevailing over territorial legislation to the extent of any conflict between them. It speaks to Aboriginal rights and interests. It also has a section where it states conflict with land claim agreements or self-government agreements.
2.(36): In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this agreement and a settlement agreement or a self-government agreement or a land claim agreement within the meaning of the section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, the settlement agreement, self-government agreement, or land claim agreement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
How much more clearer does this need to be for GNWT to recognize these rights already exist and apply? Why are we not following the final agreements and the devolution agreement; both agreements we have signed. Surely the people of the Northwest Territories and the Indigenous people of the NWT expect the government to follow and uphold them. I do, as an MLA elected to this legislature.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of fees being charged to Indigenous people to access lands and establish camps that they've been using for thousands of years is just plain wrong.
I understand the importance of land management. I understand the importance of knowing what is happening on public lands. What I don't understand or accept is why we are purposely going against negotiated and finalized agreement provisions. If people want to enter into leases, that is totally up to them. I'm not against leases. I'm against charging Indigenous people fees for those leases. In my view, if an Indigenous person wants to enter into a lease, that's totally fine, but it should be at no cost as per our agreement with Indigenous people.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a time for GNWT to try and renegotiate rights that have already been done.
Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves when we are dealing with things of these nature, where are we going with this and when is this going to stop? While lease fees may seem like not a big issue, in fact it is. There's a larger question that we need to ask ourselves. Do we continue to go against final agreements and treaty to collect fees from Indigenous people? Do we continue to send Indigenous people to collection and threaten them with legal action for exercising their Indigenous rights? Why such a heavy hand, Mr. Speaker? Is charging of fees and going against agreement that we as government made as part of the definition of what GNWT thinks reconciliation is with Indigenous people? I think one way of starting on the road to reconciliation, a basic and easy way, is to simply follow these existing agreements, get rid of these fees for leases for Indigenous people. They were here long before us and have negotiated agreements and are in process of negotiating agreements within the spirit and intent of peace and friendship. We have to honour those agreements and treaty rights. This must apply across the North.
Mr. Speaker, whether this is just growing pains of devolution, and maybe it was unintentional, but it's time for us to fix this. And I hope my colleagues from across the floor hear me and have heard what I've had to say, and if not, and if they wish to discuss this further, I welcome all discussions and debate on this topic.
I also hope that Cabinet will ensure that if and when regulations for the Lands Act come before them to ensure that they are using the UNDRIP lens and ensure that they do not go against any current agreements and Aboriginal land rights.
I also ask for a recorded vote, and I ask you all to support this motion, and let's stop chipping away at Indigenous rights and start by stop charging fees for leases to Indigenous people of the North for exercising their right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.