Thank you, Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to second this motion. I've spoken to this issue a number of times in this House. Presently, right now, if you own a million-dollar home on the Ingraham Trail, you pay the exact same fees and you are under the exact same rules as a multigenerational cabin in the Inuvialuit settlement region. Mr. Speaker, land seizures is the same thing, and they clearly are not the same conversation. We need to separate those out. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways we can treat rights-based cabins. There is a number of creative solutions, and it's going to depend probably on the Indigenous government and the Indigenous person in question. One simple solution may be fee simple title for that harvester. Another case may be a new type of Indigenous tenure. I would suggest a 99-year lease with nominal fees and perhaps it could be transferred only to the Indigenous government itself or a fellow rights holder. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we have to go identify these leases and simply give them to the Indigenous government in that region so that it's no longer a public lands issue.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps some of these cabins should have been included in the initial final agreements in the first place. But here we are 40 years later after settling a land claim and this issue is still not resolved, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, until that issue is resolved, until there is an agreement between those Indigenous governments and the GNWT how to approach these leases, we should not be charging fees and we should not be taking these people to collections.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Lands knows this all too well. He knows there are people who entered into leases and then their Indigenous government has told them not to pay those fees. They have told them they do not have to pay those fees, and then we ruin their credit because they are listening to what they believe is their Indigenous right and what is their Indigenous right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Lands take a bare floor -- bare minimum view of what the current right to occupy land is. They say it does not include a right to permanent structures. Mr. Speaker, we have multigenerational trappers and harvesters who have permanent structures on public land. That is their right. We have to accept that. We have to move beyond this bare minimum approach to Indigenous rights. And the first step is pausing those fees and pausing those collections and resolving this issue once and for all, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I want to thank the Member from Inuvik Twin Lakes. I want to thank her Indigenous government for bringing this up. And I encourage the Department of Lands and the GNWT to listen and provide a solution to this. There is creative ways that we can make sure we are not ruining the credit of our Indigenous harvesters and trappers, and we are not putting them in the same bundle of rights in the same categories as settlers who want leases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's worthy to stand up today to support my colleagues from Inuvik Twin Lakes and Yellowknife North. And while I don't speak a lot about lands in this House here, and I'm thankful that they do, I do speak a lot about people and at the end of the day this comes down to people.

In the history of Canada, Mr. Speaker, we've often expected that Indigenous groups and Indigenous governments routinely need to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to see that their rights are respected and upheld. This is a costly, lengthy, and exhausting litigation process that is not fair to the people of Canada who are Indigenous people to this country and have their land settlement agreements that have already been worked on, have already been agreed upon, and have already spent decades and decades working on those agreements.

It is often the Supreme Court of Canada who, at the end of the day, needs to step in and then force Canadian jurisdictions to uphold and respect the intent of these treaties and these land settlement agreements. And this motion calls on the GNWT to pause the collection of current and new lease payments and fees for all Indigenous cabin leaseholders and to review their policies and procedures to ensure this government is upholding the words, efforts, and commitments that were made under these land settlement agreements.

I'm asking the GNWT to do what my colleague is asking and to recognize what is being asked ultimately by this motion and the Canadian precedents and expectation that Indigenous people constantly travel to the Supreme Court of Canada to see their rights and agreements upheld. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the mover and the seconder for bringing this motion forward. And I'm casting my mind back to the 18th Assembly when we dealt with the Public Land Act. And how this got started was we, of course, through devolution, GNWT inherited some federal land, at least the administration of it, and of course it had had its Commissioner's lands already. What the Minister of Lands of the day told us was that they were going to bring forward a bill to basically try to combine some aspects of the administration of those two pieces of legislation, to make it more consistent. But, poof, about a year later a Public Land Act arrived on our desk that wasn't just a kind of, you know, integrated some aspects. It basically was a repeal of the other two pieces of legislation and replaced. It's still not in force. But the preparation and development of that bill, there was very little public engagement around it and zero involvement from the Indigenous governments. And that's the root of this problem, Mr. Speaker, is the way that that bill was drafted. There was zero involvement with the Indigenous governments where this can and should have been fixed right from the start. Committee identified this because I just quickly scanned the SCEDE report on Bill 46. Committee identified this as a problem. We told the Minister that this was a problem. We tried to fix it. Indigenous governments identified it as a problem. But they wouldn't fix the bill. So this is the root of the problem, was it was not a co-drafted piece of legislation. Our government refused to incorporate the pre-existing rights that were already entrenched in land rights agreements. They refused to recognize and put that into the bill in the first place, or we wouldn't be here talking about this.

So I'm fine trying to fix this through the regulations, but the problem is with the law itself, Mr. Speaker, and that could and should have been fixed in the last Assembly, and that's why we're here still talking about it. So I want to make sure that this Cabinet actually fixes the problem with the legislation, not just the regulations. And if we had adopted the proper kind of UNDRIP lens that we're about to probably do maybe later in the life of this Assembly, that would prevent this from happening again, and we will also have the legislative development protocol with the Indigenous governments as a result of the Intergovernmental Council work. So this is a holdover problem from the last Assembly. It can and we did try to fix it in the last Assembly. The Cabinet of the day would not allow it to happen, and that's why we're in this mess right now. So I'm -- I'm really -- oh, I'm going to be curious to see what the response from this Cabinet is on this problem. And they need to fix the legislation, not just try to do it in regulations. Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Nunakput.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the mover and the seconder for bringing this forward. I think, as an Aboriginal born and raised in Tuktoyaktuk, I think it's pretty shameful on what's happening to any Aboriginal person across this territory, having to pay to be on our own land. And I always like to say we were here first. This government was formed in 1967 and at that time, we've been already here 40 years. And now we're having to have to pay to be on our own land as an Aboriginal person across our territory. I'd build a cabin anywhere I want and let them try to stop me in regards to that. The Inuvialuit land administration, we take care of our own in regards to -- in our land claim group and in our land, and we have 7(1)(a) lands that's allocated to the people of Tuk that we have them and the same thing with all across in my riding. I really think that Cabinet should try to work together to get this sorted out and why charge Aboriginal people fees to be on our own land? It's shameful in my -- the way I see it. And I think we should try to work together to get this resolved before this -- we're done sitting. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Nunakput. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as a former chief of the Salt River First Nation and was there for 14 years, I fully support this motion because I feel very strongly that the land claims settlements that are in place prevail over any other -- any other law, as the mover has explained in her explanation. And I firmly believe that this is the only way that we are going to go ahead with reconciliation, and I think that the government has an opportunity to make that right. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I fully support this motion, and I'm very happy that our non-Indigenous colleagues on this side of the House are also supporting our rights issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Thebacha. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, I -- as a former chief as well for the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, I also support this motion. Prior to 1990, the Dene-Metis claim, the GNWT wasn't really at the table. They weren't part of that process. But when it fell apart in Dettah in the fall of 1990 that gave way to the creation of other claims in the North, the Gwich'in, Sahtu -- Gwich'in. And prior to that, though, my colleague from Inuvik had talked about this motion. And their claim goes back even further. And those claims that are spirit and intent, you know, when we make -- like, when the treaty was made. You know, they had the chief and the Crown shaking hands. And that's the spirit and intent that we talk about, the treaties. And, again, we got to be careful too here is that, you know, this government, ever since they got devolution, they -- devolution was essentially the GNWT land claim agreement leading to provincial government. They want to become a province. And it's concerning. And my colleague also talked about this could be a challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada. And at the end of the day, these claims will prevail. And we have treaties. That's how this whole thing derived at. Don't forget this government here is born in 1967. You know, they weren't around when the treaties were made, and so we got to remember that. And so this motion here, I support this motion wholeheartedly as well. It's -- it hits home. In my riding, I mentioned this morning, that we have people that are being taxed and cabins and, you know, fees were outrageous now, and it went from Canada to the GNWT and the rates just continue to go up, administration fees have gone up and so on. Like, I mean, I get calls from elders a few months back on this. So, Mr. Speaker, I will support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Lands is currently undertaking a broad review of the land management regime with regards to the traditional use of camps and cabins on public land. We're engaging with Indigenous governments and Indigenous organizations across the NWT to look at an appropriate regime for camps and cabins that are used to support Aboriginal harvesting rights. Lease fees for such camps and cabins on leases are part of that broader discussion. This may be resolved through engagement and collaboration with Indigenous government partners, which is in process. I'm committed to complete this work and anticipate that discussions with Indigenous governments and Indigenous organizations will result in new approaches to the the management of rights-based cabins and camps that meet the interests of Indigenous governments and the GNWT. I will continue to work with my colleagues, work with my Cabinet colleagues to further consideration and prepare a response to this motion concerning shorter- and longer-term solutions collaboratively developed with the GNWT departments and Indigenous governments and organizations. Mr. Speaker, because of this, Cabinet will be abstaining from this vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. I'll allow the mover to close off debate. Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to my colleagues, and I hear the Minister. But, again, I just want to repeat I'm glad that they're working on all of this, and the motion is there to stop the fees and pause the fees so we have no more Indigenous people going to collections while you figure this out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.