Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the reason for the report was to prepare for division, that the elections and the electoral boundaries have to reflect that division is going to happen in 1999, and that the constituencies be realigned for that. Within the western territory, what we have seen is the different electoral boundaries, constituency boundaries, being realigned accepting where the settlement boundaries are for each successive settlement. Federal legislation passed in Parliament now specifies exactly where settlement boundaries are of the Inuvialuit, of the Gwich'in, and of the Dene and Metis of the Sahtu.
These settlement area boundaries are set out in legislation, so whether or not we have political problems with them, they are in fact set in law. To suggest that any one constituency, the constituency of Nahendeh should be allowed, for political expediency to not recognize that reality, should then mean that we don't recognize the boundaries as set out in all the other regions.
That's the difficulty I had with it. The regions of the Sahtu Dene and Metis in their claim are set out in federal legislation. The Electoral Boundaries Commission has simply found it logical to suggest, as we have done in other constituencies, that we should also recognize that fact. We should recognize that all the boundaries...The boundary to divide Nunavut from the western part of the territory was, in large part, negotiated. Neither side was totally happy with the boundary, but it is probably one of the longest running boundaries in the world, as negotiated between two people who are not even governments of the country where the boundaries run.
The boundary between the Gwich'in and the Inuvialuit, the boundary between the Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene were both negotiated and both sides sat down over a number of meetings and hammered out a boundary that was acceptable to everyone at the end. The Sahtu Dene did the same with the Dogrib and they intended to do the same with the chiefs and the Metis leaders of the Deh Cho first nations. The fact is, there were a number of meetings arranged; three meetings that I know of. The first two were attended, at the third meeting, the Deh Cho leaders walked out, and at the fourth they chose not even to show up. There was a pending settlement on the horizon and I believe both sides had to make an effort to come to some sort of agreement.
It generally followed the land use boundary that was tabled and accepted before regional claims occurred, when the Dene and Metis tabled their land use areas with the federal government in the early 1980s. There is recognition that some Dene people from Fort Norman who purport to represent the mountain Dene of Fort Norman received great political hype from the Deh Cho by saying that all Mountain Dene of Fort Norman have now joined the Deh Cho First Nations. The fact
is, these Mountain Dene, amongst many others in Fort Norman, voted to ratify the Dene/Metis Sahtu regional claim.
The Sahtu Dene are still part of the Fort Norman band and the only legitimate representatives of these people are the chief and council of the Fort Norman band. No one else can legally represent the treaty Dene of the Fort Norman band. It simply cannot be done, although you can make some political posturing to say otherwise. That is a recognized fact, not only by the Government of Canada and this government as well, but by the Dene, themselves. It is only a duly elected or appointed chief who represents the membership. I think the Deh Cho people make a mockery by suggesting otherwise. That is a resentment that many people in the Sahtu have towards the Deh Cho.
There is work to be done, the boundary needed to be done properly and it wasn't, so now it is settled in legislation. It is unfortunate. I know that in one case, the Deh Cho First Nations put a proposal on the table that said they were claiming lands right up to 30 miles of Fort Good Hope, land that has a cabin of one of the former chiefs of Fort Good Hope sitting right on it. You go up the river, go around the corner, and the Deh Cho boundary would be there. That gives you some idea of the difficulties and, perhaps, the unrealistic positions taken during these negotiations.
It is my view, in any case, that if this amendment is supported, then all the boundaries should be realigned as well. The logic behind this is not there. It is simply that the boundaries of the Sahtu are realigned to reflect the regional boundaries set out in federal legislation already. I recognize that it is possible, if the Deh Cho approach Sahtu leaders to change the line, that that can be done. If the Sahtu Dene agree there is some reason to change the line and the Deh Cho are flexible enough to make it worthwhile, it is not impossible to do. I'm not certain that the way the boundary is, is to the total satisfaction of the Sahtu Dene and Metis either. So, there is, I believe, some flexibility.
But I know, at this time, it is not in the works because as far as the Sahtu is concerned, it is finished. But, if the Deh Cho wants to revisit it, they have to make some overtures to people they have offended. Thank you.