Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what the Member is suggesting is worth considering. I have just got the file recently, assigned to myself from the Premier. One of the more recent developments is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is an Act that is going to send out a management regime for land and water in the Mackenzie Valley. Much the same way, in the spirit of the original, in the government proposal that suggest that the Dene at the time, who wanted to govern themselves as a unit and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, simply proposes to set up land use planning, water and or regimes in keeping with that, we do not become vulcanized.
There is some consistency in the coordination up and down the Valley. Devolution fits in there because it would see us coming up with a single regime, a simple single set of rules for instance, oil and gas exploration for revenue sharing, mineral exploration, as well as management for inland waters and land in the Mackenzie Valley. What the difficulty is, is in the Inuvialuit region where there is a claim that is settled, the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. In those cases, for instance, the people there have land use planning capability, under their claim and under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The Deh Cho would not have the capacity, nor would the Dogribs or the South Slave. They would get that through the provisions of the claims that they have yet to negotiate.
Devolution would basically provide an opportunity for two things. To all citizens of the Northwest Territories, it would provide us with a chance to have management control over land and waters and access to benefits, royalties from those resources. It also gives us an opportunity as aboriginal people to negotiate specific things for ourselves and to make it fit into whatever claim provisions that were negotiated. That is how I think people see the Northern Accord. Unfortunately, some of the aboriginal people simply do not want to proceed with this until it becomes clear to them what it is that they want and clear to them what it is that they might be able to get in the claims negotiations with the federal government. So, in many cases, they simply said no to the notion of devolution at this time.
One of the thoughts I have had is that there are really two questions we are putting to the aboriginal people. One is, as a citizen of the Northwest Territories, do you see benefit in proceeding with devolution at this time? And I would have to say that I think if a substantive case can be made that it is to the benefit of everybody that we get management control and ownership over our resources, our land, our water, our minerals, our oil and gas. All we have to do is figure out how we are going to do it together. The other question that is specific to aboriginal people is, can this be done in a way that will enhance and not undermine or threaten your rights as an aboriginal person? There, perhaps, it is too befuddling. In many cases it is not clear enough and so it prevents people from answering the question. It is my view that if we can proceed we need to clarify those two things. Perhaps we can if the answer to the first instance is generally yes, then that would be sufficient for me to proceed even if the answer to the second question is no. If we can find provisions that would provide for the protection of unsettled, unclarified aboriginal treaty rights. That should be the basis on which to proceed. But these are just my initial thinking at this time and we would have to, in any case, make my case to the aboriginal leaders and then proceed from there. Thank you.