Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government of the Northwest Territories is only partway through a process on a devolution agreement-in-principal that has not yet concluded. Cabinet has not yet formally considered the proposed agreement-in-principle and we are still waiting to hear from aboriginal governments. While we have not made a final decision about next steps, I believe that it is important to take some time now to speak to some of the misconceptions and misinformation that have arisen since the leak of the proposed AIP a little more than a week ago.
Much has been said and reported in the media over the last week about the supposed impact of devolution on existing land claims and current land resources and self-government negotiations. There’s been speculation that the draft devolution agreement-in-principle somehow prejudices current aboriginal rights negotiations and that governments would be violating existing land claims agreements if the draft devolution agreement-in-principle were to be approved. Nothing is further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my statement today to provide information on this subject in an effort to support the discussion that is grounded in fact.
First of all, the land claim agreements are modern treaties and, therefore, constitutionally protected. In concrete terms, that means if there were a conflict between a devolution agreement and a land claim, the land claim prevails.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that existing land claim agreements anticipated
devolution. The Gwich’in, Sahtu and Tlicho agreements include statements that nothing in the land claim will prejudice the devolution of jurisdictions from Canada to the GNWT. It is important to understand this demonstrates that land claim agreements were never intended to prevent the devolution of authorities from Canada to the GNWT.
The GNWT has made commitments to the aboriginal parties to involve them in devolution negotiations. The GNWT has fully honoured these commitments and will continue to do so.
And, Mr. Speaker, the draft devolution agreement-in-principle includes specific protections for existing aboriginal treaty rights and settlements as well as future settlements.
It is important to understand that current regional land resources and self-government negotiations are based on, or a regionalization of, the 1990 unratified draft Final Dene-Metis Agreement. What that means in concrete terms is that land and cash offers are based on the unratified Dene-Metis Agreement. Devolution has no influence or effect on Canada’s offer at negotiations regarding land and cash.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to clarify statements that the subject matters for negotiation in devolution talks are the same as those in self-government negotiations. Simply put, that is not true. First of all, devolution deals with administration and control over Crown lands. Land claim agreements and self-government agreements address the aboriginal party’s authority to administer and control settlement land. Land claim agreements also address the land, water and environmental regulation throughout the settlement area.
This regulatory regime applies to all parties who own land, be it settlement corporations, aboriginal governments, other third parties, or the federal government or the GNWT as it administers Crown land. The single integrated system of resource management throughout the Mackenzie Valley was a central feature of the draft Dene-Metis Final Agreement and nothing in a devolution agreement can affect that.
Furthermore, the focus of self-government negotiation is in areas such as education, social assistance, child protection, adoption and social
housing. Devolution negotiations, on the other hand, only address the powers and authorities of a public government to administer and control public land.
I would like to assure Members of this House, the public, and our aboriginal partners that the ownership of land and resources, both surface and subsurface, recognized under existing or future land claims will not be jeopardized by a devolution agreement. Aboriginal people, through their claimant organizations, will continue to be significant landowners in this Territory. With or without devolution, the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Sahtu, and Tlicho will all continue to own the surface and subsurface lands identified in their respective agreements.
In addition, the Gwich’in, Sahtu, and Tlicho agreements have specific chapters dealing with resource royalties that already provide them a share of all resource royalties collected throughout the Mackenzie Valley. Additional resource revenues will be offered to aboriginal governments as part of our final agreement on devolution.
I believe we may have the basis for a deal on devolution that will create real benefits and opportunities, that will bring decision-making about the North to the North for all residents of the Northwest Territories. In the next few days you will hear more from me and other Ministers on the subject of net fiscal benefit, environmental protection, aboriginal participation in negotiations and A-base funding. I trust that the information we provide will contribute to an informed discussion as we consider the merits of the proposed AIP and our next steps over the coming days and weeks.
