Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just following up from Mr. Bromley’s questions, I know that I heard the Premier saying that I don’t think he could probably find too many people that wouldn’t suggest that we want devolution or want to take over more power of responsibilities from the federal government, but I think also the question is at what cost. I think that by approaching it the way we did, where we basically had a minority of people signing on and a majority of the Mackenzie Valley being left out, I think that is the issue in regard to how do we include those Aboriginal groups. I think that could have been avoided by allowing them full participation in those negotiations and from the information in regard to the United Nations Declaration or even the land claim agreements,
under definition the consultation is clearly spelled out. It’s got to be more than just meaningful, but you have to allow them the opportunity to review what’s being presented to them and also the opportunity to bring back their points of view and then from there continue to negotiate or work those issues into the table. From what we’ve seen, and again, I think that that’s the part that’s missing, are people, I mean, our interpretation of consultation is totally different than what’s spelled out in the different land claim agreements. Again, in land claim agreements it is clearly stipulated that those groups shall be involved in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord or, as we call it, the devolution process.
Again, I keep going back to my days in the Dene/Metis claim. We were negotiating with the federal government to negotiate participation agreements like those that are in the Inuvialuit Agreement and the NTI Agreement into the Dene/Metis claim. At that time the federal government was basically reluctant to do that, but they made it specifically clear and even in regard to the agreement that was signed in 1988 when Brian Mulroney was up here signing it, he also stipulated Rae-Edzo when they signed the Dene/Metis agreement-in-principle that you will be involved in the devolution or the Northern Accord process for the transfer of oil and gas and resource responsibilities to the Northwest Territories, and clearly stipulated loud and clear for the public to hear that. I was there.
But the way this process was handled and basically not having the majority of the members involved at the table negotiating those elements, and now we got an agreement that you’re trying to get people to sign on to, which basically has had issues with the principles that you signed off on and leaving other obligations. I’m glad that they had the Dene leadership meeting last week, because the information was provided in regard to the fiscal arrangements and looking at the overall Norman Wells and other issues in regard to transfer of positions. Those issues were broadcast live in the Northwest Territories where the public had an opportunity to hear them and those are the issues that are outstanding from the Aboriginal perspective.
Again, I think that for us to say that, well, everybody wanted devolution so we agreed to sign off with a minority and not realizing that you didn’t. Even as legislators, from the last presentation we got from the department, we were totally convinced that you were going to get the majority of the Aboriginal groups on side and you weren’t going to sign until that happened. But in this case it didn’t happen. I think that is the issue that’s still out there, is how can you sign an agreement with a minority and not a majority and say that you have support for that agreement.
Again, there are only two treaties in the Northwest Territories, Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, which are constitutionally protected, which recognize their rights in regard to lands and resources, and the Dene-Metis, clearly the Dene-Metis will receive royalties and resources throughout the Mackenzie Valley. It’s stipulated right in those agreements. It’s stipulated right in the treaties. The same with Norman Wells. Norman Wells, it’s stipulated in the land claim agreements which clearly identify that Norman Wells has to be part and parcel of these agreements. But again, under the subsurface resources section of our land claim agreements, those elements were supposed to be part and parcel of the devolution agreement. Again, it’s the how can we get some clarity on exactly how do we move forward on this knowing that the only options that the groups have moving forward is you have to sign the flawed agreement that you can’t agree to the principles, but yet in order to move on this you have to sign off on something that you know needs some revisions.
Again, I’d just like to ask the Minister exactly where are we in regard to finding a way of including those groups in regard to the implementation of those land claim agreements, those provisions of those agreements, regardless if it’s Section 21 in regard to the surface rights, revision of the Gwich’in Agreement or Section 23, the Tlicho Agreement, or even in regard to the Dene/Metis agreement-in-principle that was signed in 1988 between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, because I believe that those elements make it perfectly clear that Dene-Metis had to be included in the process right up to the negotiation of any agreement-in-principle and not to be brought into a minority situation where you have a minority signing agreement that’s going to have major implications to the majority of Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories, which is the Dene people.