Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too, like Mr. Menicoche, strongly feel that this government has to work with the interested parties regardless if they sign on or not, and we still have to find a compromise, find a middle ground, find an area we can work from. I was hoping that prior to signing we were going on the right track with the protocol agreement being signed, the Premier meeting with the Aboriginal governments in Edmonton and more importantly the Aboriginal groups had an opportunity to look at their different positions. I think because of what has happened, we were all under the impression that we were going to try to get a majority of the Aboriginal groups on side before any signing took place. Again, that didn’t happen.
So regardless of whether they’re here today, we’re still in a bad spot in regard to trying to find an arrangement where we can work with our Aboriginal partners to find a way to work around this. I know there's been situations in the past and what I was suggesting prior to the signing for Ministers is to consider an agreement-in-principle and attach the Protocol Agreement as a secondary agreement to the signing where you could come at it from both sides. I know in the Dene/Metis process we never always agree, but we always try to have wording in it that allows the room to look at either the extinguishment clause or looking at the overall interests in regard to treaty aspects. You are dealing with a complicated process here where you have settled claims, you have unsettled claims, you have treaty rights and I think you’ve got to be realistic that it is a complicated arrangement. I think we also have to realize we have constitutional obligations to consult, regardless if it’s morally, physically or basically, well, you signed, and you didn’t, so I’ll pay the person that signed but I’m not going to give any money to the person that didn’t. Regardless of that, the government has an obligation under the land claim agreements, especially in the Gwich’in Agreement, the Sahtu Agreement, the Tlicho Agreement, that they have to involve those groups in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord. The development implementation means that you revisit the document that you signed, subject to those
areas of interest and I think it’s pretty clear going to the different court cases that consultation is more than simply saying, well, I went to your regional assembly, or I went to a band meeting. It’s got to be meaningful; meaningful in the confines of actually having an opportunity to sit down with your lawyers, look at the documents, see exactly does that meet the expectations of the people you represent and, more importantly, moving forward.
So I’d just like to ask the Premier, in light of the responses you gave to Mr. Menicoche, is there that opportunity still out there for that type of dialogue to take place? It can happen in a whole different venue than the Northern Leaders’ Forum, but I think sitting through the Dene Nation leadership meetings, they are trying to compromise, they are trying to find a venue where they can develop a working group, a working group similar to the group that was in place to develop the political accord or political protocol so you have representatives from the different interest groups and you’re able to sit down and format your positions. If that means starting from the protocol, for me that means at least let’s meet them somewhere. I’d again like to ask the Premier if he can consider that as a possibility going forward. We still have a table to play on, which is the Northern Leaders’ Forum. It still exists. There are still funds that have been allocated to that format. I know for a fact that we have $50,000 from the Members on this side of the House to partake of that process. We haven’t spent that. I’d like to know if that is an area we can consider in light of where we’re at with the devolution talks.