Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that’s the whole problem with these dollars that we’re being asked to approve here, because it does not really deal with the problem at hand, and more importantly, it does not basically justify spending this type of money on a process that, as you know, is flawed. When you have a flawed negotiated process, you’re going to have a flawed result.

I think that we have to realize that as important items such as devolution of the Northwest Territories that we as legislators, as government, have an obligation, regardless if it’s through a constitutional obligation or as a moral obligation, to ensure that all parties that are affected… We’re hearing in the Wildlife Act there are certain groups out there saying they weren’t consulted. We’re hearing it here again today. These groups have a legal obligation to be at that table. They have a moral obligation to be involved in the drafting of the Northern Accord.

I was involved in 1988 when we negotiated the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle, signed it off. The same day the federal Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, signed an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories that morning. That afternoon he signed the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle because the two agreements were combined to ensure that we’d have that ability to negotiate those agreements.

The Inuvialuit, they got it made. They got a participation agreement in their land claim agreements. The Dene groups do not have that in the process and we were told the only way you’re going to get that is through a devolution or Northern Accord agreement negotiating those elements into those agreements to make them basically have the same standing as the Inuvialuit have by way of participation agreements. The same with NTI. That is why it’s so critical that the Dene people be involved in this process and not be stepped on the sidelines and have a group who already have something that’s negotiated on their behalf on lands that they own and not be at the table.

I mean, for me this is a political hot potato that’s going to blow up not only with this government but

the next government, and this is the legacy that this government wants to leave. For me, this is definitely a legacy that’s going to be tarred to this 16th Assembly going forward.

I think it’s critical that you do re-profile these dollars to find a mechanism that you can either send it to a dispute system or have an arbitrator or have someone basically formulate a mechanism that you have side room discussions with these groups. But simply ignoring them and saying, well, you have one choice, you sign this bad agreement, you come to the table and we’ll give you $170,000. Sure, that sounds like a great idea, but I don’t think people are going to sell their rights for the sake of $170,000 where they know they have the legal right to basically have this thing overturned in future years either through the court process or by not having the final agreement that you’re trying to sign off and none of those parties at the table. There’s no damn way you’re going to sign a final agreement without having those parties at the table. It’s either you deal with it now or you basically forget about going forward.

I think by the approach that you’re taking, by the hardhat approach of trying to ram this thing through for the sake of two Aboriginal groups and forgetting that there’s seven and leaving the other five groups on the sidelines who have more rights by way of legal rights through Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, to basically do what you’re doing by way of taking or arbitrating a process that basically you know is flawed.

Again, I’d like to ask, out of the two-point-something million dollars, can any of those dollars be reallocated to allow for side table negotiations to take place during the duration of these expenditures being funded? You’re still dealing with the same aspect, but you’re looking at it by trying to get the parties to the table and also by saving face in this process. Thank you.