Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a long history with this whole process going back to 1988 when we negotiated this subsurface resource section into back then the Dene/Metis claim, which was fundamental to the process. Like I keep mentioning in this House, there are certain elements that are in other land claims we couldn’t get. I think the key to that was that, especially participation agreements that the Inuvialuit enjoy today where industry has to negotiate with them directly in regard to dealing with benefit agreements, economic measures, being able to ensure that they have contracting preferential policies and procedures, and more importantly, ensuring that they have the ability to directly negotiate these arrangements.
But in regard to the Dene/Metis, we were told by the federal government and the GNWT negotiators, don’t worry, you’re going to get through the devolution or Northern Accord agreement, and you’ll negotiate at that time, and that’s why they included “shall be included” in those negotiations in the future. I find it kind of odd that the elements of what people are talking about, even back then, it was pretty clear that the Dene had concerns about lands being opened up regardless of what we saw back in the early ‘60s and ‘70s where industry came in and simply bulldozed their way into the Northwest Territories, cut lines all over the place, didn’t get permission, did whatever they wanted. That was the way people were relating to oil and gas development in the Northwest Territories.
That’s why they insisted before any lands were opened up in the Northwest Territories, that they had to have some assurances that they will be involved early enough in the developments before
any rights issuances were given, that there were going to be arrangements made through benefits plans or developing terms and conditions that can be attached to those types of developments. Again, where that was going to happen was going to be in the Northern Accord agreement and what we call the Devolution Agreement.
Most of those elements are spelled out in the different land claims agreements regarding the subsurface resource section of the land claim agreements and it also talks about other provisions that can be added as they felt fit. I think a lot of Dene/Metis agreements, people don’t realize but the Norman Wells proven area is part and parcel of the Dene/Metis land claim. It’s part and parcel of the Gwich’in Agreement. It’s part and parcel of the Sahtu Agreement. The Norman Wells Proven Area Agreement is an agreement that was signed by the Government of Canada and Imperial Oil in 1944. The aspects of those agreements are what gave the Dene/Metis royalty rights from that area, and the big thing for people up and down the valley, especially the Dene people, is what is going to happen to Norman Wells when they have to clean up this mess. You’re talking about a major area that’s been developed over 70 years. There is going to be some major environmental effects. What’s going to happen to the islands? Because of that, that is still part and parcel of these agreements but it’s only in the Dene/Metis Agreement. That’s why the Dene are finding it odd. How come Norman Wells wasn’t part of this agreement because it is in their land claim agreement? They still have the right to negotiate those aspects into a devolution agreement.
I think also looking at the whole aspect of the Dene/Metis, like I stated, in the drafting and negotiations we had all the parties at negotiations that I was last at, which was 1995, where we negotiated the framework for the agreement. We were even talking about how we were going to fund self-government agreements. All the parties were in the room together in Calgary. All the regions were involved in these negotiations, from the Inuvialuit to people from Nunavut. We were all at the negotiating table developing agreements that we can all be part of. We did it. At least efforts were made to include every group that was out there, gave them the resources to negotiate these things. Again, it was the Government of the Northwest Territories that called an election and everything was off the table.
Again, I think it’s important that we find a way to work our way through this situation and ensure that we find a mechanism that will bring the parties together, find those fundamental differences of opinions regardless of differences of legal stature or what is in the land claim agreements, the access and benefits agreements, what is in the Norman Wells Proven Area Agreement.
I think that at the end of the day we will have a better agreement than we have now. I think it’s better that we go there as partners combating the federal government so we can get a better deal for the people of the Northwest Territories, but we can’t do it when we’re not even allowing the key player of this agreement to be full participants. We have to find every which way that we can.
With regard to the motion to establishing a national devolution commission, we have had different commissions established in the past. We do have the ability, through legislation, to formulate commissions and I think we have the legal tools to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude with hoping all the other Members, regardless of where we’re from, we have to realize we have an obligation to find solutions out of areas that we have some disagreements with, but find mechanisms that move us forward and not continue to separate us and put us farther apart.
Mr. Speaker, I will hopefully leave with having this motion pass so we can tell the Aboriginal groups and send a message that we are willing to find a mechanism to help work us through this and move this devolution process forward so it is inclusive and we do have all the parties at the table. Mahsi.