I think the language we use here, it sometimes can help inflame the situation that we find ourselves in, to a certain degree. Not all of the regions are in disagreement. We know some are right now planning to hold some of their meetings. We’re in communications with them on a number of fronts around the devolution process and again offer up the meetings. We do have to follow up with a formal process. So there are calls going on to stay in touch and keep in touch with what some of the regions are planning, what they are saying out there or what we are hearing. But we will follow up formally with the letters, as I stated, with some of the revisions that I mentioned earlier.

As we look towards the future and do what we can within the next number of days and weeks, looking

at trying to schedule those community meetings that we can and get some acceptance of, we’re prepared to go in and have these information meetings so that people will be fully informed as we progress in our work plan as the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I think it is important to also recognize that as we’ve offered up through this whole process that at times there may not be agreement on some of the key issues. Some of the issues raised by some of the leaders as we’ve responded to are matters outside of the devolution of the authorities, right now practices by the federal government. They’re more matters of self-government negotiations or of amending land claims agreements, which this devolution agreement is not intended to do. We have to get that type of information out to the public as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for his statement, I guess. I appreciate the information. I certainly had no intention to inflame. It’s simply a query that has entered into my head and I’m glad to hear the Premier say that there are phone calls going on so there is some personal touch that’s happening with regional leaders. The more of that that happens, the better, in my mind.

One last question, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with the scheduled meeting for the Northern Leaders’ Forum in March. I wonder if the Premier could advise what the purpose of that meeting is. Thank you.

The Northern Leaders’ Forum is a side table to the regional leaders’ meetings that we had, we established, inviting other participants to be a part of the work we were doing on building a common vision. At our recent meeting we were presented materials from the Inuvialuit and the Metis, as well as the Association of Municipalities, and we are pulling that information together. Our response now is with that material. We’re sending it back to all of the participants, even those that were not there, as they were provided funds to be a part of this and we hope that although they were preoccupied with the days up to the agreement-in-principle, that they’ve got information that they can share or at least provide feedback on the information we have received. The basis of that meeting is to have that response from them as well as the others that did provide a formal response, to look at the next steps as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to my statement, I made reference to a letter that was sent on April 19

th

to the Premier on six

outstanding issues that the Gwich’in felt had to be addressed before they’d come back to the table. It clearly states that the Gwich’in were withdrawing, and also they were withdrawing the support for the signing of the agreement on May 19, 2007, because they felt it did not accommodate them in regard to the areas of concern.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it took almost seven months for the Premier to respond by way of a letter. Again, he commits to a lot in the letter, but it doesn’t really address the six outstanding issues that are mentioned in the letter that was forwarded to the Premier. So I’d like to know when are you going to deal with the six outstanding issues that the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council put forward in his letter of April 19, 2010.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve already mentioned this letter a number of times in this House by the Member and spoke to the reasons it’s taken so long, apologized for the delay in some of them, but with all the events happening, it was better to respond with a full deck of cards and positions and send those responses out.

In the letter that I sent back to the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, we touched on those issues that he raised. In fact, we spoke of the fact that a number of those issues were outside of the agreement-in-principle and would be better dealt with, as I was saying in an earlier response, through other tables and other discussions, or final agreements in other areas such as self-government.

We’ve responded to that letter and I know that the president may not be happy with that response, but it is our position that a number of those issues are outside of the agreement-in-principle. There are a number of issues raised in the letter that we feel are actually a part of the negotiations to go forward. For example, resource revenue sharing, that is part of the agreement-in-principle under Section 12 that talks about having bilaterals with Aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. So there are a number of areas that we address where we feel we could better deal with those as we go forward. We would work with all the leadership, giving them time to respond to the letters that were sent by the chief negotiators, as well as work on and sit down together to work on a protocol to see us go forward on the AIP. Unfortunately, that fell through at the eleventh hour, but hopefully with those principles that I believe are common to all the

parties, we’ll be able to use that and go forward in the next steps. Thank you.

Again, we ask for input from Aboriginal organizations. They put it in writing, they forward it to the government, we develop a protocol agreement, we have the Aboriginal governments assuming that they were going to have a say in the agreement-in-principle in regard to devolution. Again, that whole process collapsed on itself and I find it kind of odd. Is that a government stalling tactic to not allow the Aboriginal groups to be at the main table during this negotiation and eliminate them from having a real say at the negotiating table?

The Member knows, from his own history as a negotiator, there are times when the main table has participants there from different parties that share that responsibility, and there are times when it’s a team approach and the chief negotiator works with other groups as preparing for the main table so that the messaging is consistent. So we don’t need to go there and debate who has the actual say at the table. There are places in this agreement-in-principle where, in fact, it’s going to be a bilateral discussion between Aboriginal governments and the GNWT. So we’ll, in fact, be at the table across from each other negotiating the final, for example, resource revenue sharing bilateral agreements. There are areas where we’re going to have to work on the jurisdiction and sharing of responsibilities as we go forward in how they would work together where there are private settled lands and there’s the Crown lands that are being transferred and how that integration would work. So there’s that responsibility.

Let’s not forget, from the start of this process from 2001 forward, we’ve had the input from their negotiators, their legal people in the language that is throughout the AIP as it’s signed now. Thank you.

Again, I have to remind the Premier that we do have a legal and constitutional obligation to the land claim governments where the government clearly stipulates that they shall involve the Aboriginal governments in the development and implementation of a northern accord or a devolution agreement. That is on constitutionally protected land claims agreements. But yet, by submitting a letter with six outstanding issues that they wanted to address, which basically states that they are putting forward suggestions on how we can improve the agreement, and also include them in those discussions. So, again, I’d like to ask the Minister exactly why these six items were not taken to the main table of negotiations and put forward in front of the federal government, and why they had to wait seven months for a reply, knowing that

these issues won’t be discussed at the main negotiating table.

Quite clearly -- and I’ve shared this with regional leaders right from the earliest days as we received the letters from the chief negotiators -- there are some matters that have been brought to the table, brought to the negotiation teams, that were outside of the agreement-in-principle.

Let’s go back to what this agreement-in-principle is about. It is about what the federal government is making decisions on today with their present infrastructure, their present regime in place, it is about transferring that existing system over to us and once we have the authority as governments in the North, we will be able to influence and make changes to that regime that better reflect what we want to see as Northerners in that type of regime and legislation. So there is that process that will bring all the bodies back to the table to be a part of this process in dealing with those.

So the matters that the Member talks about in the initial letter -- division of power, responsibility and authority that has not been resolved between the Government of the NWT and Aboriginal governments -- well, chapter 6 sets that process up. The resource revenue sharing part, chapter 12 sets that process up. So this AIP incorporates that we will deal with a number of those key matters.

There are some purely bilateral issues between the federal government and the GNWT when it comes to the human resources and the staff of the federal government becoming staff of the Government of the Northwest Territories and then the new positions that we’d have to go and hire and the contract that’s in place that we’d have to work with, the HR side. That’s purely a bilateral issue with the GNWT.

So there’s a number of facets to this that we have to clearly identify, and that’s why we’re working on bringing the regional leaders back to the table so they can help us in some of that work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also, one of the items in the letter was the whole area of decentralizing government and the concern that they are raising is that it seems all the populated centres are the ones where all the policy analysts are, people that control those decision-making decisions and making them, knowing that those decisions are having effects on Aboriginal people and their traditional lands. I think it’s important to realize that decentralization is one of the issues that also was addressed in those suggestions and yet that’s not being discussed. I’d just like to propose, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier maybe he can get his staff to maybe have better contact with

the Gwich’in Tribal Council, because I know that in your cc’s you have a whole bunch of chiefs there that no longer are chiefs in those positions and vacated their positions last spring. So I’d like to know if maybe you can get your department to get out there and maybe know who those leaders really are.

We will continue to update our files on the different elected leaders throughout the Northwest Territories and we will continue to do that as we go forward. Yes, we will focus and make sure we have the right contacts. Of key importance is responding to the person writing the letter originally, and that is the president, and respond to that and go forward on that basis.

Again, as we’ve looked and done this work, it has been inclusive. We have had a seat at the table, whether it is at the bilateral working teams as we presented and even when it was purely a bilateral issue of the GNWT and federal government, we updated all the parties as to the positions and the outcomes of those discussions. We have been at all fronts working to incorporate the groups at the table. In fact, it wasn’t until this opportunity to sign this that some of the positions that are now out there were raised, not in the sense of negotiation positions but of the stance of not agreeing with the signing. For example, in the signed agreement I tabled here, the signatories for this agreement were at one time all in one. It was at the request of the Aboriginal members at the table who said they did not want to have that part of it, because they felt they had to have opportunity to address it at a different stage. That adjustment was made and that’s why the section about coming in whenever they’re ready to come in was put in place.

We’ve adjusted things, as we’ve gone forward, to try to incorporate as many of the changes, but some of the key ones that are being raised are either to be negotiated as we go forward or are outside of the mandate of the agreement-in-principle.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been through the process of working up to the AIP. We’ve heard some of the concerns. We’ve tried to address it through, for example, chapter 4, where we talk about protection of Aboriginal rights as concerns about those groups that have land claims and self-government that are in the negotiation process. We’ve incorporated the language in the signed AIP that sets out the protection and the wording and with the input of the representatives of the groups at the table to put in the language that protects Aboriginal rights. Certainly the fact that the Constitution itself stands and we respect all of those rights as we go forward. We’ve incorporated the language. I could go clause by clause to do this, but we’d use up all the time of the Assembly on this. We’ve incorporated the language to try to bring comfort to the groups that we will not take away any rights that are established out there. In fact, through this and chapter 6 we think we can grow together.

As for saying we will alter the agreement that has been signed, that is not the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories. We believe we can accommodate some of the issues as we go forward in setting our mandates for negotiations towards a final agreement in that. Again, that is why it is so important that the groups come back into the tent and join those that have been there and look at a way forward on this.

I’d like to thank the Premier for that answer. I think a deviation of the AIP is needed, but it’s apparent the government is not prepared to do that. According to the history, Aboriginal people are the true landowners of the Northwest Territories. Does the Premier acknowledge that the Aboriginal people are the true landowners and also landowners of the resources in that land?

The Canadian Constitution is clear about the agreements that have been signed and settled, and those that are... In fact, this agreement-in-principle goes clearly even into the areas where there are negotiations ongoing. The fact that both ourselves and the federal government have heard from the groups that are in negotiations, the clause that’s in there that the federal government can come back in and reach into those Crown lands that have been transferred to the GNWT and alter that so that the

groups negotiating aren’t squeezed into a box that has been predetermined. It leaves that open for future negotiations as we go forward.

As the Government of the Northwest Territories, the agreements that have been signed, the language in this agreement-in-principle clearly states that we recognize those rights and authorities that are established.

On January 13, 2011, Aboriginal governments presented a protocol agreement to the Minister. The Premier had made some changes and presented it back to the Aboriginal governments. The Aboriginal governments didn’t accept that. Is the Premier prepared to go back to Aboriginals and seriously consider the protocol agreement that was sent to him in its form on January 13, 2011?

The protocol agreement that we helped in the process -- mind you, we were given a final draft copy late and let’s realize that a protocol is worked on with all partners -- we helped and supported the protocol work of the regional groups. I’d asked at a number of meetings if we would be provided an early draft so that we could respond, if there were concerns with the language that was in there that would not work with us. Unfortunately, we were given a final draft, we had to respond quickly. As I was open with the leaders that I met with and the technical staff that they had that I met with on January 6

th

saying that it was the

last week of January that we were aware that Minister Duncan was coming up and we were planning to work on an agreement-in-principle signing and hopefully we would have the protocol at least initialled by the groups and a way forward. Clearly, the protocol that was written had language in it that said if we signed it, we would not sign an agreement-in-principle, that there needed to be some of the key issues, as they felt, negotiated first; which was the Constitution, which was resource revenue sharing, which was power sharing, which all have their place but have their place in a negotiation process.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.