Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I'd like to begin by I'd like to thank the Premier today who tabled the GNWT's territorial principles and interests, and I'm going to speak to that a bit in that in conjunction with this report. I think that's a great step, and I think this report is a great step in bringing some transparency to this issue.

I have spent lots of time, both in this committee and otherwise, trying to figure out and get to the heart of why we are not settling, I'm going to speak specifically and start with land claims, in the NWT most -- specifically the Akaitcho, Deh Cho, and Metis land claims which don't -- or still remain unsettled. And I think we, in this House, need to have this conversation much more often, and I don't think it's just on us. I think also Indigenous governments need to be having this conversation much more often. I think it needs to be clear when positions are being taken and why they are being taken. And today's territorial principles and interests are a step in that direction. I also think we have to acknowledge a bit of the reality we find ourselves in where we're approaching 20 years since the Tlicho Agreement which, to be honest, has not really even been fully implemented. So we have two decades of no progress in this area. And I think given what we have heard, I don't see us making any progress absent some serious and transformative change.

Some of those factors are not necessarily the GNWT's fault but they certainly -- the GNWT is responsible for upholding them.

One is the increasing complexity of land claims. We have moved a long way from the numbered treaties which were, you know, a few-page documents that you could get signed in a day, and every single modern treaty these days is thousands of pages and thousands of hours of lawyers working diligently at it. And it's becoming a reality that you just can't get one of those agreements done in an election term, whether you are a Premier or a chief or the prime minister.

Additionally, we've learned lessons from, you know, previous land claims where things have not been implemented and there's been debates about what they actually meant to say. And that increasing desire by GNWT means that we are really getting into the weeds in modern treaty negotiations. And I think when you combine those factors, it takes about a decade at least to get one of these. And we've seen, you know, with the Deh Cho, which had an agreement-in-principle, it's on draft, I forget, in the 40s now, and we are a long way from that agreement-in-principle actually informing a final agreement as different direction was taken each time by various political actors and negotiators.

And so when I think when you put all those factors together, we find ourselves in a position where we just are never going to settle another land claim in the NWT without some serious action taken. And, you know, this committee report doesn't speak to recommendations, but I think transparency is clearly one of them. There's a lot of good work by organizations such as Treaty Talks, making sure that members of their Indigenous nations and citizens of the NWT are aware of what's going, and I think there's a lot of education to make sure that people make these election issues.

I want to point out a couple of the GNWT's territorial principles and interests today and just colour them a little. And I think the question we have to ask ourselves is whether these are hills we're willing to die on politically.

One of the interests of the GNWT is that the open and public nature of communities in the Northwest Territories should be preserved. I think that's an understandable interest for a public government to have, but this is unique to the NWT in that any reserve down south now negotiating a land claim inherently doesn't have an open community. We all recognize and understand that I can't move on to the Salt River First Nation Reserve tomorrow. They have exclusive control of who resides in that community.

And I am unaware right now to the extent that this is, you know, one of those issues that can't be solved at the negotiating table, but I'll tell you it's one of those issues that if a specific community wanted to have a similar kind of closed nature for its citizens, that's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

Additionally, it is, as tabled today, a GNWT principle and objective that a single integrated coordinated system of resource management apply -- should apply throughout the Mackenzie Valley. This is essentially, you know, saying that we want the MVRMA to be the tool; we want Indigenous governments in signing new agreements to sign on to the MVRMA.

And, you know, I -- this is another one of those areas. I think it's understandable that this is somewhat of a GNWT interest that we continue with the comanagement system and we continue with, you know, interests of public bodies, but at the end of the day if this is one of the reasons, and I don't know, that we are not settling a land claim is that we have an Indigenous nation who does not view comanagement as the solution to managing land and resources, it -- I just simply do not think it's a hill that we should be willing to die on. And I think we really have to be having these political conversations because absent, you know, very large compromises being made, I think by the GNWT, and probably allowing a little bit more flexibility and, you know, allowing some uncertainty, we're not going to settle land claims.

I do want to point out that there is some great steps that have been taken. The Premier has directed that, you know, we don't have this unilateral approach to core principles and interests. That's a great step. The GNWT has made it explicit they are not asking for accede and surrender clauses anymore in land claims. That is long overdue.

I think there are some big questions outside of this core principles and interests we need to ask ourselves. Are we willing to open up existing agreements?

Some of the Indigenous governments who have existing settled agreements have a desire to have them reopened, to have those accede/surrender clauses removed perhaps, and to work on areas where that is disagreement. You know, I think we have to start exercising perhaps some of those amendment clauses in existing and settled agreements.

I guess I will leave it there. I want to thank the committee for their work. I want to thank all of the Indigenous governments and negotiators who presented.

Many of them have been at those tables for decades, Mr. Chair, and I hope that we can start having that conversation and make some compromises about, you know, how much land we actually want, how much money we're willing to give, where we're willing to kind of, you know, not take such a positional negotiating stance and hopefully, you know, have the next 20 years look a lot better than the last 20 have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.