Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the famous wildlife ordinance of 1978, better known as the Wildlife Act.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

1. How does the Premier explain the lack of Dene

participation in the Devolution Agreement-in-Principle with the federal government?

2. What is the Premier doing to advance talks on

devolution with the Gwich’in and other Dene organizations that are currently outside the process?

3. In what areas is the government willing to push

for an improved devolution package that would satisfy the concerns of Dene governments?

4. What will the Premier do to ensure that the

Government of the Northwest Territories meets its obligations as set out in land claim agreements and ongoing negotiations on the devolution package?

Thank you. Again, I’d like to thank the Premier for that. I know that we can’t sort of impose on the new government, but I think we can strongly suggest or recommend that they seriously consider this as being one of their priorities. So I’d like to ask the Premier, is that something that the government can suggest that they seriously consider this as a top priority of this government to the next government.

Thank you. I think it’s more important to find a way to implement our strategy than simply doing strategies, and I think it’s important that we do emphasise the importance of this work, and more importantly, implement it, put it into action and find ways to pull people out of poverty and turn the Northwest Territories economy around. So I’d like to ask the Premier are there any types of investments that are also going to be suggested on where we can find resources to either implement or give the new government an idea of things that they can do to implement this strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are directed to the Premier. It’s in regard to my Member’s statement and the importance of dealing with poverty in the North, but more importantly, getting the government to move on an Anti-Poverty Strategy and implementing the strategy and not just look at doing another study.

I’d like to ask the Premier, as the transitional process takes fold, where in the list of items being transferred to the new government and part of the transitional document is the poverty situation in the Northwest Territories. I think it has to be on top of the list. So I’d like to ask the Premier where is the government on the Anti-Poverty Strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We hear a lot about the riches of the Northwest Territories by way of our resources, but we are poor by way of the people that live in poverty in the Northwest Territories.

The social and economic standards of people throughout the Northwest Territories, regardless if it’s native people who live in the North with an average income of $18,000 or people in the North who are having health issues because of their diabetes or liver disease or ailments by way of poor health care or the lack of health care services in a lot of our communities. The challenges we have by mental health and addiction challenges all stem from poverty.

I believe that as a government we have to realize that poverty is a man-made element. It is man-made and can be prevented by man. Poverty in the Northwest Territories can be overcome by ensuring that the levels of services to people in the Northwest Territories who are in poverty by increasing the cost of living and increasing the services that’s being provided regardless if it’s health care or in the area of education, ensuring that the services that we are providing is getting them out of poverty and keeping them out of poverty and not continue to put them into a justice system that they continue with the revolving door scenario in which they get into jail, they get out of jail, they end up at Salvation Army or they end up on the streets or being homeless.

All I ask of the 17th Assembly is to make poverty

one of their top priorities and ensure the next Assembly really deals with the problem in northern Canada and get the potential that we have, who are the people. One of the most valuable assets we have as a society is people. Everyone has the right to housing, to food, and to dignity. Only then will we see the richness of the Northwest Territories by way of the richness in our people.

With that, I would like to leave by stating I would like to thank yourself, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Roland. I look forward to seeing you on the golf course. More importantly, thanking the other Members for serving with you over the last number of years, and I wish you all the best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the bill is there is money that’s been designated for the devolution process in regard to those negotiations, yet there’s no money in there that allows for other groups to take part except for $170,000, which is for the Inuvialuit and the Metis to partake in those negotiations, but no resources for other groups to participate. Hearing the Premier speak in regard to the devolution process, he’s saying that there’s money there for the people to come to the table. My understanding of the bill is there is no money for other groups to participate, so how can we be telling people in the public that there’s money there for the Aboriginal groups to participate, especially for those groups up and down the valley and especially the Dene people in the Northwest Territories?

I’d like clarification, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that of the $170,000, $100,000 is going to the Inuvialuit and $70,000 is going to the Metis Nation. How can you justify a bill that is not inclusive of the residents of the Northwest Territories to participate in that process?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Supplementary Appropriation Act includes…

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.