Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I noted in the devolution process, there is also, I believe it is Section 12 of that agreement which clearly identified that this government could not remove itself from federal obligations in which the obligations the federal government has under ensuring that those commitments they make under land claims agreements have to be fulfilled and that they are not going to be basically simply diminished. I think that is the concern of a lot of the aboriginal groups that do have land claims. We have economic measures. We have surface resource sections. We have protected areas. We have things in agreement that this government has an obligation to implement, but refuses to. I think that is the issue that aboriginal people have. How can we trust the government, yet on the existing land claim agreements where obligations are clearly spelled out in black and white, they are not being fulfilled? I would like to ask the Premier, in light of his comments that the aboriginal groups aren’t going to get anything more than what they have in their land claims agreement, is that the position of this government?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s interesting the Member would take comments I said in discussing this draft agreement and twist them to match what he would like to present to the public of the Northwest Territories. Let’s be factual here. The fact is I stated to Members, and I will state here for the public, the land claims that have been signed are protected. The language of the AIP will continue to honour that protection. In fact, the AIP has it on the table. The aboriginal governments helped write the one very important chapter that will create the ongoing government-to-government relationship in the future with aboriginal governments. The existing claims in place -- and the Member is well aware of it because he was at those tables when they were put in place -- the fact is that there is a resource revenue sharing component to those land claims, and they are signed, and they are being honoured, and they are receiving resource throughout that agreement. The AIP would bring additional monies to the tables not only for the GNWT but for the aboriginal governments as well.
Mr. Speaker, the whole intention of the land claim agreements, the devolution of process is to enhance the land claim agreements to give the aboriginal response in regards to lands and resource responsibility of the Northwest Territories, but ownership of those resources of the Northwest Territories and to take part of the political and social development in the Northwest Territories. Without those enhancements, the Dene-Metis would have never signed the agreements that we have today, because we have settled for arrangement that we will take a share of resource revenue sharing throughout the Mackenzie Valley over and above what is in the land claim agreements and negotiate through the devolution process. That wording is not in the existing agreement. It makes reference to the Inuvialuit to be able to negotiate with government for resource arrangements in the Beaufort Sea. It doesn’t say that about the Dene-Metis. Why is that not in the agreement?
The fact of the matter is -- and I can repeat almost word for word as the Member just spoke -- that the land claims have written in them resource revenue sharing arrangements with the federal government. The fact that what the Northern Accord may have stated is one thing that they never got ratified. It hit a certain point and there it sits. The land claims now hold the legal status of that. The agreement-in-principle now takes it to the next step where in fact if we were to sign this and go forward and agree, the governments-of-the-day, sign an agreement, a final agreement, there would be further sharing of the resource revenues that now go to Ottawa. Thank you.
Again, wording -- what’s in the agreement, what’s not in the agreement -- in the 1988 agreement, the devolution process was the enabling agreement signed between the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories to spell out exactly how the aboriginal obligations were going to be transferred. Again, that wording is not in this agreement. So why is that wording, which was used in the Dene-Metis claim and the land claims agreement to date, not entrenched in this agreement that you’re trying to sign off with the federal government?
The fact that we used the land claims agreements that are signed today, we used the Tlicho Agreement that is signed and today they’re protected, Section 35, we have sat down with aboriginal, technical negotiators as well to come up with the language that sees the further protection of those rights going forward in a government-to-government relationship. Today’s environment, we use those terms rather loosely of government-to-government. This agreement-in-principle and a final agreement would in fact make that an absolute reality.
I think, as we listen to the history of the North, to the people today, and to the aboriginal leadership of today, and to the Government of the Northwest Territories, we all want to do the same thing, and that is bring control and the rewards from development to Northerners. That’s what we’re talking about. This is not take land away from anybody else or the controls. This is to respect those, and the places where there is Crown land now administered by the federal government, in a day where a final agreement is in place, would be administered by northern governments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’d like to ask the Premier why in the land claim agreements we specifically state that the Government of the Northwest Territories shall consult the aboriginal groups in regard to oil and gas and devolution in the Northwest Territories and why aboriginal groups have written letters to the Minister, which have been sitting on his desk for seven months? Is that the way that we deal with aboriginal governments when we make reference that this government shall consult and we’ve put the letters on the side table and, what, wait for the time to run out? Thank you.
We could use up the rest of this time period and go over in fine detail all of the meetings held, all the information shared and the actual face-to-face meetings. The letter the Member is talking about, and he’s raised already on a number of occasions, we’re showing Members our responses. The responses will go out. Meetings have been held and will continue to be held. The fact is, consultation is happening, has happened, and will continue to happen. What is the fear that is really there or is it really a monetary issue that needs to be discussed? All of these things, I believe, the majority of those things can be dealt with as we decide to take the next step. That is go forward in a final set of negotiations and clear up the air and take authority back to where it belongs, and that is home to the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
