Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At last week’s signing ceremony for the agreement-in-principle the Premier looked awfully lonely, flanked by only two of the seven Aboriginal government leaders who are necessary partners in this deal. We all heard the Premier’s invitation to Aboriginal governments to sign on as partners. Unfortunately, we also heard that the federal Minister responsible for Aboriginal people refused to meet with those very same leaders who want their concerns heard before becoming a part of this deal. Can the Premier explain to this Assembly why he agreed to be the one stop shop for NWT Aboriginal concerns on constitutional development and resource management and how he ever expected our Aboriginal leadership to go along with this arrangement? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The simple fact that we have worked as a cooperative group across the Northwest Territories since 2001 -- and if Members want, we can table that type of information for Members and for the public to see if we want to go down that path -- but I think the way forward on this one is we have done the work together. In fact, the signing of that agreement is one that, yes, and I met with leaders Sunday prior to that, in the hopes that we can do some adjustments to the protocol work that we were involved in, and unfortunately that wasn’t able to come about. In reaching back out to the leaders now and the chiefs, I want to see if that document can be used as the format for a schedule and how we would work together going forward in negotiations, realizing some of the negotiations.
I’ve said this to the regional leaders, some of them are bilateral GNWT/federal government, some of it bilateral Aboriginal governments/territorial government and there will be positions where we’ll need to formulate from a northern perspective to Canada’s. So there’s lots of work going forward and that’s one of the reasons to reach out.
The one thing I will say is, the Constitution piece that is to be dealt with at a different forum. I’ve met with, for example, early in the life of this government, Bill Erasmus on this issue, and as we looked at it, we fully recognize that future governments of the North will need to sit down and talk about what a constitution could look like. But at this point I’ve expressed, from a GNWT side we were concerned that first and foremost we need to deal with the authorities that are now practiced by people in Ottawa and here in the North under the federal government watch, to move that to the North and then move on to next steps. Thank you.
My second question is recognizing the Premier’s statement that this is a good deal for the NWT and NWT Aboriginal people, this is something I could take more seriously if indeed the Aboriginal governments were lining up to sign this agreement. Obviously, they were lining up with signs rather than to sign. As Aboriginals said in this building just before the signing and outside at their demonstration and elsewhere, their trust in this government has been destroyed. Now, if that’s the case, how does the Premier expect to lure these partners back to sign on when the process he has used apparently has alienated them so much? Thank you.
We’ve heard clearly for quite a number of years that some of the groups, in their opinion and their position developed, is one that clearly they feel they need to deal with their process first before any agreement-in-principle was to be signed. In fact, in our protocol work it was talked about having key issues dealt with first before having any signing, and those issues, as I expressed to the regional leadership, are actually in the agreement-in-principle talking about how we go forward in building that relationship in a formal way, so there is jurisdiction and sharing of the delivery where there is an overlap. For example, look at our land claims that are in place where there are co-management boards, those types of things exist and could be used in that area. It’s a sense of not luring them back, but as we have consistently said, the table is open for them to join us and that we’re looking forward to them coming back to this table, because to influence the overall outcome and decisions made, they need to be in the tent earlier rather than later. Thank you.
Thank you. Two First Nations say the deal threatens their Aboriginal treaty rights and threatens the just resolution of their land claims. Others are insisting that it fails to meet their settlement requirements for involvement. At the very least, First Nations governments are, or will be, major land and resource managers, as I mentioned in my statement. Setting out to conclude new management arrangements one at a time can only further add to the complexity of this regulatory regime. How does the Premier intend to meet with Aboriginal governments even outside the discussion framework of the AIP and come to an agreement on these complex issues and processes to accommodate them, or at least how can we deal with this complexity? Thank you.
I’ll go with this in a couple of pieces. One, first and foremost, the language in this agreement-in-principle clearly states for everyone to see the position they hold and signed on to. By signing this agreement, we will hold those positions as we have in the past, that we recognize the land claim agreements are modern treaties and constitutionally protected, which gives them authority over what we can do and any law that we will try to set in place. Where there is a conflict between the devolution agreement and a land claim, the land claim would prevail. Where there is existing claims, anticipated devolution included, the status land claim would not prejudice the devolution of the jurisdictions from Canada/GNWT. There are clauses already built into those claims. As well, we include specific protections for existing Aboriginal treaty rights and settlements, as well as future ones. There’s a clause in here that says that once a transfer is to occur, if a settlement happens that establishes larger areas that will be transferred for Aboriginal-specific ownership, they will come back and remove that land. That clause is also built in. So we’ve taken all the necessary precautions and this was done so with the technical folks and lawyers that worked with the Aboriginal groups at the table that influenced those decisions and that’s what we’re asking going forward in this next phase, is be at the table, help influence those decisions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier for those remarks. With the climate surrounding this AIP, it looks like a final agreement will be a very long time in coming, which has some positive aspects to it. One of which is that it gives us time to do the work that we know we need to do. For example, the staging of a full and meaningful consultation with all NWT citizens on how to build a new sustainable resource management regime. The requirement to enact mirror legislation is somewhat paternalistic and I think it doesn’t recognize that we have a lot of problems with that legislation. Will the Premier take the opportunity we have now and begin immediately, full consultations on a made-in-the-NWT regime to put in place soon after the devolution of resource management responsibilities? Mahsi.
There’s much work to be done as we look at this next phase and begin the work of preparing for setting mandates and negotiations. Those negotiations and the final outcome will then give us a clearer picture of what those exact authorities are drawn down and what areas of legislation that we will have our hands on as Northerners that we can rewrite. So we’re preparing a work plan and getting the pieces together to see just the timelines that we’ll have, the people we’ll need to put in place to help us with this process, the relationship with our Aboriginal partners on those initiatives that are bilateral, specifically for GNWT and Aboriginal governments. So there’s lots of work to be done and I can commit to say we’ll go down and do this one piece on legislation in how that legislation may look.
What I intend to do is we start to pull these pieces together now and what it will mean as we go forward. We’re looking at documents; for example, the Yukon model as to what happened after their signing and implementation negotiations process and from our own work with the self-governments and at the Aboriginal tables and want to come back to Members to say this is what it looks like, this is what we’re going to have to start to do and lay out those priorities in how we will progress on that. I expect that we will be able to start to highlight which pieces that we’ll start to be able to put the energy into when it comes to looking at what specific pieces that we’ll need to alter soon after we take on that authority. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
