WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) and the Government of Canada are negotiating a final agreement on non-renewable resource revenue sharing, and the transfer of management of lands and resources to the GNWT;
AND WHEREAS this transfer is only desirable if it benefits all people and regions of the Northwest Territories;
AND WHEREAS Dene and Metis land claim organizations in the Northwest Territories have the right to be involved in the negotiation and implementation of a devolution accord for the NWT;
AND WHEREAS negotiations on devolution are proceeding without the involvement of any Dene land claim organizations;
AND WHEREAS attempts by Aboriginal organizations to conclude a protocol agreement with the GNWT failed in January 2011;
AND WHEREAS devolution will affect self-government and land management in all regions of the NWT;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the GNWT suspend devolution negotiations for 12 months, or until such time as a general agreement to proceed has been reached;
AND FURTHER, to accomplish this goal, that the GNWT establish an Aboriginal devolution commission, comprised of representatives of all the NWT’s Aboriginal governments or land claim organizations;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Aboriginal devolution commission’s mandate be a review of the current agreement-in-principle on devolution to assess the benefits for Aboriginal groups, and to make recommendations to the GNWT respecting a fully cooperative process of reaching a final agreement within 12 months of the commission’s establishment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move this motion forward with the support of my colleague, the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe. It speaks to a possible solution towards working with our Aboriginal claimant groups as we examine the devolution question for the Northwest Territories.
The devolution for the Northwest Territories has to be agreed to by all people and the whole North must support it. That’s the content of the motion.
Devolution should be the way that people want it, Mr. Speaker. The way that they can get their voice is by being together. I’ve always said, over the years, that communication is key. By establishing an Aboriginal devolution commission I believe that it can work by getting our Aboriginal groups. It doesn’t mean that they support the agreement-in-principle as it is, because currently Mr. Premier is saying we’ve got this agreement-in-principle, now you come and join us and then we’ll work from there. But the devolution commission that I envision would just have our Aboriginal groups sitting together at a very semi-formal environment, and it will provide recommendations to government about examining the agreement-in-principle.
There’s still lots of confusion out there, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t believe our government has done justice to the people of the Northwest Territories when they’re communicating what devolution really is. When I’m in my region, when I’m travelling in the communities, I ask people: What does devolution mean to you? What they’re telling me is that the government’s going to take my land. That’s totally wrong, so I do my best to explain the process of devolution. But that only speaks to how the communication and understanding of devolution to the people of the Northwest Territories, probably not only in my riding but in other ridings, about the confusion around devolution and transfer of lands and resources and the water.
I believe a commission of this nature can establish that. I foresee it much like a public inquiry where they’re travelling to the different regions and different communities providing opportunities for the public, Aboriginal groups, and anybody that’s interested in understanding what it is and where we must go if we want to proceed in the future. I believe that will give the voice to the whole of the Northwest Territories once we do that.
Currently, what we have now is we have an Aboriginal forum but I believe that it’s more like a sounding board, Mr. Speaker. That’s the way we view it, I view it, and I believe our Aboriginal groups also view it as more like a sounding board. It’s nothing formal. A devolution commission, I believe, formalizes the government to reach out and work with the Aboriginal groups.
The future of Northwest Territories, Mr. Speaker, has to be strong and united, and Aboriginal groups have always maintained right from day one that they are an intrinsic part of the North and should be an intrinsic part of our government.
Devolution also forces our hand in the evolution of our territory, Mr. Speaker. The Aboriginal groups have to have a place within our government. We’re a government in progress. We’ve done some great movements over the past 25 to 30 years, but in the last while we’ve stalled, but there’s got to be a place for Aboriginal governments and our government together. I think Mr. Premier spoke about a coalition or council of Aboriginal governments and territorial governments, so somewhere along the line we’re going to have to make room for that, and this commission, I believe, will be a basis.
As well, fracturing the North and Aboriginal governments is just not the way to do it. Forcing their hand, like Mr. Krutko said, is not one way of doing it, but being at the same level at the same table when we’re talking about devolution, I believe, is an acceptable way to do it.
I must say there, Mr. Speaker, that as an MLA, ideas are born as we go out and talk to people in our constituency and in our communities, and this is one of the ideas that came. It’s a very new idea, this Aboriginal devolution commission. I wish we had more time to develop it, but we’re at the dying days of our government. It’s something that if we work hard on it, I believe that our government and the whole Assembly could support such a commission.
It’s too bad the time was short and we weren’t able to get a desirable devolution motion together that could be supported by everybody, but this idea can grow, I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the motion speaks about doing it in the 17th Assembly. I believe that the idea will grow, hopefully, that there’s debate today, we’ll get out to our Aboriginal regional governments, Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal claimant groups, settled or unsettled, and we can take this idea and foster it and make it real in the 17th Assembly.
I know for sure that my colleagues here today spoke about the election that’s coming up, and should I return, I will certainly be championing this Aboriginal devolution commission for the 17th Assembly.
With that, Mr. Speaker, that’s the concept behind this motion, and I would urge my colleagues to give it serious consideration. Hopefully they can support it, and that we can make this recommendation to this government and even include it in some transition planning for the 17th Assembly, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I am seconding the motion by the MLA for Nahendeh because I feel that before moving to a final devolution agreement, the Dene have to have the opportunity to do a thorough review of what is fully in the AIP and have their input into the AIP. This commission will give them the opportunity. If the commission is put together, that gives them the opportunity to work through the commission to have a good opportunity to look at the AIP as it stands.
All the Dene governments should be benefitting from the Devolution Agreement and they should be part of the decision-making process. It’s important. They are one of the landowners. A lot of the land claim negotiations, some are settled and some are not, but meanwhile, before or during the time or even after the settlement of the land claims, the Dene people need to have a full involvement in the final agreement. They are one of the landowners, like I said. There shouldn’t be an agreement in place. They shouldn’t be proceeding without the Dene governments. If the Dene governments are not comfortable coming to the table at this point or don’t wish to come to the table, then this would give them an opportunity, maybe, to have another avenue to have the Dene people come to the government. Because, as indicated a couple of times today, as we, as GNWT, at some point it felt like we were on the outside looking in. I think that’s how the Dene governments look at this.
It is my opinion that the original protocol agreement that the Dene people proposed did not pre-empt the Devolution Agreement but, rather, was put in place to protect the future interests of the Dene people.
With that, those are my comments on the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
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.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues for their efforts to bring this motion forward. I did indicate to them during the early discussions some of the difficulties I did have with the motion. Unfortunately, I don’t see changes to reflect that.
I do want to refer to my statement today and my record of speaking out clearly, loudly, consistently, often lonely, on the absolute need to get our Aboriginal partners to the table participating in our Devolution Agreement-in-Principle. This is not a time, really, to be creating new structures. I think of a couple of reasons for that. One is the special recognition of our current fiscal situation and the unknowns about any costs associated with this, given a lack of terms of reference for such a commission.
The second aspect of it is, as my colleague mentioned, we are at the dying days of the 16th Assembly. We know the sensitivity of creating these sorts of things in the dying days of an Assembly when it really is responsibly a duty of the following Assembly, in this case the 17th, to be creating such structures.
I am concerned, as I think my colleague Mr. Krutko mentioned, about the trend of creating new, and duplicating existing structures and what that does in terms of separating us as opposed to recognizing the need to actually come together and really reinvigorate discussions with a clear goal and focus toward recognizing the benefits that can come from a real collaborative partnership. That simply takes hard discussions and the digging down to the common goals and putting things in place to make that sort of thing happen. So I believe there is that sensitivity to it as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I strongly support and understand and agree with much of what I’ve heard in discussion of this motion and support of it and I’m there with the general intent of this motion, but not with the specifics of creating a commission. On that basis, I will be abstaining from the vote. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The way I understood and the way I’ve seen devolution unfold, it’s like the birthing of a new nation. Any transition to a new form of life, there’s growing pains. The birthing of a new nation is through the devolution process.
When there are time constraints put on negotiations or time pressures, decisions have to be made. I agree that decisions possibly had to be made. I’m not too aware of what type of decisions that needed to be made because we weren’t part to the actual negotiations or the meetings with the federal government. I understand that some of the Aboriginal governments thought that the protocol agreement they thought was going to be worked out fell apart and that it had to be put aside to have this deal signed. My understanding from my leaders is the protocol agreement was an avenue for the Aboriginal governments to be part of the negotiation table. However, that agreement didn’t come to fruition, so really they were left with the option you are either in or you’re out. It was put to them that they felt because of the protocol agreement the Aboriginal governments felt that they couldn’t be part of something they weren’t happy with, just like any other legislation that we’ve debated in the four years of this House.
Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are between the federal and territorial governments. Also, in my role as chief negotiator of the Sahtu land claims, our vision of our own government was a third level of government, not the federal government’s interpretation of a municipal type of government. So even to the negotiators at that table, it helped to be forceful, determined, that we are talking about a third level of government. I am not too sure if that really rang the bell with the federal government.
So even from the starting point of the negotiations, you need to have government-to-government-to-government discussion or talks. The way I’ve been told is the GNWT, on behalf of all the people of the Northwest Territories, was negotiating with the federal government and that the GNWT were the main players at the table with the Aboriginal governments sitting on the side and not having much opportunity to voice their issues on certain clauses of the agreement, and that internal negotiations with the Aboriginal governments isn’t quite as cordial as we were led to believe. That was one of the frustrating points of this deal coming before the House.
I’ve always agreed that the devolution deal should be done in the Northwest Territories. How it is done is a question that many of us have been scratching our head about, how this process came to be. As I heard from Mr. Menicoche, a lot of people in my region have not yet read the Devolution Agreement and the specific clauses in there. One question they had was how come the Norman Wells oilfield is not part of the deal. Yet, in the Devolution Agreement the GNWT is going to assume that aspect of the Norman Wells oilfield. Under our land claim, it’s supposed to be with the Sahtu government. So why would we want to give something for the Government of the Northwest Territories when we fought hard for it in the Sahtu land claim? There are a lot of things in there that are questioned by our leadership as to the GNWT’s role in putting this deal together.
So if it benefits all the people, shouldn’t that mean that all the people should be at the table? All the people need to have a say at the table. Just, again, like some of the legislation that we are debating over the years, it has to benefit the people.
I take this opportunity with the motion here, brought forward by Mr. Menicoche, seconded by Mr. Beaulieu, that this gives us a chance to go back to the basics of building a relationship, building trust amongst our own people, a relationship between the Aboriginal governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories to do some work on the protocol agreement. It’s so strong to have everybody at the table negotiating in one voice. I think this can be done. We are no strangers to challenges. We have survived the harshest winters. We have survived under the most extreme conditions for thousands and thousands of years and we’ll still do that. We are tough people in the North.
There are more changes coming to the Northwest Territories. Mr. Premier is right; we need to take the future in our hands. He’s right on the button there. Not with one hand as he has the deal now, we need two hands for all people to make something of the North. Right now it’s not there. You’ve got to treat everybody fairly with the Devolution Agreement. That, for us, is not being done right now. It will impact on self-government negotiations and it will impact on land management. It’s been noted by analysis by people who studied our self-government agreements, our land claim agreements and this devolution will have impacts on our self-government and our land management and the Norman Wells oilfield. That is not right.
So this condition will hopefully have the opportunity and the fortitude and clear vision to look at it soberly and say this is what the deal is all about. The federal government is offloading its programs and services and wiping its hands and saying now it’s yours. We have to be really clear on this. I think these 12 months would help us do that.
Again, to have everybody on side for this new territory would possibly fall under the Devolution Agreement. It is going to give us the lift that we need, like the Premier said, to support things that we want.
You know what, Mr. Speaker? For so long we’ve been used to the federal government telling us what to do, how much money they are going to give us and how they dictate to us in our lives. It’s going to be different when we start doing it ourselves. We will have nobody else to blame or to criticize but ourselves. We are going to take that chance. We need to be sure that everybody is at the table with clear eyes and clear vision that this is the responsibility as we are going to take on ourselves as we ask people who live in public housing, be responsible. You’ve got to pay the rent. The money is going to stop. If you are going to smash your windows or doors, you have to pay for it. It’s the same kind of message that we have to give to our people. If we are going to take on devolution, be at the table, be willing to be accountable and responsible and not to blame the territorial government, the Aboriginal governments or the federal government. Create your own destiny, create your own life. That’s the message we have to give to our people, not blame each other or anybody else because we become victims here. That’s what we are doing. That’s the clear message we want, we have to be darn sure that we are all at the table and we will continue to fight. This land is our land. We’re not going anywhere. So you need to get the landowners, the rightful landowners, at the table to make these decisions for ourselves.
We have our own laws. Those laws symbolize the Tulita and Yamoria, the beaver skins, the arrows and the smokes. We need to make those kind of strong laws. So these 12 months are precious time. We’re either going to make it or we’re going to continue fighting for a long, long time. I think we all have the same aspirations. How we go about it will determine our own ability to make it work.
I support the motion 100 percent. It should have been done a long time ago. However, it’s being done now and I look forward to this motion coming together. If we don’t do it, we’re going to lose more than just dollars and cents. Thank you, Mr. Menicoche and Mr. Beaulieu, for bringing this motion to the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not going to speak to this motion, however, I feel that to say nothing, the possibility to be misunderstood in not supporting this motion is a real possibility. I will speak to it very briefly.
I think that I could categorically say that there is no one who is a Member of this Assembly who does not believe that in order to advance the agenda and the aspirations of Northerners this government needs to find meaningful ways to work together and collaboratively in a spirit of cooperation with Aboriginal governments. But this motion, albeit allows for a forum to discuss this issue here today, we have a convention and agreement amongst ourselves that was put in place that in the dying days of this or any government we would not put in place something that would attempt to tie the hands of or proscribe solutions to the next government. I will not be supporting this, but be sure that I am a huge supporter of working together with our Aboriginal governments and all governments in the Northwest Territories to advance our agenda as Northerners.
I want to allow the leadership of the 17th Assembly to bring their best efforts to bear on this subject of working together and I feel that supporting the motion for a commission is a very big undertaking. A commission has legalities and costs and all kinds of things. I do not want to pre-empt the efforts of the next government and the leadership of that government from how they will do this. I want the people of the North to be assured that this is high on the agenda and on the priorities of those of us who sit in this Legislature.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Krutko indicated that they started working on this in 1988. I was 16 years old. Now I’m 39. We’re three years, even if this was to come forward, the Inuvialuit did come and sign. Even if it was to come into the House to get this deal done, we’re three and a half years away. If we put it to a 12-month hold, we’re going to be looking at the 18th Legislative Assembly. Why should we push it anymore? We all know that this government is in tough times coming ahead.
We’re only at $75 million for the next 17th Legislative Assembly and we’re still about three years away from signing. Once the deal is signed there’s $60 million. Look at all the money the federal government is getting on our behalf, yet we’re not getting our fair share. We need to do this. In total you’re getting about $185 million once this thing is signed. For myself, I’m not going to support this motion because it’s going to be a delay. I’m sorry for that, but as an Inuvialuit beneficiary and as the Inuvialuit already signed onto this and I always say with an open-handed approach working together and the door’s always open. The Premier has said that numerous times to different organizations that the door’s open and they’re ready to talk. At this time I won’t be supporting the motion, but good intent on behalf of my colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s with regret that I’ll say that at this time I’m unable to support this motion. I’m concerned about the delay and the suggestion of the delay. You don’t have to be a Conservative to recognize that the Conservative Government is trying to help this territory with devolution. Any further delay or intentions or signals from this House that we want a delay or any stoppage of the devolution agreements on file could set us back years.
Undoubtedly, I would say I’ve always supported the aspirations of the Aboriginal peoples and self-government. I continue to say that today. They always will have my support on that. I recognize that the spirit and intent that they want full participation from all groups. As we’ve seen even in the past under the Aboriginal Summit how things start off with good intentions and run into trouble, I’m only worried that a commission may delay the process even further more than 12 months by setting it back much, much further.
As I said, I regret not being able to support it, but the spirit and the intent of the motion really says one thing to me, which is: Aboriginal governments need to be full partners of the negotiated process for our devolution, and I stand here today to say that that recognition needs to be on the forefront of any further negotiations our government makes with Canada. I will stand with them to ensure that those doors are open for them. I will continue to support their efforts as they proceed with their own self-government agreements. Like I say, I respect and honour the spirit but at this time I’m concerned about the delays.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Before I go back to the mover of the motion I’ll go to the honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion and the request by Members to establish a commission in this area has been one that, personally, I see as problematic. As a Cabinet we’ve looked at this, a decision was made, we went to Members, and we got agreement from a majority of Members to proceed. The agreement-in-principle has been signed. There was already some main table discussions held. More discussions will be held after the election. Every meeting we’ve had we’ve updated all Aboriginal regions. As I said earlier today, the table is open. The door to the table is open. The seats are there.
The request to say Aboriginal participation needs to be held is there if they choose to be a part of it. Clearly, as we’ve heard throughout the decades, the wish of the people overall of taking control and moving forward, we need to be clear. The Member has raised a number of things that we need to be clear on and used this venue to speak to this because, for example, Mr. Menicoche spoke to the Aboriginal commissions doing somewhat the work of a public inquiry. That is different than let’s talk about how we work together in that process.
Earlier today Mr. Beaulieu said similar words that Dene groups feel like they’re outside looking in, and again I say the door is open to not be on the outside but be on the inside. In fact, the budget has addressed this to move it forward. The issue of the protocol and the work and the need to look at it, that work was set out to establish a working relationship but instead turned into negotiation discussions. Do not sign the AIP until we negotiate resource revenue sharing, government-to-government relationship, and look at doing work on the Constitution. Those are all part of the agreement-in-principle.
The Norman Wells oilfield? We agreed with Aboriginal groups that it should be a part of the discussions. The federal government disagrees. We say there’s an avenue to negotiate that in the process coming forward. The fact that out of the Norman Wells oilfield and any other development of the North, settled claims are benefitting from the royalties already. Even those in unsettled areas have agreements with Canada that some of the royalties are flowing to them for development. So they’re benefitting from that.
As we look at these things and the questions being brought up and the request to establish a commission to review the mandate to begin again in this process, the seats are there. We need the leadership to decide to be a part of it. Nobody is keeping them out of the room but themselves. The opportunity is to come in, be a part of it. There are funds to help you be a part of it.
Chapters 5 and 6 are there by the work in the AIP with the involvement of the Aboriginal groups at the table. That strengthens that relationship. That talk about working together between settlement lands and public lands. We’re talking about moving the decision of public lands, Crown lands that the federal government and their staff make right now to public lands in the Northwest Territories where we would have our staff, and Members of this Assembly can direct how that staff works for the benefit of those people in the Northwest Territories.
Our position is one where we’ve gone and made a decision, sought the input of Members, and had that agreement by the majority moved forward, as I saw it, have signed that agreement and are working forward, and will include even those who have not signed continue to get the full updates of the discussion and the issues taking place at the table. As we’ve done through this process, because it’s recommending to the government, we will be abstaining from the vote.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. I will now go to the mover of the motion, Mr. Menicoche, for some closing comments.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank Members and Mr. Premier for the stimulating debate that we’ve had over this motion.
Like I originally said, it’s a new idea. I didn’t have too much time to develop it and work it in this Assembly. We’re in the dying days of our government. At the same time the perception of our Aboriginal governments out there is that they weren’t involved, they weren’t able to participate, and that’s all they’re asking for, is to be involved, to participate in our government as we move forward with the AIP negotiations, as well as to understand the agreement-in-principle. An elder told me from Wrigley, I can accept the devolution if it benefits our people. But how does it benefit our people other than money that people spoke about? It’s getting involved and those particular details, helping our government understand how devolution will benefit the North.
The Premier’s process of the Aboriginal forum is about acceptance. The door is open to come and accept the agreement-in-principle. That’s not what our Aboriginal partners want. They want, like I said, a process that’s about understanding, participation, and consultation. Then we can start moving forward. I believe that an Aboriginal devolution commission will certainly do that.
Just in closing, I can’t go too much further on that, but that’s the concept. We had the public debate here. I hope that our Aboriginal partners and claimant groups are all listening to this because I believe that it’s an idea that can grow and grow and grow. In the 17th Assembly that’s something that’s achievable and we can really work on. I believe it is at least an alternative. It’s never enough to say no. You always have to have an alternative there. I offer that here today with that motion.
I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
