Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

PEHDZEH KI/WRIGLEY - Following a precedent set during the past few years the Dehcho Process once again dominated the discussions at the Dehcho First Nations' annual assembly.

Chief Roy Fabien of the K'atlodeeche First Nation talks about his concerns regarding the Dehcho Process during the second day of the Dehcho First Nation's annual assembly in Wrigley. - Roxanna Thompson/NNSL photo

A presentation on the progress of the negotiations and a subsequent question period were scheduled for June 28, the first day of the three-day assembly held in Wrigley. The topic ended up stretching into the second day and part of the third.

Georges Erasmus, the chief negotiator for the Dehcho First Nations, outlined portions of the chapters that are being negotiated for the agreement-in-principle. Following his presentation leaders and delegates voiced their concerns and questions. One of the areas of concern was the form and responsibilities community governments would have after a final agreement is signed.

Chief Jim Antoine of the Liidlii Kue First Nation said the community government structure would be difficult to sell in Fort Simpson.

"We can't just impose it on the non-Dene people," he said.

As outlined in one of the draft chapters in the agreement-in-principle, each community would have a Dehcho community government that would comprise a chief and an even number of councillors. The minimum number of councillors would be two and the maximum would be based on the number of residents in the community.

Both the chief and the sub-chief have to be Dehcho Dene and half of the council seats are reserved for Dehcho Dene. The rest of the seats would be open to all residents. Communities could choose the leaders through an election or according to Dene custom.

Antoine said he could see the system working well in the smaller Deh Cho communities where the bands are already the community governments.

"In Simpson it is different," he said.

Antoine said the existing village, band and Metis councils would have to be dissolved in Fort Simpson in order for the community government to be created.

For Chief Lloyd Chicot of Ka'a'gee Tu First Nation in Kakisa the concern was how the community government will run all of the services it's expected to provide.

Chicot said there will probably be a decrease in funding instead of the increase that would be needed to set up the government and the services. Chicot also asked what the expected timeframe for the negotiations are.

"If we're going to be walking that trail we need to start getting ready," he said.

The goal is to have more money for the community governments than there is now but it will be difficult because the territorial and federal governments will be tight with their money, said Erasmus. Some of the funding for communities will come from the businesses they own as well as the taxes they will collect, he said.

"We don't have the full answer on monies," said Erasmus.

The answer will be available before the agreement-in-principle is finished, he said. Based on a work plan developed earlier in the year, as long as the federal block on discussing land, resources and the Dehcho Resources Management Authority can be overcome the agreement should be ready by the late fall or close to Christmas 2012, said Erasmus.

Since the 2010 assembly only half of the year was spent in negotiations. Time was lost because of the federal election as well as the federal government's decision to postpone negotiations while they examined the two lawsuits that were started, said Erasmus.

During the course of the year, however, approximately six chapters of the agreement-in-principle were finished. They are the first to be completed. Erasmus noted that any of the chapters can be opened again for further negotiations by any of the three parties.

Erasmus said negotiations are being held up because the federal government won't talk about the key areas of land and resources while it waits for John Pollard to complete his negotiations on how land and water boards will be restructured based on the McCrank Report.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.