Floyd Roland

I agree with the Member; we could be here not only all night, but we could be here all year debating one word or two words. That’s how some folks have made a living on negotiations, decades of discussions and no decisions to move forward. We have looked at that. In fact, by signing the agreement we are bound to the terms. For example, under claims obligations, the Tlicho Agreement, an example, 222.5.1, “the Government of the Northwest Territories shall involve the Tlicho Government in the development and implementation of any northern accord on oil and gas development in the Northwest...

Mr. Chairman, earlier today, a number of times there has been talk of a transition into the next government. Clearly, government coming in can review their definitions and standards they put in place to make changes. This is an area that has had some discussion through a number of the budgets and committee, as the Member has highlighted. I would say that that is definitely a possibility of another government having a look and changing the status from where we have come from and looking at this. The Stabilization Fund, one, and that is why the different pieces of it, the board training is...

The caribou question was a reference question and, in fact, the Minister of Justice has that authority to apply and put before the courts a reference question. It was that question and discussions with northern leaders that agreed to pull that back so that we could work out our own solution. I believe I had a commitment that we would work it out at our next regional leaders meeting and, unfortunately, that did not occur. We did finally have a deal worked out in the southern part of the Territory, but there is much more work to go in and I think as claims get settled that will help us in that...

Again, I guess I would draw back on even the Member’s own history as a negotiator. A framework agreement, there is no process for arbitration. When you negotiate a final deal, you do build into those final deals a process of dispute resolution, arbitration processes like what’s established in the land claims and self-governments. Setting paramouncy for legislation and so on. I think we’ve already begun to reach out to try to come to a place where we want to draw back the groups, and as I pointed out in response to a question earlier, that with response to the letter we’ve sent out we can begin...

In fact I think that’s the gist of the work that we did was to identify the shortfall that was there, we feel is there. I think the example that we would look to, and as much as Premier Fentie of the Yukon might disagree with me, I would say when you look at that agreement it’s a great agreement but it’s unimplementable. They’ve implemented some areas but not all. If you talk to the Tlicho Government they are in the process where they haven’t drawn any authorities down. They have their governing structure and they’re realizing the cost of doing that. They’re not drawing that down. I think in...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put it out there for now and will follow up with the paper. In the directorate side under total affirmative action: 67 percent non-indigenous; 33 percent, obviously. Again, this directorate is three positions. Department-wide we might as well deal with that now seeing as the question has come up. Total department of 69 positions. We have affirmative action of 62 percent. Of those, 26 are Aboriginal, 36 are indigenous non-Aboriginal. And the work, senior management, a total of 12 positions, 3 female, 9 male. We will follow up in writing. Thank you.

Previous governments used to have in place political accords that were time sensitive, I guess one could say, and could be renewed or avenues selected. Our process has been the northern leaders. We don’t have any additional budgets for protocols. Departments themselves could look at internal resources. For example, the MOUs that are in place have one been decided by the Government of the Northwest Territories of the day and we continue to honour those going forward based on economic activity and that work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The allocation is for the regional government meetings. We identify three meetings per year. We used to identify four but found the preparation between meetings and the scheduling to be difficult. So we cut it back down to three. The contributions here are to take part in those three meetings annually. As much as the agenda is set by all parties, it could clearly be an item that we have ongoing discussions around the devolution AIP issue. That aside, as I said through Executive earlier today, we would have to come back to this House for additional funding to deal with...

Mr. Chairman, following on the regional leaders’ table that we’ve established since the start of this government and quite clearly at a number of those meetings those regional leaders that have the authority to make decisions on behalf of their constituents have put on record that they’re the decision-makers in their regions and they’re the ones that need to be consulted in this area. That’s why we’ve sent the letter out to all the regions to say that as we go forward on this we’re prepared to go into the communities, regions and communities to go over the AIP and that work that needs to be...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it would be through Executive that supplementary appropriation would be coming forward. The format and funding would need to be developed before that could come forward. Right now what we do have for concrete examples is the Sahtu, where they brought in leadership and youth from the communities around, we had three of the communities represented in Deline and we sponsored that meeting, in a sense, to bring them together. We’re looking at doing that again in Fort Good Hope with all of the communities and regions.

Part of the thing we need to look at is that...