Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may sound like a broken record, but I’m going to state this again for the record. There are a couple of items in here that it seems on an annual basis cause the Government of the Northwest Territories some trouble when it comes to budgeting.
The first one is the special warrant for $6.012 million approved on June 29th. How we budget for fire suppression in our territory has been an issue going back over the eight years that I’ve been here. I don’t think we budget enough. Obviously, in the past few years we’ve come back for substantially more money than what is budgeted. I don’t understand, either, why a special warrant would have to be issued halfway through the summer. Obviously, fires don’t stop at the end of June and they continue on into August, and maybe we should take a final tally and clean it all up with one move instead of just doing one halfway through the summer. It doesn’t make a lot of sense on how that happens. Again, I think we really need to examine how we budget for forest fire suppression in our territory.
Like I said, it’s overdue that we look for more money in this area instead of going to special warrant and supplementary appropriations whenever necessary because of certainly an underfunded amount of money in the Department of ENR. I’d be supportive of us trying to find some more money and budget that more appropriately.
The second item that I’m going to just speak briefly about -- I know Members have heard me talk about this time and time again over the past eight years – is how we budget the health authorities across the Northwest Territories has been an issue not only for the current Minister of Health and Social Services, the Minister of Finance happens to be the same guy, the government. We really need to come up with a game plan on governance and how the scarce health dollars are spent in our territory. I don’t think we can continue to allow these huge deficits to run up in some authorities and then try to take money from other authorities and move it around. It’s basically just a shell game. It’s not a permanent solution.
The concern at Stanton obviously is that it’s underfunded. It has been for the past years I’ve been here. We need to come up with a more permanent fix to this instead of just throwing millions of dollars at it whenever we see fit, or have a few extra dollars, or taking money from other authorities and moving it to authorities that require an influx of cash. It’s not the way a government should be budgeting. It’s not conducive to good government. It’s a practice that I think we should try to minimize whenever we can.
Again, a permanent fix. I’ve said it before, I’ve been critical of this, we have to come up with a new way to govern health care in the Northwest Territories. Have regional management boards but take the budgeting and dollars that we have and have it under one roof instead of all these authorities across the territory with some running surpluses and some running deficits. I think, from a human resource perspective, we’d also see some savings in that area as well. I just continue to be disappointed that the government isn’t trying to come up with more of a permanent fix on health care. It’s going to become even more of an important issue as we move forward, and the strains and demands that are going to be placed on our health care system grow. We don’t have the dollars to deal with that, so we have to ensure that, like I said, every dollar we spend is going to be spent effectively and authorities are going to be budgeted the way they should. We need to come up with a new way forward and this certainly isn’t it.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.
The issue of the fire budget is one that I agree with the Member has come up on a regular basis. As we’ve discussed in the past, there was a decision made to fund it at the lower level and have them come back once they could demonstrate and had some idea of what the costs were going to be. There were some good suggestions from committee that we’ve made note of. For example, using a 10-year running average is one possible way to look at a more realistic fire budget. We’ll consider all those as we look at the upcoming budget year.
With regard to the health and social services system, once again I will point out that across the land every jurisdiction is challenged by issues in the health and social services system. Specifically, we have our own challenges. We have taken steps to address the concern about surpluses. At the same time we’re coming back repeatedly for supplementary appropriations.
The work of governance, as the Member indicated, has not been concluded in spite of the efforts of this Assembly. It will come up again in the coming Assembly. We are also looking at a wide variety of processes that we’ve dealt with with the Social Programs committee in terms of trying to improve how we do business.
One of the broader issues that I mentioned, as well, which I think has enormous potential for the Northwest Territories in health as well as a whole number of areas, is the fibre optic line up the valley to Inuvik that would allow us to fully use some of the resources we’ve put in place, such as telehealth.
I agree with the Member that we are going to have to continue to look at all these efficiencies. There are ways to better coordinate, absolutely, the business of the authorities, the administration side, the back office side, and we are taking steps to try to initiate that work as well.
That’s good, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Minister for that. Again I think it’s an important issue and it can’t continue to be downplayed and overlooked.
General comments. Next I have Ms. Bisaro and then Mrs. Groenewegen. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have similar comments with regard to this supplementary appropriation. I, too, have expressed before and I still feel that we budget for our forest fire suppression completely wrongly. I think our residents and constituents understand sort of a home budget where you estimate what you’re going to spend and then you budget for that amount of money. What we do here for forest fire suppression is we budget for the absolute minimum, knowing full well that by the time we have mobilized our forces, the minimum has been spent and there’s going to be a need to come back for extra funds.
The Minister has said that there were some good suggestions at committee and I’m very pleased to hear now that they will be considered. It would seem to me that funding the forest fires suppression budget on a 10-year average amount would probably be quite successful and it would certainly leave us with a better idea of what it’s going to cost us.
There are pretty much two items in this particular bill which make up this supplementary appropriation and one of them is the $6 million for the forest fire suppression budget and the other is $1.1 million, give or take, for devolution AIP. Those two items are about $7.8 million, and with the amount that we have in our reserve fund, which is four-point-something million dollars, we’re left in the hole for about $3.1 million. We are not even halfway through this budget year and we are already in the hole in terms of our reserve. So should we encounter any further emergencies in the rest of the budget year, we are going to go further in the hole. I know that things certainly are not going to fall apart, but what it means is that we are probably going to have to borrow money along the way in order to keep our budget in line.
If after the department considers some of the suggestions with regard to the forest fire suppression budget and they decide to continue with the sort of policy that they have now, which is to budget for a minimal amount of money, my recommendation to the department is that a portion of the reserve at the beginning of any budget year must be set aside and allocated to forest fire suppression, because we’ve got a reserve and we know we need money for forest fire suppression, so we need to allocate a specific portion of the reserve for that purpose. It will then let us know upfront how the budget is going to play out. What we do now is budget for the minimum but then we also expect the reserve to cover all contingencies and don’t recognize at the outset that we’re going to have to spend more money for fire.
I really don’t have any other comments than that. Many of the other items that are here in this bill are offset by other revenues, and that’s a good thing. I seriously encourage the department to reconsider how we budget, especially for forest fire suppression.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger.
I, once again, appreciate the Member’s comments. The one thing that’s difficult to get an average on, of course, is, while we can do it for the money, is the weather.
If I could just point to British Columbia for the previous two fire seasons where they had a budget in the neighbourhood of $50 million and had these extraordinary weather conditions where they spent nearly $500 million. That’s part of the challenge. But I take the point of the Members that the base budget is too low. We know that come July even just the starting of costs is going to put us close to exhausting our budget. I make note of those concerns.
Some of these other investments in the supplementary appropriation are good investments. We didn’t really count on it because we didn’t know it was coming. For example, the Inuvik school is going to possibly save us money and allows the project to be completed sooner. It’s a cash flow issue, not so much as a cash issue. We’re challenged to be able to respond to those kinds of good investments that put pressure on us in the short term but in the long run are to our collective benefit.
General comments, Ms. Bisaro.
No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.
Next I have Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I primarily want to speak to the issue of the shuffling of the funds between the health authorities. I’m sure there are explanations for why these things happen. Let me throw out a couple of examples.
Perhaps a community or health authority doesn’t have any doctors on staff, so maybe Stanton is sending out locums or physicians and that’s showing up on their budget and not on that other health authority’s budget. I’m sure there are some large ticket items which would explain some of this. I have a concern with it if we are not able to provide that kind of information in some level of detail. I’m not talking about every dollar that’s spent, but in large categories how we end up with such a large deficit in one health authority and such large surpluses in another.
Another thing that concerns me is, I mean, Hay River Health Authority ended up with a surplus and we can’t get, you know, $50,000, $60,000 to run a disabled person handy van in Hay River. There are really simple community-based issues and needs and services and programs that are needed that we can’t get any money for, I assume because it wasn’t budgeted for, and yet we end up handing off a surplus of multiple millions of dollars back to the Stanton Hospital and, I guess, to the Beau-Del as well. I’m sure there’s reasonable explanation, but I don’t find the government or the department going out of their way to try and explain that or rationalize that in any kind of way. These are large dollar amounts.
The other thing I’m concerned about is when a health authority operates with an unexplained surplus, it could be vacancies, it could be whatever contributes to that surplus, my concern then is in the next year’s budgeting process that that previous year’s budget becomes the benchmark for what they need to operate in the following fiscal year. That kind of worries me, too, because it could be something extraordinary that caused that surplus for that one year.
I think that the reporting needs to be, well, needs to rationalize the need for this kind of millions of dollars shuffling around between health authorities in the form of a supplementary appropriation. I’d like the Minister’s comments on that.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Next on the list is Mr. Krutko.
---Interjection
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. We have been accumulating general comments, but do you want that answered right away by the Minister?
Oh, okay. I don’t want to argue with the Chair. I would like him to answer it, yes.
Very well. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of the financing of the boards and the dealing with surpluses has been an issue for some time. In order to respond to that in a planned, rational way, there was a change made to how surpluses, defining what a surplus is and how it can be accumulated, so that the rules have been clarified and put in place so that the new Surplus Retention Policy is going to be 1 percent of the revenues up to a maximum of $250,000. As well, we will provide committee members with the information. The work that was done on the budgets of the boards are all based on the audits that are done yearly out of the health boards that document and lay out in some detail the expenditures and where there are cost overruns or not or where there are surpluses. We will share that information with the Members.
As well, I would point out, of course, that health and social services is and will continue to be the single biggest budget item in our budget and the single biggest user of supplementary appropriations all for good reasons, the majority of which is the money will flow to the communities to provide for costs like southern travel, southern placements, and other unexpected costs. I appreciate the concern from all the boards that they wanted some certainty and a clear policy, and we believe we’ve achieved that now. This is a one-time adjustment. From here on in, we should avoid those circumstances as over time there were deficits or surpluses accumulated as they have been in the past. Thank you.
I think I’ll just let it go at that. There’s probably a forum in which these kinds of issues can be raised. Another concern I have -- and the Minister doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to -- it seems like this is a bit of a strain here. The Minister is not looking up. He didn’t make eye contact with me once during this entire exchange, while I was speaking or while he was answering. So I’m not sure how meaningful this exchange is here today, but maybe I’ll save my comments for a different forum. Thank you.
Thank you. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are with regard to the executive operations of $2.2 million and the devolution process. I’m not really clear how to read it. It says to support transition and implementation. Usually implementation takes place after you have a final agreement. How can you be implementing something that you are still negotiating?
The other aspect of the resources is to provide Aboriginal participation in negotiations. Again, we are leaving out a large portion of our population on the Aboriginal participation in this process, as we all know. We have some 4,500 individuals being represented by two groups, yet that leaves out over 18,000 First Nations people, mostly the Dene people of the Mackenzie Valley, from this process.
What are you doing to include those groups or have side table negotiations to find a way to work around the problem we are facing regarding the bypass? We need to ensure we have a side table to ensure we resolve these outstanding issues and get all parties to the table through the negotiations for the Devolution Agreement, so we have an agreement that’s good to all people in the Northwest Territories and not just a minority of people being represented at this time. What are we doing? How is that $2.2 million going to be expended, and are there monies allocated for that purpose? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make some brief comments with regard to the implementation piece and then I’ll turn the answers on the other issues over to the Premier, who has the file on this.
There was an extensive study done after the Yukon devolution process was completed and a debrief and review to see what lessons could be learned. One of the main lessons learned and documented extensively is there’s a need to have the negotiation process and implementation process start almost simultaneously because of the time and the complexity of the issues and the need to move those processes, so when there’s a negotiated agreement in place, following very shortly on that would be an implementation plan without another two- or three-year delay to negotiate the implementation after the negotiations. So it was a hard lesson learned through the Yukon process, Mr. Chair.
With your permission, I’d ask the Premier to answer further on the questions Mr. Krutko presented. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We’ll now go to Premier Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second part of the question is the approach we are using to stay engaged with all the Aboriginal groups throughout the territory. We’ve done a number of things. One, first and foremost, is the door remains open, and the funds we are requesting, these are prorated amounts for the remainder of this fiscal year. The future year includes an amount that would incorporate a full year’s approach and contributions for Aboriginal groups. That we budgeted to have all Aboriginal groups take part if they decide to sign on to the AIP. That’s the first door and avenue of being at the table to begin and do the negotiations.
We are hopeful that as we continue to have discussions and as the new government comes back, they will continue to keep that door open to groups. I know they’ve had a number of discussions. I’ve seen the discussions that have happened at the assemblies as well as being at the assemblies myself, a number of them throughout the summer. We continue to urge them coming to the table and being participants.
So the budget has been built so they could be at the table. The federal budget, as well, has the resources that are attached to those who decide to sign and join the process. Further to that, we continue to engage all groups through our correspondence and, like the assemblies that I was able to attend, to inform them of all the progress that is happening and the plans for the work and, again, continue to invite them to the table. So those are there. The money I asked for through this process is to deal with the existing process we have in place. There are no funds for additional processes out there. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier Roland. Mr. Krutko.
That is my concern, is that we don’t seem to have the resources or the capacity to assist these people to get them to the table. We have money there to pay people that have signed on. I think it was $170,000, yet we are asking for $2.2 million. So there’s a small portion there for that consultative process, but what is there to find ways of working around the challenges we are facing? I thought we were going to be close in this process.
There was a bilateral arrangement back in December. Everybody met in Edmonton after Christmas. We came back to Yellowknife to get together and then basically the whole process collapsed around it. There were efforts being made to get parties together and get them to some sort of an arrangement, but we never allowed the process to see the light of day. I think we, as government, still have an obligation to ensure we hear people out on this process, good, bad or indifferent. We need to at least have the resources there to have that take place. This is a critical building block of the northern environment going forward. If you don’t have this, you are going to be on a rough road going forward with regard to relationships government to government to government.
It seems like the relationships we have is just with two interest groups. There are five groups still not there. I represent one of these groups and I feel that we have been unjustly chucked out of the room simply because we don’t have an agreeing of the minds where people are coming from or taking the time to understand it.
So out of the $2.2 million, how much has been set aside to find an avenue to bring those people together with regard to the approval of the $2.2 million budget?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.
Once again, I’ll offer one fact here and then I’ll turn it over to the Premier. I’d point out that in supp one there was a number of dollars put aside for Aboriginal government participation and engagement, which was $1,266,025 in addition to further money that’s in this particular supplementary appropriation request.
Once again I’ll ask the Premier if he wants to elaborate or respond further to Mr. Krutko’s questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Premier Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, for the record, I have to say this for the record -- and Mr. Miltenberger touched on it a bit -- supp one had some dollars identified for participation in preparation of the AIP. The Department of Executive also used internal funds to support the work leading up to the protocol that was discussed by the Member. We worked that right through until late January where we brought all the leadership in and provided meeting space and tried to come to a conclusion on that protocol. Unfortunately, the protocol was another negotiation tool, not a protocol on how we work together. It basically stated that we would not sign an agreement-in-principle on devolution unless we negotiated a government-to-government relationship and revenue sharing structure, which is included in the AIP which is to be negotiated. So, in a sense, it was don’t sign the AIP but sign this protocol which deals with the subject matters that were being discussed in that protocol.
That aside, we agreed and told all the organizations to come with their budgets and the money they’ve expended towards that protocol work and we would look at helping them offset those costs. That, as I said in this Assembly, remains open and we continue to look at that.
Aside from what’s being asked to deal with the negotiation process in preparation for implementation, as well, as stated earlier, over the years the majority of groups, aside from one group that did not take any funds in this and that was the Dehcho. All other regions tapped into over $8 million in preparations and actual AIP development, agreement-in-principle development, the devolution package. The groups were involved and that helped build and strengthen the agreement-in-principle.
Secondly, the door remains open for the groups to come to the table and be full participants. It’s of their choice and we continue to urge that to happen, and that way they’ll be able to tap into the resources that are available to them. This amount, as I stated earlier, does not have a portion to have a side discussion. That would have to be dealt with through a different process and budget request. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier Roland. Any more general comments? Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that’s the whole problem with these dollars that we’re being asked to approve here, because it does not really deal with the problem at hand, and more importantly, it does not basically justify spending this type of money on a process that, as you know, is flawed. When you have a flawed negotiated process, you’re going to have a flawed result.
I think that we have to realize that as important items such as devolution of the Northwest Territories that we as legislators, as government, have an obligation, regardless if it’s through a constitutional obligation or as a moral obligation, to ensure that all parties that are affected… We’re hearing in the Wildlife Act there are certain groups out there saying they weren’t consulted. We’re hearing it here again today. These groups have a legal obligation to be at that table. They have a moral obligation to be involved in the drafting of the Northern Accord.
I was involved in 1988 when we negotiated the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle, signed it off. The same day the federal Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, signed an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories that morning. That afternoon he signed the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle because the two agreements were combined to ensure that we’d have that ability to negotiate those agreements.
The Inuvialuit, they got it made. They got a participation agreement in their land claim agreements. The Dene groups do not have that in the process and we were told the only way you’re going to get that is through a devolution or Northern Accord agreement negotiating those elements into those agreements to make them basically have the same standing as the Inuvialuit have by way of participation agreements. The same with NTI. That is why it’s so critical that the Dene people be involved in this process and not be stepped on the sidelines and have a group who already have something that’s negotiated on their behalf on lands that they own and not be at the table.
I mean, for me this is a political hot potato that’s going to blow up not only with this government but the next government, and this is the legacy that this government wants to leave. For me, this is definitely a legacy that’s going to be tarred to this 16th Assembly going forward.
I think it’s critical that you do re-profile these dollars to find a mechanism that you can either send it to a dispute system or have an arbitrator or have someone basically formulate a mechanism that you have side room discussions with these groups. But simply ignoring them and saying, well, you have one choice, you sign this bad agreement, you come to the table and we’ll give you $170,000. Sure, that sounds like a great idea, but I don’t think people are going to sell their rights for the sake of $170,000 where they know they have the legal right to basically have this thing overturned in future years either through the court process or by not having the final agreement that you’re trying to sign off and none of those parties at the table. There’s no damn way you’re going to sign a final agreement without having those parties at the table. It’s either you deal with it now or you basically forget about going forward.
I think by the approach that you’re taking, by the hardhat approach of trying to ram this thing through for the sake of two Aboriginal groups and forgetting that there’s seven and leaving the other five groups on the sidelines who have more rights by way of legal rights through Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, to basically do what you’re doing by way of taking or arbitrating a process that basically you know is flawed.
Again, I’d like to ask, out of the two-point-something million dollars, can any of those dollars be reallocated to allow for side table negotiations to take place during the duration of these expenditures being funded? You’re still dealing with the same aspect, but you’re looking at it by trying to get the parties to the table and also by saving face in this process. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. It seems that we’re talking about detail on a specific point. I will let it go and I will go to Premier Roland to answer Mr. Krutko’s question, but I will ask that we consider focusing in on detail after this. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The process used incorporated Aboriginal groups across the Northwest Territories, all Aboriginal groups. We have fulfilled our obligations under claims. We have provided funds. They have been at the table. In fact, the agreement-in-principle, as it sits, has the handprint of Aboriginal groups on it, the majority of Aboriginal groups.
Now, Mr. Krutko has pointed out there are two Aboriginal groups that have signed this. One group has a settled claim and one group doesn’t have a settled claim. So there are differences there between that, but they both saw fit to decide to move forward, because when you look at this agreement compared to anything else across this country, it is by far one of the best agreements and I think will be a landmark process for future discussions of Aboriginal groups across the country.
Aside from that, the door remains open. This funding, the budget that’s been developed here has looked very closely at the Yukon process of what was required and learning from them about their negotiations process, preparations for negotiations. Much of the dollars identified here also come out from the obligations of the AIP itself in preparation for negotiations. The only people being left on the sideline -- and I wish there would be none -- is made by a choice of their own. The door remains open, the invite is there, the dollars are waiting to be flowed and this would add to that as we go forward. The door remains open and we would rather have everybody in the tent working together on this just like we did through the majority of the process in development of the AIP.
This money identified here has been built on our preparation and obligations under the AIP for negotiations looking forward, and as I stated, the future years’ budget is built on that same principle. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, just in regard to the Premier’s comments, he just said a couple minutes ago that there’s no money in there to bring other people to the table at this time. So how can he state now that, oh, you can come to the table anytime you want? Technically, there’s no money in this budget to have the people come to the table. That’s what he told us. There’s only money there for two groups and not for the other groups to take part. That’s the point I’m trying to make, is where is the money to ensure that those groups that have an ambition to take a second look at this have an opportunity to take that second look, have the resources to get those groups together and consider possible changes to this arrangement going forward.
This is an agreement-in-principle. This is not a final agreement. You can make changes to this agreement with the parties. As long as the parties agree, it’s a negotiated process. There are also elements that are in the land claim agreements that differ from one land claim agreement to the other. Those elements have to be negotiated into a Devolution Agreement, because it’s in the land claim agreements under the surface rights section. Those surface rights obligations have to be negotiated into those agreements. How are you going to do it without having those claimant groups at the table?
Again, it seems like it’s a simple thing that’s, oh well, come to the table and we’ll invite you through the door and basically now you’re full participants, but yet there’s no money for you to fully participate. That is my understanding of what they stated, is that the $2.2 million only covers the operational costs and those groups that have already signed. How do you intend to make those additional expenditures? Are we talking about another supp coming back when those groups come to the table?
The funding we’re asking for incorporates all groups being involved. It’s their choice to come to the table. The invite is there to become part of the process we have built into the budget looking at all groups being part of this discussion.
Earlier the question was about a side table reprofiling dollars for a different process. We don’t have dollars identified for a different process. This budget amount has been built on the AIP in preparation for negotiations and getting ready for that, as well as incorporation of contributions that would go to Aboriginal governments for their role as we go forward. The sooner they come to the table and sign up, the sooner they are able to tap into the funds that help them do that work as we progress for this work. This amount does include every region and if they decide to come to the table, it’s there. If they don’t, we’ll have to look at year end how the government used those additional resources if groups did not sign up. That would be up to it. We built this on participation of all the groups in the Northwest Territories and we continue to do that and hope that they will come to the table. The funds will be there for them to be full participants and our invite is there.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Time is up. Committee? Detail?
Agreed.
Detail begins on page 3. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have similar concerns about how we are ensuring that opportunities continue to be explored and we’re active on working towards a collaborative relationship that will actually bring all our Aboriginal partners to the table. I’ve spoken out on this repeatedly through the lead-up to the signing of the AIP and during the signing. I appreciate the Premier’s comments that we perhaps have met the legal requirements, but there are moral and political responsibilities that demand that this government include a focus on continuing collaboration and a focused outreach to continue the discussion with those not at the table as partners yet to bring them into the fold. Be it this funding or additional, I think it needs to be more than here’s the deal, sign on whenever you want. We need a collaborative approach. We need to develop this relationship of trust, and that sort of stance will not advance us in that direction.
The second aspect that I’d like to ask the Minister about is does this amount include funding of a comprehensive public process to define a made-in-the-North land and resource management regime that we would like to negotiate or work towards in the negotiations towards a final agreement?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money that is laid out is to do two things: look on the implementation side, which is actual transferring of the infrastructure, the resources, human and otherwise. There’s going to be a significant amount of work in terms of the requirements to meet all policy and legal obligations in our legislation. The broader work, some of which has already started, I would suggest with things like the Water Strategy, in some areas has yet to be completed. The management regime is currently under review by the federal government. They’ve agreed not to have any major changes pending the outcome of the devolution talks. We’ve had a lot of discussion on that particular issue as well.
I’ll let the Premier respond further, but there is that work that is over and above what is being requested here today. I’ll ask the Premier if he would like to elaborate.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miltenberger has touched on it and I know the Members brought this up in discussions in this Assembly in the past about preparation for taking over the regime itself and the work. As we stated in this House, we’re unable to begin that work until we own the legislation. This money is identified for the preparation up to and including negotiations. Once a final agreement is signed, then we can look at doing that work about making changes as we see fit in the Northwest Territories. This request does not include that style of work of changing a made-in-the-North regulatory regime. It doesn’t incorporate that at this time.
Thank you, Premier Roland. Mr. Bromley.
I have indeed brought this up a number of times. The Minister and Premier had indicated he would respond, and then retracted that. I would say I will not be able to support this unless that’s there. The Premier insists on putting the cart before the horse and calling it otherwise. We cannot negotiate for what we want unless we know what we want. The public needs to be a participant in defining what we’re negotiating for. I obviously feel very strongly about this, as do others. We need to have public participation, and again we have a record of going behind the scenes and refusing public involvement in this sort of thing. I will not be supporting this on that basis.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. More of a comment. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the line item that says “to provide funding for Aboriginal participation in negotiations,” can we get a breakdown of what that funding is and what exactly it is used for?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger. Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We’ll go to Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of the $171,000 that’s targeted for Aboriginal participation, $100,000 is for the IRC and $71,000 is for the Metis Nation.
