Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Robertson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. These funding agreements are definitely core funding covering operational costs for the staff as well as running the offices. The current funding agreements are multi-year in nature and would include fixed amounts over the course of a three-year period and will be reviewed after each of those terms – I believe the next term is up at the end of the next fiscal year – and be part of our submission going forward for the future business planning process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Robertson. Committee, corporate management, grants and contributions, $1.145 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 4-15, corporate management, active positions. Are there any questions? Agreed?
Agreed.
Page 4-17, negotiations, operations expenditures, $2.640 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Premier stated in his opening remarks that the GNWT is now the lead in land negotiations. I’m wondering if I can get a little more explanation on this. I understand this is a result of devolution.
How has our role changed in negotiations and how is the federal role changed in terms of lands, or generally for the federal government, I suppose? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess the main change is that the Government of the Northwest Territories is now responsible for management of Crown lands, which formerly was under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. That will take effect on the transfer date of April 1, 2014, but through you, Mr. Chair, I will ask Mr. Goldney to go into more detail.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the key changes, as a result of devolution, is that it will be the Government of the Northwest Territories now that will be administering the lands and resources, as the Premier mentioned. That means that operationally the Government of the Northwest Territories, when we’re in negotiations with Aboriginal governments, will be the government that has a lot of the information related to public lands and resources. We’ll be the government that has and is administering all the third-party interests, for example. So, we do foresee the role changing and shifting from Canada in those discussions to the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of the Northwest Territories taking more of a lead role in informing those negotiations. The interests, of course, will stay the same, but we are going to be the holders of all that additional information.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my simplistic view of things, of course, I see quite a difference between the lead role in informing and the lead role in negotiations. The Premier said we are taking over the lead role from the federal government. I also asked how the federal government’s role has changed. It could be simply the mirror image of what I’ve heard, but that doesn’t seem to go very far to actually explain how the fiduciary role of the federal government has changed in relation to these questions. Thank you.
The interest-owned change at the negotiation tables, Canada will still be there with the same objective of settling these questions around Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title respecting lands, but fundamentally does change, though, as I mentioned, the Government of the Northwest Territories will be leading some of the discussions when it comes to land selection and negotiations because we are going to be the government that is administering those public lands and resources. It doesn’t mean that the Government of Canada is completely out of the picture. We still expect and require the Government of Canada to engage fully in questions around Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title and we will be working with Canada when it comes to making offers with respect to the land quantum. We just see more mechanical pieces for those negotiations when it comes to informing those discussions and those negotiations coming to the GNWT.
Thank you very much for that response. Just on the negotiating tables that are active today, has there been a change, or are we still chugging along with roughly the same number? I don’t know if that information is public. Thank you.
We are currently with the same number, 15 negotiation processes underway. Some are more active than others. That’s something that we have to manage, but it is still 15.
Thank you for that information. Taking over lands, I imagine, and informing about lands, will be the Department of Lands. The Premier, again, has said the increase in budget here is due to our role of this department in meeting lands negotiations. I see there’s one additional person in this budget for this division. Is that the lands person? Is that where our expense is there? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is correct; it is a land negotiator position. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Bromley.
I’ll leave it at that. Obviously, the increase is more than a PY, but perhaps we will get the details as we go. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. There is no question there. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had the same question as Mr. Bromley and I’m really glad to hear it is clarified. When I heard the Premier make the remarks, it sounded as though we were taking over negotiations with Aboriginal governments for agreements and I’m glad to hear that that is not changed. I think that would be something which would be not very well thought of.
I did want to ask with regards to negotiations. Last year at one point, I think when we discussed the budget, there was concern expressed by both the department and by Members that the federal government’s Fiscal Harmonization Initiative was going to create some difficulties for us in that we would probably end up with inadequate funding in order to implement agreements, land claims and self-government agreements that had been negotiated by the federal government with Aboriginal governments. I would like to know if that concern still exists. Is it something which we have, at this point, run into it in fact, or is it still something that we’re concerned about down the road when agreements are in place and the federal government refuses to fund them adequately? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is still a concern. We have done modelling in the past to reinforce the fact that the negotiations would probably result in a shortfall in funding in the neighbourhood of about $32 million a year, if you took all of the 15 negotiations that are going on and currently making some basic assumptions. We have brought this to the Aboriginal governments’ attention that have been negotiating. We have raised it with the Government of Canada and we have had processes on a regular basis to try to find ways to deal with the problem or the issue, and there are obviously different perspectives of what self-government and how that works amongst different governments. But through you I’ll ask Mr. Goldney to go through the more recent happenings. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. Deputy Minister Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. While this certainly still remains a live issue as self-government negotiations are underway and, as the Premier mentioned, we certainly support Aboriginal governments in advocating for funding arrangements that make sense and will enable the vision of Aboriginal governments to be fully implemented, that still remains our objective and our goal. Much of course depends on our federal negotiating partner, who is currently undertaking a fiscal harmonization review and policy approach. We don’t have the final results of that review, but we are very, very mindful of that and still, of course, advocate quite strongly that whatever is negotiated should be capable of being implemented properly.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s good. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. First and foremost is the sense of optimism that seems to be leading the talks in terms of the bilateral discussions with the groups that haven’t come aboard on the Devolution Agreement. Particularly for the Dehcho First Nations there seems to be hope that perhaps there could be an agreement within sight. I’d like to ask the Minister for an update as to the progress of those talks. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I’ve indicated before, the Dehcho First Nation, the grand chief and I have had some discussions in the past about how we could try to find a way forward. We agreed on a terms of reference for a small group of senior officials to get together and without prejudice, and to look at how we could find a way forward on some very difficult and complex land issues. I think that it appears, from all accounts, the outcome appears to have found a way. It’s now going through a process with the Dehcho First Nations. I understand the grand chief has gone on the road to all his different communities. Our government, we’re running it through our due diligence process. I guess at some point if there’s agreement we’ll bring it forward to our different parties, but I’ll ask Mr. Goldney to tell us where we are right at this moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. Deputy Minister Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m happy to report that those discussions did bear some fruit and that there is a draft bridging document that might help address some of the complicated land issues in the Dehcho Process. So each party to those discussions, the Dehcho and the GNWT, have been reviewing that internally and taking it to their respective stakeholders and getting feedback. We do hope that the results are largely positive on that and what the negotiators have been able to put to paper, find endorsement and support in our respective systems. Assuming that’s the case, it will be brought forward to the Dehcho table.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Premier and the deputy minister for giving me an update.
One of the very fundamental issues that has been perhaps the fundamental stumbling block is in terms of the land quantum of the Dehcho First Nations. Most recently some issue was taken in terms of interpretation of how it is that this government is dealing with the main table discussions and more particularly so in terms of the 45 percent ratio of whether indeed at the end of the day the land claims process that will be at least the disposition of land or lands that remain as 45 percent open for the public access. That came to, as I understand, a matter of interpretation and became an issue for both sides, and I just wanted to know if that’s been resolved and whether that still remains outstanding, or has that been resolved.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Premier.
We agreed to go through this bilateral process and there are a number of key markers for the Dehcho First Nation. Obviously, this 45 percent is still a big issue for them. On our part, we would like to see some movement on the devolution side, and I think that we will let the process run its course and I expect that if there is support from both parties that these matters will be dealt with.
My final question is there is a critical component to this process and that is the Dehcho Land Use Planning Process. I know the GNWT has been involved with it, the Dehcho First Nation, but for some time there was an absent member from the federal side. How is the GNWT helping out to ensure that the federal government remain at least, or appoint a member on the Dehcho Land Use Planning Committee?
I think, as a government, we see land use plans as the way of the future and we are certainly supportive and we would like to get the land use planning process in the Dehcho moving forward. On every occasion I have asked the federal minister to appoint a federal member to the land use planning process and also to identify a Minister’s special representative to that negotiating process, and also I have facilitated, whenever it was possible, for the Minister and the grand chief to get together, although obviously, the grand chief has been able to make his own arrangements with the federal Minister, but wherever we can help facilitate, we have endeavoured to do so.
I just wanted to at least get a sense of… I know there have been some challenges in moving the negotiations forward, and I think there seems to be an interest in terms of trying to ensure that all parties remain committed to moving the process along. I wanted to come to an understanding if is there is a specific timeline, as to I know there have been discussions of an agreement-in-principle. Recently, the Dehcho First Nations leadership met in Fort Providence. Of course, their annual assembly is going to happen this summer. I’m trying to get at least a sense from this government to see, from their perspective, at least to give an indication of a timeline as to whether a final agreement is in sight, or is right now the concentration or the efforts on the agreement-in-principle?
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don’t have a fixed timeline for those negotiations but we are optimistic. We continue to put effort into those negotiations and there are some pretty fundamental issues that remain, and that’s probably the reason why we’re hopeful and optimistic around the bilateral discussions potentially offering some solutions to some of the long-standing differences that have been presented at that table. Hopefully that provides a bit of a break in a log-jam. But notwithstanding that, we have still continued to negotiate through the Dehcho Process and have made some progress on some of the other issues, so we are encouraged by that as well. In fact, Dehcho negotiations are underway this week.
Much depends on how quickly we can bridge some of those big, fundamental differences. If we can find a way through some of those, we might see very rapid progress towards an agreement-in-principle, but unfortunately, I can’t give a timeline.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Activity summary, negotiations, operations expenditure summary, $2.640 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Information item, negotiations, active positions. Are there any questions? Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just am wondering, on the 2013-2014 numbers, how 18, 18, 18 becomes 19 at the bottom in the left-hand column.
Mr. Premier.
