Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. From my point of view and the point of view of my communities is that they do want to see the agreement-in-principle devolution team in the communities explaining it to them, sitting at the table. I would once again ask the Premier to include that in the communication strategy, even if they’re going to deal with the regional governments anyway. I believe they must also go to the communities. Can the Premier and his team do that?
As we correspond with the regional leaders and the chiefs in the communities, the elected leadership, we will have that as one of the options. Again, if the regional leaders bring their chiefs and they feel satisfied that’s the approach, we would work with them. If there’s a request to go in, we would take that into serious consideration of being able to go into the communities.
One of the things that we need to do as we prepare to do this, there’s the first version of this is what the AIP is and what it says. Secondly, is our process going forward, and we will need much more time on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the Premier makes it pretty clear that the Aboriginal groups should come into the tent and we’ll all be one big happy family, but right now we’re not too much of a happy family. If anything, we’ve divided ourselves by regions, lands claims groups, and more importantly, the Dene and the Inuvialuit. I think that this government has an obligation, like I said in my statement, that it’s clearly stated the government shall involve the Gwich’in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord, no questions asked. It’s in the land claim agreement. So yet you’re saying, well, you have the right under the land claim agreement, but you have to sign on to this agreement before we’ll invite you into the tent.
So I’d like to ask the Premier what is the condition of signing onto this agreement, knowing that a lot of Aboriginal groups find this agreement to be flawed, and how can they commit themselves to sign a flawed agreement where they’ve done research on their situations and that basically the cap, the net fiscal benefit, and more importantly, Norman Wells. What is the arrangement for bringing the groups to the table? Do they have to sign or can they sign subject to those agreements being discussed?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite clearly, it depends on what cap is being discussed. The AIP does not include a cap that ties territorial formula financing to the AIP. That cap that some spoke about is, in fact, a national program. Provinces and territories, the three territories, we hit a cap that’s designed to meet the implementation of an equalization program across Canada. So that is not hinged on the agreement-in-principle. That is a financial issue that’s been dealt with by every province and territory dealing with Canada. So, number one, there is no negotiation on that in the sense of the AIP. Secondly, the resource revenue sharing that would be a net fiscal benefit to the North, the AIP sets out a process where we will have bilateral discussions with Aboriginal groups in that sharing of that net fiscal benefit.
More importantly, the reference to the Northern Accord, the Northern Accord is appended to a number of the agreements, but let’s be frank about that in the sense that it was initialled but was never voted on and endorsed. So we respect that and, in fact, the groups have been involved. They have received resources to be a part of that process and will continue if they sign on. The issue is, going forward, if they’re to tap into the resources available, they’ll need to sign on and work out an agreement with the federal government to have that money start to flow to them. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, again, the Aboriginal groups clearly and specifically stated that being involved is one thing, but fully participating is another. I think that is the issue that’s at hand here.
In regard to the Gwich’in Tribal Council who submitted a letter to the Premier in April last year on six items, which basically they had a problem with the devolution process, to date they have not even had a response to that letter that was sent to the Premier. Yet he asked for Aboriginal people to have input into the process.
I’d like to ask the Premier exactly what extent of involvement will the Aboriginal groups have in exactly re-looking at this arrangement, seeing exactly does it meet the criteria. I think the other issue they have is in regard to the whole area of the base transfer. What are they going to do in the future if they decide to decentralize these positions from Yellowknife to other regions? Has that been taken into consideration? Also, in regard to the potential indexing and also are these fixed funds? Also, I think that we have to be realistic. The numbers, we were looking at a number years ago, it was $83 million. Now we’re basically agreeing to $63 million. What I’d like to know is how they are going to be involved in those decision-making processes.
Earlier as well, the Member mentioned Norman Wells as the one-third ownership the federal government has, and they call it equity as their ownership piece. The two-thirds that are there do provide royalties to the Aboriginal groups and to the Government of Canada. So two-thirds of that asset is already paying royalties. The issue is on the one-third ownership of the federal government.
Let’s do some history here. The Sahtu and the Gwich’in took the federal government to court based on that being a royalty. In fact, we, as the GNWT of the day, we’re quite supportive of that initiative. The unfortunate reality that happened in the case, and was considered as a good fortune at the time, was the signing of settlement between the Aboriginal groups and Canada. And that has then closed that door. We have consistently, as the GNWT through previous governments and even at the start of this process in this government, looked to having that brought forward if not purely on a royalty basis.
I spoke to the Prime Minister, who was looking at the revenues that come from that and reinvesting in the North in key projects. So we continue to put those forward, and the best way of coming to the table is sign the agreement, be a part of that team that helps influence the future decisions and direction. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other area of concern was the impact of devolution from the GNWT taking on these powers, and more importantly, the affect on Aboriginal government and Aboriginal authorities, regardless if it’s land claims or unsettled or settled areas. I know that I heard comments on the radio from a legal counsel for the government, that this agreement will not affect the land claim agreements. This agreement is all about the land claim agreements, so I prefer to differ on that one. I’d like to know from the Premier exactly have we looked at the impacts on this agreement on Aboriginal governments and the land claim agreements.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement-in-principle has the fingerprints and handprints of the Aboriginal organizations and governments across the Northwest Territories. From the earliest days up until we picked this up and concluded a number of the bilateral issues, even to the point when this document was signed and sent to them, they started to look at what was presented. As the negotiators said, they reached their mandate. They’ve got their handprints and that’s why there’s language in here that talks about protection of Aboriginal rights and interest in the Northwest Territories. We’ve incorporated that language. Again I say, by going forward, as they participate and join on, we can include that language and continue that involvement in helping us frame the right language as we go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Premier if he would refer this question to the Minister of Justice and have the Department of Justice look at the constitutional viability of this agreement and the affect it has on Aboriginal treaty rights in the Northwest Territories.
As the Member knows, when Cabinet and government looks at taking a position on things, we involve many departments from the earliest days to make sure the language we have in before signing any document meets the criteria that’s set before us as the Government of the Northwest Territories in honouring our commitments that are made. That’s why the language, as it’s put in, is quite clear. Now, it’s written in here, the ink is dried in the sense of those commitments to protect the Aboriginal rights and the recognition of Section 35, but if that isn’t good enough for some, nothing will be good enough for some in the sense, because it is there. We get to set the mandates, and if they come in the tent and sign on, they get to help us with some of that work as we go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
On February 11, 2010, the Minister announced the first increase to the NWT’s minimum wage since 2003. I was thrilled to hear that announcement and I’m sure many of our residents were as well. In the Minister’s statement that day he said that on April 1, 2010, the rate would increase to $9 an hour. So my question to the Minister: since then, since April 1, 2010, has the department done any evaluation of the impact of this increase in our minimum wage? How have businesses responded? How have workers and their unions responded? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Since we introduced the minimum wage increase we have had a deliberation with the potential business partners and also the communities. As we legislated in the House, April 1, 2010, $9 and then April 1, 2011, to $10, those are discussions that we had. There were a lot of positive reactions on these initiatives. We haven’t heard much on the negative side of the minimum wage increase, but we heard some business sectors in Yellowknife and surrounding communities that had some nominal impacts where they had to hire certain individuals on those wages. But those are the areas that we continually monitor within my department. We will continue to work with the Members to inform them of what is happening with our minimum wage increase. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Minister for that response. He mentioned that there will be an increase to the minimum wage again on April 1st of this year. I am very glad to hear that there is no change in that plan. In his comments last year, the Minister also stated in his statement that the department is considering ways to implement future increases that will see regular and reasonable increases linked to other economic factors such as inflation and the cost of living. I would like to know, relative to regular and reasonable increases linked to cost of living, what is the status of this work? Where is the department at on this? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct; those are the areas that we, as a department, work with other interdepartmental as well on the stats collected on statistics. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the information that we receive will be helpful as we move along. Based on the consumer price index and the cost of living, we continue to monitor that. Once we increase the minimum wage in this fiscal year, the following year, we need to find ways of how much we can increase or status quo at that time. This is an area that we will need to discuss further within my department and with other departments as well. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Minister. I guess I have to take from his answer that work has not started yet on this aspect of future increases to minimum wage. I would like to know from the Minister, he is talking about talking to other departments and getting information from statistics. I think that is wonderful. We should be doing that, but what kind of work needs to be done cross-departmental in order to determine future minimum wage increases tied to the cost of living? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we need to gather information from other departments and business sectors as well. We need to hear from the people. We have done that in the initial stages. We collected information and data from them and heard their concerns and heard their ideas, as well, and suggestions. That is how we came forward in the House here. That is important information that we will continue to collect from the general public and also interdepartmental areas as well.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Your final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Minister. I appreciate that the department is doing consultations. I think that is valid. I did forget to say to the Minister that I appreciate that there has been some ongoing evaluation of the effect on businesses and workers. It is also nice to know that there is a positive response. I would like to know from the Minister when the House or when I could expect some kind of an idea as to how future minimum wage increases will be determined. When can we expect the results of the work that he is talking about? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have to follow up on a specific or detailed information what the Member is referring to. I will get back to Members on the status of our findings and provide that information to the Members. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions for the Premier today. It is getting back to my Member’s statement where I talked about the signing of the AIP and what the future holds for our Territory. I also mentioned in my Member’s statement that I am a member of the Northern Leaders’ Forum and I have some questions to the Premier about the future of the Northern Leaders’ Forum and whether or not the Premier sees that as a vehicle to try to bring Aboriginal leaders and other leaders from across the Territory to the table so that we can talk about what the Territory is going to look like post-devolution and what really we have here at stake and what the opportunities are for all governments in our Territory going forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Northern Leaders’ Forum got its life out of the Regional Leaders’ Table as it was through the Regional Leaders’ Table where we set up the side group to include leaders from across the North, look at a common vision. We had a meeting following or just prior to the AIP process. Not all of the people who were involved initially were able to attend as they were preparing for the agreement-in-principle process. With what we received, our partners were there. We were incorporating their work, for those that submitted documentation. We are going to send that out to the leaders who weren’t there, to see if they will provide input on what was provided and hope to have another meeting sometime in the spring. We haven’t ironed out that date as of yet.
As for our process forward, I believe it can be one of those avenues where we build on the strength that we have as a Territory and look at all the pros that present themselves in a sense of...as well as the challenges that present themselves as a result of the signing and how we need to proceed. I think that can be incorporated as we look to the future of what it means to have now the authority, once that is drawn down. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been supportive of the Northern Leaders’ Forum and trying to come up with a common vision, a way to work together with other governments in the Territory to move this Territory forward.
During my Member’s statement and also the Premier in his sessional statement today alluded to all the good things that can come out of this agreement. I think we have lost so much, Mr. Speaker, in fighting with the federal government, fighting with ourselves for the past 20 years, and at some point in time I think we have to start putting numbers on paper, talking about what the opportunities are, talking about what we have lost and what we stand to gain. That is every government here in the Northwest Territories. I would like to ask the Premier if the government can look at putting some of that work together so that we can sit down and talk about what the future does hold. We need to get the leaders back to the table. April might be a little too far away, Mr. Speaker. I think it should happen sooner than later. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the April meeting or the spring meeting we are talking about, Northern Leaders’ Forum, is to do with the work that was presented and we sent that back out. As I committed earlier, the regional leaders and the chiefs in the communities, we’re going to get a letter out if not by the end of the day, first thing tomorrow to the leaders to ask for a meeting specifically to do with this phase of the agreement-in-principle, how we can work together going forward. We are reaching out. As stated, we would rather have all the groups sign on and stand together as we do some of this work as it is going to be required of us in the very near future. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the signing of the AIP and eventually a final agreement with the federal government on devolution and resource revenue sharing is absolutely a game changer here in the Northwest Territories. I think going forward, coming up with a vision prior to the signing of the AIP and even the thought of us having a final agreement, that vision would look much different than a vision that I think we can come up with today that is post-devolution, post-resource revenue sharing here in the Northwest Territories. I would like to ask the Premier, that’s changed, and how can we articulate or how can we get our message out to the leaders across the Territories on what these opportunities are post-devolution for everybody? Thank you.
Thank you. I believe there’s a number of ways we can do that and as we set out a roadmap for the next steps we need to take since the signing of the agreement-in-principle and the work that we need to do in negotiations, and that we can pull that type of information together to show people what It could look like as we go forward. The challenges there are sometimes what we want to negotiate in the final deal might not be exactly as we’ve presented, so we have to be careful there as well. But we do know some of the facts based on our net fiscal benefit discussions, for example. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s things like that that will go a long way to helping people to come to the table. If you look just recently, the numbers on exploration dollars spent in the three territories, we’re $60 million behind exploration money spent in the Yukon, we’re $180 million behind Nunavut, we need to be looking at opportunities to get investment in our Territory, and I think investment in our Territories means something for all governments here in the Northwest Territories, and I think as much information we can pull together, the better off we’ll be in these discussions. So, again, I’d like to thank the Premier for his efforts in that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I didn’t hear a question there. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources in follow-up of my Member’s statement where I was talking about the consultation process for the proposed new Wildlife Act.
I attended the meeting with the NWT Wildlife Federation on the 15th of January and at that meeting the director of wildlife started off saying we want to hear what you’ve had to say, we want you to tell us what’s wrong so that we can fix it. Towards the end of the presentation the same director said, you know, we’re going to be putting this bill in front of the House in late February or early March and we’re not planning to make any substantive changes, we’ll make some editorial changes, which seems like a giant contradiction to me. This is supposed to be public consultation. How can we have confidence that this consultation that’s been going on since before Christmas is open and real and genuine when the director is saying clearly that they’re not planning to make any substantive changes, only editorial changes? How can the public have confidence that their voices are being heard with respect to the new proposed Wildlife Act? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Wildlife Act was identified by this Assembly and by this Cabinet and government as one of the big pieces of legislation they wanted to see done after a process of some 10 years or so of work. We, as well, developed a unique approach with Aboriginal governments towards drafting this legislation where we had lawyers, working group members from the Aboriginal governments, as well as GNWT staff and lawyers working, and they’ve been working and put in thousands of hours over the last couple of years. They’ve gone to every community. They have come up with a process that’s unique and does not exist anywhere in this country that I know of.
It’s unfortunate the Member has chosen on the basis of one comment that he thought he heard in one meeting, at the tail end of one meeting, in spite of the hundreds and thousands of hours, the hundreds of hours of work and all the communities that have been visited and the dozens and dozens of groups that have been consulted with, to condemn the whole process outright.
There have been 54 drafts done of this bill; 54, Mr. Speaker, based on all the work that’s been done, the feedback we’ve gotten. I’ve got a list here of 56 pages of the feedback that we’ve received and that we’ve responded to. So for the Member to say how can we have confidence, the proof will be in the pudding.
If you took the first draft and the 54th draft, I can tell you we haven’t just been spending our time changing commas and looking at making it a little tighter from a grammatical point of view. So the process is there. It’s been bought into by all the Aboriginal governments, it’s a unique process and it’s going to bring to the table a piece of legislation that is 10 years overdue. Thank you.
Hear! Hear!
For the record, I said earlier that I actually applaud the department and the Minister for the unique process that they put in place. I think it’s important, I think they did the right thing, but we’re still a public government and we still need to make sure that we hear the other half of the population, 50 percent of the population that don’t feel that they’ve been heard, and it’s the consultation process. Hay River had a problem with the consultation process. The Minister’s department went in there, they advertised somewhere, nobody is quite sure because nobody showed up. Turns out there was no advertising or not adequate advertising in Inuvik and they’ve had to rerun those same meetings. That’s clear that consultation is not going as clearly or as well as the Minister thinks.
Also, just for the point, it’s not something I thought I heard at the meeting with the NWT Wildlife Federation. The director said it. I was there. I heard the director say exactly what I said she said. That concerns me. If they’re only planning to do editorial amendments, are they listening to the people?
The Minister has said they’ve had 54 drafts. I’ve got a question for the Minister. If there were 54 drafts, how many of those drafts, those drafts where it’s gone or changed significantly, have occurred since this consultation has ended? How many have resulted since the consultation ended in January? How many have resulted in substantial changes, or is it all just editorial? Thank you.
We’re going to be briefing committee and we’ll provide you with the very many pages of all the groups that were consulted, all the individual feedback we received, public from all corners of the Northwest Territories. There has been full and adequate consultation. This is the most consulted on bill, in my memory as a legislator here for 15 and a half years. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, thousands of hours of time and we’ve gone to every community and we’ve asked for feedback, and there have been substantive changes. The Member should know this. You’re not going to do 54 different drafts on editorial comments. You will see that there have been substantive changes and there are some issues in there of great concern to the NWT Wildlife Federation. Though I must point out, Mr. Speaker, the Wildlife Federation has shown a resurgence as of late. While this government says we fully support and recognize Aboriginal governments, that we respect Section 35, this group advertised their meeting to say that the changes have less to do with the preservation of wildlife than with the granting of special and exclusive privileges to special interest groups in the Northwest Territories.
So we have a fundamental disagreement, but in spite of that, we have made substantive changes, and yes, we went back to Hay River, we’ve gone back to the places we’ve been asked to go. So no one can say that there has not been consultation, that there has not been involvement and that we are not serious about the changes. We’re bringing forward the best possible act possible. Thank you.
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I still question the comments that were made by the director and that were actually made, I just didn’t think I heard them. I’m still concerned that the consultations ended in January. They plan to put a bill in front of us in late February or early March. I want to know that the groups have been heard and what kind of changes have taken place since the last round of consultations. Can he guarantee to me that they have heard these individuals and that since the last round of consultation there’s been more than just editorial changes, as the director said they were planning, and that people have been heard and, where appropriate, substantive changes have been made? That’s what I’m asking. Thank you.
I’ll get back to the point of the Member based on attendance at one meeting, one comment, and he’s prepared to negate years of work, thousands of hours of investment and it’s unfortunate. I’ll give him one example of the issue that’s in there that I know has been an issue. That’s been the residency requirement to go hunting. It used to be I think it was four years, they’ve cut it down to two. Now, there have been a lot of concerns raised and the draft that’s going to be coming forward is going to indicate that we’re proposing one year. That’s a significant issue and there’s been huge debate on this and there is not unanimity. We recognize we’re a public government and we are making the choices to bring forward a balanced, fair piece of legislation. The Aboriginal governments have worked with us collectively and collaboratively. We’ve drafted this document and it’s going to reflect what we think is in the best interests of all Northerners. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your time for question period has expired; however, I’ll allow the Member a final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I am in no way, shape or form negating all the hard work that’s been done by this department with respect to the Wildlife Act. I respect the unique approach that they’ve taken with respect to involving the Aboriginal governments. In fact, I applaud it. I think it’s exactly the right thing to do. I am also not getting specifically into detail of the act. We can do that at another time. I’m talking about consultation process. I’m talking about listening to the people of Northwest Territories. I’m talking about hearing what they have to say and assuring them that we are hearing them and not saying things like we don’t plan to make any substantive changes, we’re only making editorial changes. That’s what I’m talking about.
This government doesn’t have a great record of consultation. Information sessions, on the other hand, we’re really good at. Unfortunately, we call much of our information sessions “consultations.” We do have a problem there. What I’m talking about is this process and how do we ensure confidence that people can feel that they have been heard. I’m telling you that they don’t feel that they’ve been heard. That’s what I’m talking about. How can the Minister assure people that they’ve been heard, that their input has been taken seriously, and that this act will represent 24,000 people in the Northwest Territories? Sorry, 44,000 people in the Northwest Territories. All the residents, not just half.
The Member is making a very strong assertion here that this is a biased piece of legislation that only represents half the people of the Northwest Territories. That’s categorically and unequivocally false. It’s egregious that he would even mention that in this Assembly. I’m surprised that the Member would stoop to such rhetoric on a bill of this importance.
The reality is, we did not just sit there and think, let me see, one year, there’s a good idea. We went from every community. We even talked to hundreds of people, groups across the land. This is the working group with all the Aboriginal governments involved as well as the territorial government. We’re coming forward with a bill that’s going to be representative of what we think is in the best interest for wildlife, for the environment, it’s going to have the support of all the governments and it’s going to represent, we think, the North.
