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... Clearly there is a distinction here between someone volunteering to coach a minor hockey league versus someone who signs a contract to deliver services A, B and C. If an organization and that board go beyond the services of A, B and C and then cause that instability, that is a different question that needs to be addressed and that is where we get involved with the appropriate departments to say, okay, how are you going to coordinate that so there is a recovery plan put in place. Recovery plan would have to take into consideration the willingness of the contract in place and those holding the contract. I think that is where the board plays an important role as we go forward on that. The overall fund, the definition can be expanded if that is the wish of the next government knowing that this is our final budget. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I should thank the Minister for his example because he pointed out that the need for a focal point for NGOs in the voluntary sector by saying that when there is a problem, then the Executive has to go to the department the NGO has the contract with and work with them. To Mr. Abernethy’s point, if there is the focus of the Department of Executive for NGOs and for voluntary sector, I think there might be a little bit better efficiency in our operations.
That is all I have at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next on my list is Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that this line item is specific to, I believe, some of the devolution discussion and some devolution budgeting requirements. Given the heightened awareness of our Aboriginal groups, most particularly the Dehcho First Nations which is a concern about where we are going with devolution. They want to understand more. I think last week they had passed the motion at the Dehcho winter leadership meeting about the willingness to at least talk about it at this... Their first position is always completing, of course, of the Dehcho process. That has always been a priority to them right from day one. However, with the agreement-in-principle, the devolution agreement that was signed on January 26th, they are concerned about it, how it would impact them. I think in their motion, if I read it properly, they do want to examine it and they are probably going to need some resources. I think part of the stipulation of our agreement-in-principle for any Aboriginal groups there, Mr. Chairman, was to actually sign on with the agreement-in-principle. It is probably something that they are not willing to go there. At the same time, I believe that our government, I believe the Premier’s office, the Cabinet, members on this side of the House would probably be willing to entertain some extraordinary funding for the Aboriginal groups so that they can have a good second or even third look at the agreement-in-principle. I believe that in order to make an informed decision, you have to examine things from all different angles, get even independent reviews just to make some good educated decisions about something that is going to impact your Aboriginal group and impact the future of everybody you represent. That is a huge thing to consider.
I don’t know what the Premier is thinking on this item. Is there a way that we can actually enter into discussion without them signing on, give them some resources, some dedicated resource to assist them in trying to understand the agreement-in-principle? Maybe the Premier can also speak about their communication strategy that he mentioned in the House about how they are delivering that message as well. At the same time, I still believe that our Aboriginal organizations need some extra resources to look at it. I know that last week we heard the Dene Nation meeting for all the various different actions that Aboriginal groups could take. I believe the best action for anybody is communication. Maybe I can get the Premier to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Roland.
Mr. Chairman, the process that we have gone down in the past, as I said a number of times quite a number of years ago, funding has been provided by both the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories in assisting groups from their earliest days of the Intergovernmental Forum, the Aboriginal Summit and to the regional Aboriginal leadership meetings that we have established through the 16th Legislative Assembly. As following the AIP signing, sent a letter out to all the regions, and copied their leadership, inviting them to contact us to set up a process where we can set up community meetings and discuss the AIP and fund it through that process. Clearly, by signing the AIP, that allows then the groups that sign to be able to tap into the fund that was identified through the agreement-in-principle, so that is one area.
As I had informed Members, this budget hasn’t been adjusted to deal with the increased workload that we are going to have to take on, so we would have to come back in a supplementary appropriation to deal with the additional requests as, for example, we are working internally right now with the Sahtu, for example, to help them with a meeting that was recently held in looking at support for an additional meeting. We would be prepared to do that type of work with other regions and communities as well. Thank you.
I believe that we cannot be too stern and continue with the carrot stick approach. There’s willingness out there. Anywhere the government can be flexible or creative in communicating with our Aboriginal groups and give them the information that they need, the resources that they need, I think it will go a long way. We are talking about their future and the future of the North and we’re at a big turning point here. It’s very important that we continue to be at the table with each other and discuss it.
So just in terms of a group like the Dehcho First Nations’ willingness to at least try to understand the AIP, are we talking about submitting a budget, or what kind of process would we have to undertake here, Mr. Chair? What would be the next steps if they truly want to go down this road of trying to understand the agreement-in-principle more, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
I guess the first step would be a response, a formal response, a letter that was sent out inviting a dialogue and communications to happen around the agreement-in-principle. At that point we would discuss a format that would be looked at and then begin to work on a budget that could be used before going into communities and going over the agreement-in-principle. Thank you.
I guess the next biggest component is where is the federal government on this? I still think that they do have a huge fiduciary responsibility and to me it just seems like the federal government has been very absent in this whole process. The GNWT did have a role, but the federal government does have fiduciary responsibility as well. I believe they too should provide some resources and it really doesn’t have to be tied to signing the agreement-in-principle as well. I think that they should be flexible and creative as well and try to make this work for the North and for all Northerners. So I don’t know how much discussion the Premier has had with the INAC Minister’s office ever since they signed the agreement-in-principle on devolution. Maybe the Premier can comment on that. Thank you.
We have had regular contact through our staff to begin the very early stages of looking at a work plan. Of course, as we begin this next stage and get responses from communities, we’d be more than happy to invite the federal government to sit with us at the table and go over what this AIP means and confirm again the intention of not infringing on Aboriginal rights through this process. So we’d be prepared to invite them at this point. We wanted to, from an NWT side, by sending out the letter and as we get the responses to those letters, as I said earlier, discuss a format and then look at a budget. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Committee, we’re on page 2-21, Department of Executive, activity summary, executive operations, operations expenditure summary, $7.010 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Page 2-22, Department of Executive, activity summary, executive operations, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $350,000.
Agreed.
Contributions, total contributions, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question with regard to the contributions under devolution negotiations. I note that in ‘11-12 the estimate is the same amount of money for the last year, the current budget year, for $40,000. In light of where things are at with regard to an AIP and devolution negotiations going forward, is that amount of money going to be enough? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, we don’t believe it will be enough and we will have to come forward in a supplementary appropriation manner to request additional funding once we know how many groups would like to go through the format as I was speaking to Mr. Menicoche. So we will expect we will have to come forward to this Assembly for additional funds. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Next on my list I have Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to go back to the previous page, 2-21.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Committee, the Member is asking to return to page 2-21. Committee agree?
Agreed.
Go ahead, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too, like Mr. Menicoche, strongly feel that this government has to work with the interested parties regardless if they sign on or not, and we still have to find a compromise, find a middle ground, find an area we can work from. I was hoping that prior to signing we were going on the right track with the protocol agreement being signed, the Premier meeting with the Aboriginal governments in Edmonton and more importantly the Aboriginal groups had an opportunity to look at their different positions. I think because of what has happened, we were all under the impression that we were going to try to get a majority of the Aboriginal groups on side before any signing took place. Again, that didn’t happen.
So regardless of whether they’re here today, we’re still in a bad spot in regard to trying to find an arrangement where we can work with our Aboriginal partners to find a way to work around this. I know there's been situations in the past and what I was suggesting prior to the signing for Ministers is to consider an agreement-in-principle and attach the Protocol Agreement as a secondary agreement to the signing where you could come at it from both sides. I know in the Dene/Metis process we never always agree, but we always try to have wording in it that allows the room to look at either the extinguishment clause or looking at the overall interests in regard to treaty aspects. You are dealing with a complicated process here where you have settled claims, you have unsettled claims, you have treaty rights and I think you’ve got to be realistic that it is a complicated arrangement. I think we also have to realize we have constitutional obligations to consult, regardless if it’s morally, physically or basically, well, you signed, and you didn’t, so I’ll pay the person that signed but I’m not going to give any money to the person that didn’t. Regardless of that, the government has an obligation under the land claim agreements, especially in the Gwich’in Agreement, the Sahtu Agreement, the Tlicho Agreement, that they have to involve those groups in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord. The development implementation means that you revisit the document that you signed, subject to those areas of interest and I think it’s pretty clear going to the different court cases that consultation is more than simply saying, well, I went to your regional assembly, or I went to a band meeting. It’s got to be meaningful; meaningful in the confines of actually having an opportunity to sit down with your lawyers, look at the documents, see exactly does that meet the expectations of the people you represent and, more importantly, moving forward.
So I’d just like to ask the Premier, in light of the responses you gave to Mr. Menicoche, is there that opportunity still out there for that type of dialogue to take place? It can happen in a whole different venue than the Northern Leaders’ Forum, but I think sitting through the Dene Nation leadership meetings, they are trying to compromise, they are trying to find a venue where they can develop a working group, a working group similar to the group that was in place to develop the political accord or political protocol so you have representatives from the different interest groups and you’re able to sit down and format your positions. If that means starting from the protocol, for me that means at least let’s meet them somewhere. I’d again like to ask the Premier if he can consider that as a possibility going forward. We still have a table to play on, which is the Northern Leaders’ Forum. It still exists. There are still funds that have been allocated to that format. I know for a fact that we have $50,000 from the Members on this side of the House to partake of that process. We haven’t spent that. I’d like to know if that is an area we can consider in light of where we’re at with the devolution talks.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, I guess first, the fund that Mr. Krutko spoke of -- $50,000 -- that was in a different category under the Creating Our Future Together scenario which didn’t take into consideration the agreement-in-principle. That table was a side table to the regional leaders’ discussions that were ongoing.
As for the consultation and approach, although much has been said about the signing and the timing of the signing, it all comes out of the framework agreement that was signed and a memorandum of intent that was reached in 2001 by the Government of the Northwest Territories Premier, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Aboriginal leaders from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Gwich’in Tribal Corporation, Dogrib Treaty 11 Tribal Council, North Slave Metis Alliance, Akaitcho First Nation, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, Sahtu Dene Council and Deline First Nation. The Dehcho First Nation was an observer at those meetings. That’s where this got its life and moving forward beyond the talks of a Northern Accord that the Member has highlighted that is included in a number of the agreements that were signed and that agreement appended to which, unfortunately, never got the endorsement and final sign-off, although it’s appended to a number of the agreements. Based on that, still using that as a principle, when you follow the history of this, it has included and been an inclusive process from the start and we want to continue that process. That’s why from 2008 when negotiations were delayed because of the federal election process in 2009, when there was a number of outstanding bilateral issues that were dealt with between the GNWT and the federal government and those bilateral issues were brought back to the table for all the Aboriginal groups to be updated, followed through to the process we found ourselves in. As the Member touched base, I had a meeting in late August with regional leaders and told them I expected a letter to be coming forward from the chief negotiators saying they’ve reached their mandate. In fact, in September that letter was sent to myself and Minister Duncan and additional letters were sent to all of the regional leaders to invite them to comment on that. That’s when we sat together in early November to discuss a way forward with that intent and agreed to a protocol work, as the Member has highlighted.
That protocol work we asked to have something, a draft by the end of November, which we then went into early December. I met with a number of the representatives from that working group and again asked them for an early draft so that we may be able to put language in, if there was concern with language, seeing as that was a protocol between all parties, that we’d be able to work through that. I was informed that they were continuing on a number of drafts and that January 6th I met with the regional representation of the leadership group again and some of their technical staff to go over the work and again ask for an early copy of a draft so we might be able to respond. We received a final draft I believe it was on the 14th. We did a quick review of that and suggested alternate wording, then met with the leadership again on the Sunday prior to the signing of the agreement and tried to find a way forward on there. Unfortunately we were unable to find a solution at that point. I guess what, as I was saying to Mr. Menicoche, is the letter we sent out to all the regions, the leadership to say we’re prepared to go and sit down and discuss the AIP and what it includes and what needs to be done next on that. So we’re clearly still there waiting for a response to that letter.
I say we’re prepared to do that but I must also say that if the wish is to stop the AIP and renegotiate an AIP, the Member from his past experience as a negotiator knows that you have to get a mandate to negotiate. As both chief negotiators sent a letter to the regional leaders, that mandate was reached. We’re moving forward on the agreement-in-principle and I believe many of the issues that we can use going forward as negotiation items and set those mandates. Again, we’re looking, as I pointed out, to putting a budget in place to reach out to the groups again and see if we can find a way forward for those groups to come on board and begin the technical work.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Before I go back to Mr. Krutko, are there any other questions on page 2-21? Seeing none, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I mean, we are at a crossroads where someone has to give a little bit to allow this process to work itself out. I think we can’t be focussing only on one area, realizing we could jeopardize not only the area of devolution for the Northwest Territories but the whole political development of the Northwest Territories. In the confines of improving our working relationship with the indigenous governments of the Northwest Territories. For me that is something we cannot jeopardize. There are threats of court actions and everything else. For me that is the last place you want a devolution agreement to end up before you even get to a table. There again it’s something that is real. The possibility is pretty good.
The other issue we have to realize is how do we continue to message this thing. I was listening to the radio the other day and I couldn’t sit there wondering about the message that you were trying to get out. The message is we gave the Aboriginal groups for devolution and they were involved. Well, everybody that knows and spent some time in this Legislature know that the majority of that $8 million was spent on something called an Aboriginal Summit, which was made up of consultants, legal beagles, which the Aboriginal leadership walked away from because they lost control of it. Ourselves as government, the majority of that $8 million was spent on the Aboriginal Summit. That was during that period of time that the Aboriginal groups reformatted themselves and decided to come back with a northern leaders’ concept where only northern leaders were able to partake in the process going forward because of that bad experience of how that took on a life of its own and spent a ton of money on consultants and lawyers and everything else and not really meeting the priorities of the Aboriginal leadership.
We just had a debate here a couple pages ago about NGO funding. We’re spending millions of dollars on NGO funding every year and I don’t see the Government of the Northwest Territories posting that on the website and putting out a thing that we spend $2 million here on NGO funding and who’s getting what. For me, I don’t think that messaging is fair and it’s not clear and if you’re going to put that type of message on, you should clearly identify how that $8 million was spent and what type of groups it was spent on. There were Aboriginal groups that didn’t take any of that money because they didn’t want to be seen as taking money from the government to partake in a process they didn’t believe in.
I think it’s how we develop that message and getting that information out. I’d like to ask the Premier if there is a possibility that you can publicly categorize the dollars that have been spent on devolution and NGO funding so that we can release it to the public and show them who exactly those dollars were spent by and what they were spent on.
The message that’s gone out is one from our office at the Executive because we held the agreements with the groups and have identified them in past discussions. The groups had to sign off and sign contribution agreements. The summit process was one that was initially made up of the leadership. The Member is correct that it did get tied into hiring of a lot of additional... Well, I don’t know if it was a lot, but it was considered to take out and it evolved into more of, for no better words, a bureaucratic process between consultants and lawyers and groups with some mixing of political leadership. Clearly the work that was done still was in the format and developing the agreement-in-principle and as you look forward when you go back and look at the year 2007, the work that was done by the summit lead to an agreement signed by the then Government of the Northwest Territories and a number of the Aboriginal groups and that got sent in to Ottawa. Of course we know that did not get endorsed by the federal government and I might say probably thankfully, because at that point it had even lesser financial value than this agreement holds. We can clearly put out the numbers there and it would be up to the groups to point out who they hired and the specific purposes that they hired the lawyers for and some of the consultants.
More importantly, going forward, looking at this and where we are today, in the life of this government we’ve tried to build that regional leadership table to move forward on key initiatives and the letter that we sent out to the regional leaders and the community leadership, again we’re reaching out to find a way forward on this process. Some of the difficulty lies, and because we’re so many different tables at different levels we do have, as the Member pointed out, land claims that are established and protected. We have one self-government in the Northwest Territories that’s a comprehensive process and then we have a number of groups negotiating a comprehensive process or, as the Member for Nahendeh mentioned, the Dehcho process has felt they need to go through that process. That does make it very complicated. That’s why we’re prepared to come back to the Assembly through a supplementary process to get additional dollars and respond to the request to go into the communities to go through the agreement-in-principle. The issue becomes, as much as I said at the Sahtu meetings I was at recently, that the issue of self-government and self-government financing are much bigger than the agreement-in-principle. Clearly the agreement-in-principle is a drawing down of existing authorities now practiced, in a sense, by the federal government and their staff. We’re trying to pull that into the North.
With regard to the operations expenditure summary I note under contract services you have $423,000. Is there a chance we could get a breakdown of that?
Yes, we will provide that detail.
Just on the question about drawing down government type, I think that is the area of contention in the devolution agreement with regard to Section 5 which talks about government powers and whatnot. I think that’s where a lot of Aboriginal groups have concern with regard to their land claims agreements. They have regulatory obligations under those agreements. They have been basically dealing with land, water and resources. You’re not only talking just the land claim, you’re talking about water resources where they have water resource sections of the agreement and surface rights sections. Even in those agreements it talks about that government has to consult in regard to the establishment of regulations, policies, procedures in which the government will change those, regardless if it’s the federal government or the GNWT. It’s in the land claim agreements and I think that that has not been really looked at in light of the devolution process, because it will have… Everybody says it’s not going to affect your land claims. It will affect your land claims, because the same thing you’re after the Aboriginal groups are after in regard to control of their settlement regions and everything that happens in and basically have eventually a self-government agreement that will allow you to take over those types of government-like powers through the self-government agreement in regard to having the ability to manage and also have the regulatory types of responsibilities that this government is looking at.
I’d just like to know, in light of Section 5 of the devolution agreement, have we looked at those sections which talk about the government-like powers which are going to be transferred over from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories. I’d just like to know, have you got a legal arrangement...(inaudible)...talks about regulation, exploration development, and it talks about the whole establishment required for surface rights, insurance in relation to subsurface resources in the settlement region? I’d just like to know, have you looked at that when you mention that the land claim agreements aren’t going to be affected by devolution?
I guess one of the things, we have looked at all of these and a number of these negotiations have to occur to bring final clarity as to the roles and responsibilities, but clearly, if you look at chapter 5, Transfer of Responsibilities, existing rights, 5.3, the transfer of administration on control of public lands and rights in respect of waters to the Commissioner, pursuant to Section 5.1 shall not: (a) affect any existing right or interest or trust including any existing interest in respect of public lands; (b) affect any existing right including any existing interest in respect of waters; or (c) abrogate or derogate from: (i) any Aboriginal or treaty right including any right under Treaty 8 or Treaty 11 of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada; or (ii) any fiduciary duty or obligation of the Crown to the Aboriginal People of Canada including any obligation provided by the Constitution of Canada.
It’s that kind of language that’s throughout this agreement-in-principle that was put there because of the involvement of the groups that helped in the designing of the agreement-in-principle. Clearly, we’ve gone to significant levels to protect the Aboriginal rights as we go through this process and going forward.
The issue, for example, that the Member has highlighted of regulatory reform, while the federal government started this process of regulatory reform a while back and I guess what I would say is if that was in our control we would absolutely be in consultation going forward, and in fact, by being at the table would influence going forward what those types of things would look like. For example, in our discussions amongst Members here in writing and meeting with the liaison of the Minister of INAC supported the existing roles in there, in fact, that they needed to be enhanced to get the job done they were required to do. I don’t think we’re very far off from sort of the same principles from that, and in fact, I guess I would say when you look at the overall picture, the very essence of the negotiations that have happened to date is, in a sense, coming to fruition by signing this agreement and being at the table. It’s not a matter of being consulted anymore. It’s a matter that they’re going to be partners in designing and implementing, and that, I think, is a huge step as we go forward into the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Committee, we’re on page 2-21, Department of Executive, activity summary, executive operations, operations expenditure summary, $7.010 million. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have questions on the AIP as well. As it stands, all of the Dene, I suppose, have not been involved in the signing of the AIP. That constitutes about 22 communities across the North. I don’t know what the percentage of population that is, but maybe 40 percent of the population not really involved in the signing of it. My question for the Premier is would the AIP ever evolve into a devolution agreement without the participation of the people that are covered by Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 within the Northwest Territories?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Premier Roland.
Thank you. I can’t speak for future governments in the final decision and the final agreement process, but clearly, as we’ve done the work up to this stage it has been inclusive of all the regions, at least in the designing of the agreement-in-principle. I would say that since, even as observers, they’ve been influencing the language of the agreement-in-principle, as I’ve just responded earlier to a question. We would hope that they would be at the table to help design and impact the language that we would use going forward. Some of those things require bilateral discussions or bilateral negotiations between the GNWT and Aboriginal governments proper. Some of these are going to be federal government and Government of the Northwest Territories specifically when it comes to human resources transfers, the contract implications, pensions, and all of that would be more of a Government of the Northwest Territories/federal government discussion.
The two areas that are of particular concern when you listen to the comments being made fall under chapter 6, I believe, well, chapter 5, as Mr. Krutko discussed, but chapter 6, I believe, is another area, and then chapter 12, which talks about the negotiation of bilateral agreements. That pictures all groups in the negotiation of that piece. Thank you.
I guess I’m wondering if it is possible for the AIP to go into a devolution agreement without the participation of this group that I refer to, the two groups of the Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 people that are treaty Indians under the Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 within the Northwest Territories. I guess specifically I’m looking at the resource revenue sharing. On the resource revenue sharing, if you took all of the land quantums in the Northwest Territories, then all of it with the exception of the piece that’s near the Beaufort-Delta is land that has been either negotiated or under negotiation. I recognize that there are lands within the treaties, or not the treaties but land claims. In Gwich’in they settled their land claims and so did the Sahtu, Tlicho. Dehcho and Akaitcho are not settled. If you add all of those five areas up it essentially covers the whole Northwest Territories except for, like I said, the area that is claimed by the Inuvialuit. I’m wondering how we could get beyond or even to an AIP stage without the participation of all of the landowners. How could the Government of the Northwest Territories, which was essentially municipal lands is the area that the Government of the Northwest Territories has jurisdiction over. Then the federal government and the Aboriginal governments that I speak of have jurisdictions over all other lands within the Northwest Territories. How can such important governments or Aboriginal governments be left off of signing the AIP? How could that happen? How could someone even sign something? If those guys are not at the table, how would that be signed? It would be like you’re going into somebody else’s house and you’re agreeing to divide up the property. I am wondering how that came about and how that is possible. I recognize a call for those guys to come to the table. The call wasn’t answered, but I am wondering how that would be possible. I’m just trying to figure out the possibilities of even signing a final devolution agreement without the original landowners being involved.
I guess clearly, for the record, because there’s been comments made by many since the signing and the idea of the signing to say that there’s been zero involvement. The facts speak for themselves. There has been involvement right from the Aboriginal Summit days through the hiring of consultants, lawyers, negotiators, through to even involvement in this last year by a number of the groups to either be at the table, to hear what’s being said and to make comments there or to be as a full participant at that table to do the work that’s necessary to get the right language in.
Going forward on a devolution piece, one could say that this is a continuation of devolution. When you look at the very first programs that were drawn down by the Government of the Northwest Territories, even the matter of housing which is spoken about at many of the regional meetings we’ve gone and community meetings. They talked about Aboriginal housing, for example, specific funding. Education, forestry, transportation, all of those have gone through a devolution process. This is another stage. It’s understandable, it is one that has a lot of emotion attached to it because in one area you do have settled claims and within those settled claims -- and the Inuvialuit are included, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu -- that have Crown lands within the settlement areas that are managed by the federal government and it’s that management piece that would come in place.
The agreement-in-principle speaks to having existing structures remain in place. That means the co-management bodies that are there would remain there and any changes to that would have to be in full consultation with Aboriginal groups going forward. Again, it’s full speculation as to the final agreement. We’re talking about two years out potentially of a final agreement being looked at as to whether it should be assigned by the governments-of-the-day. I can’t speculate on that, but quite clearly if you look at the existing drawdown of authorities across the history of the Northwest Territories, there were two parties involved in those agreements right from health care to education to justice to transportation to forestry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand the transfers of responsibilities that have occurred over the years from the time the territorial government has existed in 1967 and those programs and services have been devolved to the GNWT. That’s all history. However, that is something that the Aboriginal governments had participated in, in a sense, by voting and putting MLAs in this House for that purpose. But the thing is, if you look at the structures and the way the MLAs are elected, you’re looking at seven MLAs in Yellowknife and Yellowknife does not have a land quantum. So when you make a decision on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories to sign an agreement-in-principle to devolve responsibilities, it’s a different process to devolve programs and services through Health Canada and housing and so on. I’m not prepared to get into a discussion at this time of the discussion of the transfers of the housing that have occurred by the creation of the NWT Housing Corporation in 1974. I’m out of time, right?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Anything further, Mr. Roland?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, there’s a lot of history. The Member has touched on it, I’ve touched on it, about processes that were established. Yes, the issue of devolution on lands and waters within the Northwest Territories, and these are waters, for example, inland lakes and so on, that are managed today by someone who wears a badge that has a federal government insignia on it; an INAC employee or others in similar areas of responsibility. All we are talking about is drawing that existing authority that is practiced by the federal government who has shown us on a number of occasions and that has brought the ire up of Aboriginal governments and the people of the Northwest Territories to say that we need to bring that control north. That’s what this is about.
The issue of land claims/self-government negotiations ongoing, the federal government has put a clause in here that they can draw back lands when there’s a settlement that goes beyond the discussions that have been put in place and they hold that authority to reverse decisions in land quantum, for example. Again, clearly we’re being very cautious as a Government of the Northwest Territories not to take on any fiduciary responsibility that the federal government has, because the treaties, as mentioned by many leaders and Members of this Assembly, rightfully belong with the federal government and their role and responsibility. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Next on my list I have Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to operations expenditure summary with regard to devolution, you’ve got $460,000. I just thought I heard the Premier making reference that he’s going to come forward for a supp. I’m wondering what that $460,000 for devolution is going to be spent on under devolution or program delivery detail. Have you identified how that $460,000 is going to be expended?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Members recall, in fact that budget item used to be significantly higher when we were much more active. Through our reduction scenarios, we turned in some of that money. That amount right now is for existing salaries and O and M of our existing staff that are in place. That’s why I stated that as we step up this work now and begin the work plan, the scheduling, looking at the resources, we’ll be able to tap into some of the money the federal government have signed onto under this agreement-in-principle, but we will have to additionally come back for additional resources to continue to reach out to the regional leadership as we look forward to beginning the negotiations. Thank you.
I heard the Minister stating earlier that he has been giving funds to different groups who request funding. I know the Dene Nation wasn’t too successful in that area, but I know the Sahtu have been. How is that funding going to be delegated to those Aboriginal groups that want to have external meetings to talk about their participation in the devolution process going forward?
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 done. As I stated earlier to a Member, that in the first piece of trying to deal with that is to get an official response back, so we can talk about a format of how we would do that and then come up with a budget to match. Thank you.
Again, you’re saying you’re coming forward with a supp. Right now there are only two parties who have signed on with the government, which is the Metis and Inuvialuit. So is the supp only going to pertain to funding that’s going to be required by those two organizations to participate going forward, or will there be dollars available for those other regional leaders that you mentioned that are out there who are members of the Northern Leaders’ Forum?
Again, the Northern Leaders’ Forum was a side table on Creating Our Future Together. The regional leaders’ table is the one we’re working with and reaching out to the regional leaders and community leaders on that. Quite clearly, as we’ve shown already, the Sahtu have not signed this agreement, but they wanted to have meetings where they brought the elders, youth and representatives from many of their communities to discuss the AIP and go over it. We’ve cost-shared the initial meeting and are looking at following up with an additional meeting that brings in the rest of their communities. One of the things we have to come up with is a format on just how we would progress with that. So, clearly, we’ve already gone beyond those who have signed. The ones that have signed are able to tap into the additional resource the federal government have identified and that agreement has to be, I guess, articulated through the actual federal government. We don’t have any role in that $3.9 million that was identified by the federal government. Thank you.
