Has the government or the Executive considered dispute mechanisms in regard to arbitration or having an arbitrator come and try to work it out between the parties and try to find a way that they can save face, but at the same time save the Northwest Territories from collapsing politically because of an agreement that has some people on and some people aren’t ready to sign, the other ones are looking at it? So have we considered alternative dispute mechanisms such as the possibility of arbitration or mediation to have someone come in between the parties and have somebody run between the Aboriginal governments, the GNWT? It’s just like being in kindergarten and trying to keep the kids from fighting in the playground. So I’m wondering, have we looked at those types of alternatives to get ourselves back? What I’m suggesting is we have to find something that’s going to get us back to some table and find a way that we can sit down and talk face to face. I mean, I was over in Dettah and over the last number of days there was not one government employee in there. Yet as MLAs we walked in, sat down and made sure. They might have said a few things we might not have liked, but at least we were there. We all live in the Northwest Territories, we all know each other and the thing is why is it that we seem like we’re in two camps here. I think, for me, we have to find a way around it. So has that option been considered in light of where we are today, such as mediation or arbitration or court? My suggestion is mediation.
Again, I guess I would draw back on even the Member’s own history as a negotiator. A framework agreement, there is no process for arbitration. When you negotiate a final deal, you do build into those final deals a process of dispute resolution, arbitration processes like what’s established in the land claims and self-governments. Setting paramouncy for legislation and so on. I think we’ve already begun to reach out to try to come to a place where we want to draw back the groups, and as I pointed out in response to a question earlier, that with response to the letter we’ve sent out we can begin that process of bringing people back to the table, but quite clearly there are a couple of points that are very significant. One and earlier meetings it has been discussed publicly as resource revenue sharing of 50 percent. I think that that is, as you look at chapter 12, a negotiation item to be had as we go forward in this. The other of jurisdiction and chapter 5, chapter 6 probably more so, again, another negotiation item. So I think those are things that by signing the agreement we can begin that work and talk about what mandates are and how that would work going forward on that basis. So I guess what I would say is we have extended the arm out to say we’re ready to work with regions and come up with a budget, at least in the process of understanding the AIP as it sits now.
The concern becomes one, as I’ve heard some of the discussion that happened over in Dettah, was can they look at the AIP and renegotiate it? Well, again the Member knows from his past experience as a negotiator the authorities that set the mandates have set their mandates in the past and they’ve lasted through this whole process.
Other issues that are out there, for example, Norman Wells, even though the federal government continues to say that’s off the table we say that’s an area still of discussion that has to occur. The 2005 numbers to be escalated, we have put a marker down to say that is a point we will continue to discuss and negotiate on going forward. Ultimately if the deal that does come back is one that cannot be supported by the groups in the North, whether it’s the GNWT not happy or the federal government, maybe there’s some bilateral arrangements that aren’t successful, we’ll have to see how that plays out. That’s a future government discussion. Our role is now we’ve got to get to this next stage of getting to the table and looking at those work plans, looking at the actual areas of transferring down what that would really mean, how that impacts on the working relationships in those co-management boards, for example. There’s much work to be done and we would like to be prepared for that and we understand fully that the groups will need to be prepared for that as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Roland. 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, contributions, total contributions. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the NGO funding, I know there’s a lot of community organizations that are struggling just to run their organizations. Again, is there sort of a time limit or an amount of times that you can apply for funding over a period of time? It is a Stabilization Fund to assist those organizations to stabilize their operation and get them on the way of being some sort of an independent process. So is there a possibility of looking at a different type of criteria where you can use this money up? I know that there’s some frustration with some community programs. I know there’s some frustration with some community programs that were put out, but there was only one-year funding where once you get it you can’t get it the next year. I think for a few community organizations it was a great program to begin with, but the next year when they applied on it they were told sorry, you can only apply once. Because there’s these types of restrictions on different types of programs I’m wondering if there’s that type of regulation or rule that would be applied to these types of NGO funds so that groups that have applied but didn’t get an opportunity to receive it would be able to have a fair playing field so all organizations are able to establish it. It is a stabilization and assistance fund. The whole idea is to make sure you’re stable enough to operate on your own. NGOs have hiccups once in a while whether dealing with Revenue Canada or the tax man or whatever. I’m wondering if that thing is that you don’t continue to pay for bad behaviour. You have to make them realize this is one-time funding and is there to assist when you find yourself in that situation but it’s not saying that you come back every year and find yourself in the same problem with Revenue Canada or never paid your payroll tax or whatever. I’d like to know if there’s some sort of understanding regarding that fund. It’s not ongoing funding. It’s there for the purpose of assisting NGOs with a Stabilization Fund to assist them in the operation of their services.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Since we already approved total grants I’m just going to ask committee if it’s okay to go back to total grants. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier we discussed this area of the Stabilization Fund. There is a call that goes out annually. There are areas that are reviewed and the applications that go into four general areas, applications, regions of the NWT, the type of support being requested including management costs or governance costs, organizational development costs, extraordinary general operations costs, whether ongoing personal costs are being requested, and whether the proposed projects had not received support or where the same or similar of those supported last year for the same NGO. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of going in. There are limited funds in trying to reach out to the North as much as possible. I’ll let Mr. Stewart go into that. He’s much more well versed in this area.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Premier pointed out, we do put out a call for applications at the start of each fiscal year. This last year, for example, we got many more requests for funds than we had available. One of the ways we prioritized was to organize them by region, first off, then by, as the Premier indicated, the type of support and by whether they were looking for ongoing funding or not, and then whether they’d gotten funding in the past. We used that as the general criteria to try to help set some priorities and try to get at those organizations that were most in need.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Page 2-22, Executive, activity summary, executive operations, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $350,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-22, Executive, activity summary, Executive operations, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions, $40,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-22, Executive, activity summary, executive operations, grants and contributions, total grants and contributions, $390,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-23, Executive, activity summary, information item, executive operations, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 2-25, Executive, activity summary, Public Utilities Board, operations expenditure summary, $438,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-26, Executive, activity summary, information item, Public Utilities Board, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 2-29, Executive, activity summary, Cabinet support. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question with regard to the section on corporate communications and protocol. I believe it was in the business plans that I read that the department was doing a review of the GNWT communications standards and practices. I’d like to ask the Minister, the DM, if indeed that review was done and what the results were, can we see that report, all those sorts of questions.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The area of communications and protocol within Cabinet was one of coming up with a process of clearly establishing our links and communications internally with departments. Right now every department has their own communications portion or function. To pull that together to have a more consistent approach to that, as well as some direct communications themselves on that. We’re still doing the work, but I would say that if I recall the discussion on this, it was more to set up a better coordinated approach in our communications process between the Executive and departments. That has started to fall in place. It goes right from, for example, Ministers’ statements coordinated to the issues that may arise in a department that can have an overall impact on government and how we would respond or support a department in those initiatives. I can ask Ms. Ballantyne to give a little more content to that.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Ballantyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Premier indicated, the corporate communications group does meet regularly. This is an interdepartmental working group chaired by the deputy secretary for corporate communications. They have undertaken a number of reviews in their work plan. I’m not entirely sure about this specific review that the Member is referring to, but it may have occurred before my time. We would certainly undertake to get back to the Member with any specific information on a review of standards, which is, I believe, what she was asking about.
Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne. Ms. Bisaro.
I don’t have the paper right here where I got the info. I’ll look it up and let the Minister know. If people are still asking questions, I can come back to it.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I didn’t really hear a question. Mr. Roland, do you have any comments?
No, Mr. Chairman. Once we get some confirmation on this specific area we’ll be able to do that. What I would, I guess, put out now is that we will pull the work that we have done in the areas that we’ve worked. For example, some of this was an additional communications person that we have within Executive now that helps us and then there’s the internal coordinating and working group. The other thing we’ve done, for example, is our radio broadcasting working with Aboriginal languages and talking about in general our government messaging throughout a number of departments.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Page 2-29, Executive, activity summary, Cabinet support, operations expenditure summary, $3.156 million.
Agreed.
Page 2-30, Executive, activity summary, Cabinet support, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $219,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-30, Executive, activity summary, Cabinet support, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions, $604,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-30, Executive, activity summary, Cabinet support, grants and contributions, total grants and contributions, $823,000.
Agreed.
Page 2-31, Executive, activity summary, information item, Cabinet support, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 2-32, Executive, information item, lease commitments – infrastructure.
Agreed.
Okay. Let’s turn back to page 2-7, which is the summary page. Page 2-7, Executive, department summary, operations expenditure summary, $15.070 million.
Agreed.
Is committee agreed that we’ve concluded consideration of the Department of Executive?
Agreed.
