Again, I was more talking of getting professional or constitutional advice from outside the government so it’s not tainted and you can’t be seen as being a government organization getting a legal opinion of the government department. I know that there was a push on in regard to the caribou issue where the Minister of Environment was trying to get the Minister of Justice to basically give them a legal review in regard to ministerial authority over the question about caribou, and I know that was basically requesting that type of a legal opinion. I’d just like to know if there are any legal documents or documentation that can show that we tried to get another opinion besides the one we got from the Department of Justice.
The caribou question was a reference question and, in fact, the Minister of Justice has that authority to apply and put before the courts a reference question. It was that question and discussions with northern leaders that agreed to pull that back so that we could work out our own solution. I believe I had a commitment that we would work it out at our next regional leaders meeting and, unfortunately, that did not occur. We did finally have a deal worked out in the southern part of the Territory, but there is much more work to go in and I think as claims get settled that will help us in that area.
Again, for legal advice, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we have hired people who look at all the aspects of the Constitution of our commitments under signed claims of ongoing discussions and, in fact, Aboriginal Affairs plays a role there by providing additional information in what’s being discussed at these tables. So it is inclusive of that and it is a position of the Government of the Northwest Territories. I clearly accept that and I think we all have to do that. Has the Department of Justice had to hire out sometimes? I don’t know. Because of workloads I know on our existing files we’ve had consistent representation from our own folks. That’s my understanding. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier Roland. We’re out of time. Any more questions on page 4-11? We’re Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $2.411 million.
Agreed.
Moving along to 4-12, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, corporate management. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the $225,000 that’s given out to the Metis locals, how many Metis locals are there and do we have a list of the Metis locals? I understand there are 24 or 28.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ll provide a list of the Metis locals and the funding that’s been applied. One of the things we have is a condition on the funding that they need to be in good standing with the societies and we’re finding many of the groups have now started signing up and getting their paper back in order. There are 17 in total, but we’ll get the information out on paper.
Is that the 1921 group or the 1957 group?
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have Aklavik; we have Fort Good Hope; we have Fort Norman -- as they call themselves in the documents -- Land Corporation; Fort Providence Metis Council; Fort Resolution; Fort Smith; Hay River; Hay River Aboriginal Metis; Metis Nation Local No. 52; Norman Wells Land Corp.; Yellowknife Metis Council; and then we have the Fort Liard Metis Local that’s working on getting back up to speed; Inuvik Metis Local and the Tsiigehtchic Metis. Then there’s the three that were last funded. They’re in the process now trying to get back up to speed, and that’s the Hay River and area Metis Nation and the Metis Nation Local No. 64, and that’s Behchoko and the Yellowknife Metis Local No. 66. Thank you.
I’m kidding about 1921 there, but that was the issue in regard to the whole area in regard to the supplementary health funding and everybody questioning the Metis Health Benefits Program. The program is pretty specific in regard to the criteria that we use for people to basically access that program in which there are certain types of criteria and one of them is that you had to show that you were part of the 1921 group in regard to your membership. Again, the Metis locals still have a role to play in the Northwest Territories especially when it comes to Metis health benefits and also in regard to different programs. Again, they will be involved in the land claims and self-government processes going forward so I’d just like to know if that criteria is still being used in regard to how that establishment of those organizations will be under the Societies Act that they will have to have some sort of a membership criteria or basically an enacted date such as 1921.
If I understand it, I think the Member’s question was about the supp health Metis definition for that, and I’d have to get that additional information and provide that to the Member. We have a different role when we talk about definition. We work with the Northwest Territories Metis Nation and agreed with their work and it is more in the negotiation process of coming up with a definition. Of course, the federal government is not in agreement at all times. I must say that’s where we, as the Northwest Territories, are more progressive in that area.
Again, when you talk about the Northwest Territories Metis Association, which Metis association are you talking about? There’s also the Mackenzie Valley Metis Association. I’m wondering if they’re going to be funded also.
As I said, we will provide the list of Metis locals that are receiving funding and those that are in the process of renewing their societies’ obligations. We’ll get that information. Thank you.
Last question and I can include both items. Is there an inflation factor built into the funding? It seems like it’s a level number. Is there any way, based on inflation, that you increase it over a period of time or is it just a flat line?
Mr. Chairman, the amount that’s been allocated was straight across, every organization qualified for the same funding. We’re the only within our jurisdiction-only funding in that provide core funding. When other groups did not subscribe, we put in a policy that we would then take the remaining funds and spread it out for the rest of the organizations. We found this year that, as I was saying, many of the groups that did not qualify previously have renewed their society status and are now eligible again and we don’t have as much to share with everybody else. So I think everybody will have their allocation. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I don’t recognize a quorum in the House.
I’ll ring the bell.
---Ringing of bells
Thank you, committee. I’ll call Committee of the Whole back to the order now that we have quorum back. With that, we’ll take a short break and come back after the break.
---SHORT RECESS
[Microphone turned off] ...Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, corporate management, grants and contributions, grants, $300,000.
Agreed.
Moving along to page 4-13, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, information item, corporate management, active positions.
Agreed.
Let’s move along to page 4-14, 4-15, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions here. During business plans and actually I think it was actually a year ago, but in discussion with the department at one point we talked about a document called the Key Features of Western NWT Society. I believe it was during a presentation. At that time, there were some comments from Members that that document needed to be updated. I just wondered if I could get an update on whether that’s been updated. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Premier Roland.
Mr. Chairman, the Member has recalled, in fact, a significant piece of work we are working on. I am hopefully in the near future able to bring it back to Cabinet and then go to Members with the work that we have done in that area to update it. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you to the Premier. That is good to know. I think it was at the same workshop. There was some discussion about the development of a self-government policy for the GNWT. Is that part of the same work that has been done on the key features document or is that a separate policy that is being developed? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the first piece we were working on is the government’s framework and out of that could come a self-government policy. Right now we’re using the key features document and then all the mandates, so the government’s framework will set out the parameters of that. If the Members are willing, that could go the next step and start working on development of an actual specific policy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, maybe I could get a bit of an explanation from the Minister as to what this policy would encompass. I am not exactly following, I guess, why it couldn’t be done in conjunction. What would a self-government policy describe for us? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, for the most part right now what we use as guiding principles are the key features document and the federal government’s self-government policy. That is what we work off of and then mandates are developed around that as we talked about, many of those being redone. The government’s framework will be an internal document used by governments as we set up our mandates and look at that framework. Policy then potentially could be developed that would be a public document like our Negotiated Contracts Policy where we would set out some of those principles that would be incorporated into that. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to the Minister. That’s all I have. Thanks.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We’re on page 4-15. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chairman, again, 4-15, contracting services, $125,000. Can I get a breakdown of that?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.
Mr. Chairman, that is a chief negotiater position. Thank you.
Page 4-15, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, negotiations, operations expenditure summary, $2.841 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. We are moving along to 4-16, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, information item, negotiations, active positions.
Agreed.
Okay. We are moving along to page 4-18, 4-19. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It says under implementation that the GNWT also builds a foundation for mutually respectful government-to-government relations. Similarly, under negotiations, lay the foundation for retaining political certainty, building mutually respectful intergovernmental relations realizing eventually the GNWT... I don’t see that happening. I refer to our devolution negotiations. I guess I am still wondering how this department is gathering the information as the Minister says on the advice. Obviously they failed, because we have lost our partners. I am still looking for some edification, if you will, something that assures me that this department is on it and going to get our partners to the table and I am going to know how and how much it will cost. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Roland.
Mr. Chairman, when you look at the work that we have done on regional Aboriginal leadership meetings, when you look at the work done by previous governments around the Intergovernmental Forum, the Aboriginal Summit, those are the areas where we begin to build that foundation. In the life of this government, as I highlighted in my statement, there were 10 meetings we had. I would say that to judge the success of an initiative that is trying to undo decades of what some would say wrongdoing has been passed on from the federal government to past territorial governments in a matter of one stroke of the pen I think is quite a harsh point of view to be taking.
Aside from this issue of the devolution agreement, the AIP, I would say that we are having a much more successful process established and then again I would say the role of specifically Aboriginal Affairs at the tables and with departments to ensure that we are doing our work and ensuring are honouring our commitments. If you look at the language of the agreement-in-principle, incorporated in that throughout the document is the protection of Aboriginal rights, the Constitution and so on. I would say that the proof in the document in itself and that would guide negotiations going forward would be further proof that we have done our work and done it appropriately.
As for the specific issues of losing some of our partners at the table, it is disconcerting being the lead of this and trying to build that support over a number of issues, devolution being just one of those, leaves me to... I guess when you look at the big picture...leads me to wonder what are the actual specifics. Because earlier Mr. Krutko touched on the fact that it is a very complicated process and other Members talked about the fact that their self-government, there is self-government, Aboriginal self-government of the Northwest Territories. There are a number of land claim groups and there are a number of negotiations ongoing for comprehensive approaches that make it a very complex situation. I think it is almost in the areas where there is no over the movement, there are still negotiations. The concern there is one of... It is a competition: the Government of the Northwest Territories and Aboriginal governments. I have said on quite a number of occasions at those meetings that, in fact, it shouldn’t be seen as a Government of the Northwest Territories competition, because if future discussions on self-government actually were to draw down authorities, we are drawing down now as the Government of the Northwest Territories and those are signed off in future self-governments, that authority would then be transferred again.
I think it has just been very difficult in the sense of decades of what someone say were wrongdoings and it all comes back towards this area. I am hoping that, as I have stated earlier under Executive, as we put a budget in place and hopefully have regional leadership in communities respond to that request, we can then be able to rebuild again. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering, I agree with the Premier’s remarks on the early days, especially the federal government’s role to perhaps realize and certainly fulfill their fiduciary obligations. But I am wondering how does moving forward with this AIP without these key partners being at the table represent any progress whatsoever. This takes me back to the question: how are we going to resurrect this thing? Now that we have taken that decision, which a number of us advised against because it is going to be more difficult after making that decision proving we are just like the federal government.
I think the reflection of this Legislative Assembly shows we’re not just like the federal government. I take a point with drawing that comparison. The fact that if you look at the document and you look at the history and you look at the work done on that document, it had the inclusion of Aboriginal governments. The offer is still on the table for them to be a part of the process going forward. We’ve made every offer and in fact continue to make the offer to try to come to an agreement on moving forward with those that have not signed on. The AIP itself allows for the groups to join on at any point. As I have encouraged that they join on sooner rather than later so they can influence some of the work that’s ongoing.
Clearly from the work and the history of the Northwest Territories, every region I’ve been to, the meetings I’ve been to, the talk has been at some point, aside from the housing issue, the health issue and the education issue, has been we need to get the authority from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories. We’ve made a decision now that begins the work to look at doing that. Ultimately the next Assembly I believe will have to make a final decision as is that work good enough to make a decision on. We would never get there unless we made this decision.
I think we’re finally starting to get at what I’m interested in. How are we making the offer is what I’m interested in. I’m aware of the Premier’s regional tours. I think that’s a good way to start getting that back on the table. Those are the sorts of things that I’m looking for here. How are we proactively going after getting them to do the signing on and getting back to the table towards that as a step?
As I said, through Executive I would have to come back to this House requesting additional funds through Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations through the regional leaders’ approach continue to use that as one of the tools. The other area is to get as much information out to the public, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, so that as they become more familiar with this they will be able to ask the same questions that are being asked of us to a certain degree and be in a better position to respond in some cases when they’re asked what their position is if their leadership goes to the communities, for example. It is by the initial contact we’ve made, by the commitment following up to work with those who even though they have not signed, to continue to work with them around the AIP to get a better understanding so hopefully they feel that their rights are indeed protected and that this will not take away any of their authorities that are there and established. I mean, I recall one meeting we were at with one of the Aboriginal groups and questions were being made. I made some comments at the table and the question still came up about what is the Government of the Northwest Territories going to do. It was the Deputy Premier who pointed out that you’ve got the Premier of the Northwest Territories making a commitment to you here. I guess I’ve been at the table, I’ve said to the groups that as the Government of the Northwest Territories we are recognizing those rights, Constitution, Section 35, the land claims that are in place, the interim measures pieces that are in place. I think, as well, trying to point out where we are actually working together on things like the Wildlife Act, things like the Water Strategy, those things were there at the table with us. With a pen. It’s something that was never seen in the history of the Northwest Territories. This very discussion about going forward I would say is that not the essence of self-determination where the groups are at the table and they’re going to help design the next steps forward. It’s not one where on high from Ottawa a decision like Edehzhie comes out and says we’re going to change this. Or the regulatory reform work that’s going on right now by the federal government is one where they’re doing the work and, yes they’ll consult by having a couple of meetings and then they’re going to issue a direction from on high. I say that’s different than the way we do business and the way we’ve proven to do business through the life of this Assembly. Hopefully that continues to be the approach as we go forward. Every Assembly would have to make a decision on that approach.
The one thing, I guess, that in the spirit of going forward and firming up that relationship between Aboriginal governments and the territorial government, was the concept I put on the table last spring in Dettah about the regional leaders’ table being, in a sense, a council of regional leadership and the Government of the Northwest Territories where we would sign an agreement like that of the Council of the Federation where we respect everybody at the table with their rights and authorities and it’s not there to negotiate one way or another. It’s not a negotiation. It’s just recognizing the people at the table. When there are joint initiatives, that’s a very successful approach. We’ve been from that even on our own. Unfortunately, it didn’t get taken up. Everybody got very busy.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on my list is Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to first of all echo the comments of Mr. Bromley. I also am somewhat concerned that we haven’t seen concrete evidence of how we’re going to get the parties back to the table and where the money is going to come from. The Minister has said that he’s coming back with a supp and I guess I would like to know what the funding in this supp is going to be used for. Is it intended only for devolution, which is what I thought I heard earlier, or is some of that money intended to provide for the Aboriginal governments to get back and get involved with us in terms of reaching some kind of consensus?
