Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it would be through Executive that supplementary appropriation would be coming forward. The format and funding would need to be developed before that could come forward. Right now what we do have for concrete examples is the Sahtu, where they brought in leadership and youth from the communities around, we had three of the communities represented in Deline and we sponsored that meeting, in a sense, to bring them together. We’re looking at doing that again in Fort Good Hope with all of the communities and regions.
Part of the thing we need to look at is that format. Is it just going to be a meeting for a meeting’s sake or are we actually... My intent, and I hope the intent of the government, is by providing these funds it would be going through the AIP for better clarity and then a decision to either decide to move forward or not. At some point we’ll have to start our work on developing mandates and so on and the groups will have to decide if it’s time for them to come in or not. It’s not going to be without trying that we will provide time and resources to go through the agreement-in-principle to get better understanding of it and reaffirm our commitment that we’re not going to take away from Aboriginal rights through this process.
I guess I’ll just have to wait and see what comes forward later on down the line. I did want to express my concern and I express it again.
I’m going to change tack a bit here. One of the concerns I think that’s been expressed by this department in terms of implementation of self-government agreements for the tables that they are currently negotiating and that also may be finished, one of the concerns that I have heard expressed is the underfunding by the federal government for implementation. I’d like to hear from the Minister or the department whether or not that’s still a concern and I guess some kind of an explanation as to the effect that underfunding by Canada is going to have on GNWT resources. Another part of that is whether or not they think there’s any solution to this problem.
I guess this is where I can say maybe some of our diligent work has caused concern amongst the groups that they’re looking at the agreement-in-principle and that the net fiscal benefit portion on resource revenue sharing is a way of making up the gap that we’ve identified. It was through this department that we looked at all the negotiations that are going around in the Northwest Territories, the items of discussion at those tables and we did a, it was, I would say, a conservative figure about the shortfall that we would be seeing if there was not enough funding put in place and what we were starting to hear from federal negotiators about the level of funding. The initial work that we did, we identified a gap in the neighbourhood of $40 million. If every agreement was to be signed off and to be implemented, we identified approximately $40 million short. Since that work that was done and the negotiations of ongoing in a number of areas we feel that number is probably closer to $50 million where there’s a gap. As I’ve heard from some of the staff of the Aboriginal governments and some of the representatives of Aboriginal governments, that they realize that and they want to make up the shortfall. Our issue has always been that’s a federal government policy. They need to fund it. The fact that a hand went out and identified 25 percent in the previous government was, I believe, a way of trying to allow for the capacity of the groups to take on some of these programs and services. But it is in no means an avenue for financing self-government. I think it would even be dangerous for us to identify a funding source from resource revenues as a stable way of going forward. It would be very difficult.
Thanks to the Minister. I appreciate the comments and I would like to say that I appreciate the work that the department has done to raise this issue and to identify the shortfall, but I have to go back to my question.
When push comes to shove, if these agreements are signed off and we know there is a shortfall, what is the effect that has and is the federal government expecting the GNWT is simply going to make up this shortfall? If that’s the case, what can we do about it? That is kind of where I was asking about whether or not there’s any solution. Do we have the right, do we have the opportunity to say thank you but no thank you, we can’t take this on?
In fact I think that’s the gist of the work that we did was to identify the shortfall that was there, we feel is there. I think the example that we would look to, and as much as Premier Fentie of the Yukon might disagree with me, I would say when you look at that agreement it’s a great agreement but it’s unimplementable. They’ve implemented some areas but not all. If you talk to the Tlicho Government they are in the process where they haven’t drawn any authorities down. They have their governing structure and they’re realizing the cost of doing that. They’re not drawing that down. I think in fact, as the Member has stated, they are exercising their right not to draw down that authority because they realize that there’s going to be a financial implication for us or for them as well as we go forward. Hence, I guess, for ourselves as the Government of the Northwest Territories why we say self-government financing is not a part of this agreement-in-principle and it shouldn’t be considered to be a part of it. That is a bigger picture where we should be working together and our work was based on that where we would work together with Aboriginal groups, go the federal government, and ensure that the federal government was honouring their commitment around their inherent right policy.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just following up from Mr. Bromley’s questions, I know that I heard the Premier saying that I don’t think he could probably find too many people that wouldn’t suggest that we want devolution or want to take over more power of responsibilities from the federal government, but I think also the question is at what cost. I think that by approaching it the way we did, where we basically had a minority of people signing on and a majority of the Mackenzie Valley being left out, I think that is the issue in regard to how do we include those Aboriginal groups. I think that could have been avoided by allowing them full participation in those negotiations and from the information in regard to the United Nations Declaration or even the land claim agreements, under definition the consultation is clearly spelled out. It’s got to be more than just meaningful, but you have to allow them the opportunity to review what’s being presented to them and also the opportunity to bring back their points of view and then from there continue to negotiate or work those issues into the table. From what we’ve seen, and again, I think that that’s the part that’s missing, are people, I mean, our interpretation of consultation is totally different than what’s spelled out in the different land claim agreements. Again, in land claim agreements it is clearly stipulated that those groups shall be involved in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord or, as we call it, the devolution process.
Again, I keep going back to my days in the Dene/Metis claim. We were negotiating with the federal government to negotiate participation agreements like those that are in the Inuvialuit Agreement and the NTI Agreement into the Dene/Metis claim. At that time the federal government was basically reluctant to do that, but they made it specifically clear and even in regard to the agreement that was signed in 1988 when Brian Mulroney was up here signing it, he also stipulated Rae-Edzo when they signed the Dene/Metis agreement-in-principle that you will be involved in the devolution or the Northern Accord process for the transfer of oil and gas and resource responsibilities to the Northwest Territories, and clearly stipulated loud and clear for the public to hear that. I was there.
But the way this process was handled and basically not having the majority of the members involved at the table negotiating those elements, and now we got an agreement that you’re trying to get people to sign on to, which basically has had issues with the principles that you signed off on and leaving other obligations. I’m glad that they had the Dene leadership meeting last week, because the information was provided in regard to the fiscal arrangements and looking at the overall Norman Wells and other issues in regard to transfer of positions. Those issues were broadcast live in the Northwest Territories where the public had an opportunity to hear them and those are the issues that are outstanding from the Aboriginal perspective.
Again, I think that for us to say that, well, everybody wanted devolution so we agreed to sign off with a minority and not realizing that you didn’t. Even as legislators, from the last presentation we got from the department, we were totally convinced that you were going to get the majority of the Aboriginal groups on side and you weren’t going to sign until that happened. But in this case it didn’t happen. I think that is the issue that’s still out there, is how can you sign an agreement with a minority and not a majority and say that you have support for that agreement.
Again, there are only two treaties in the Northwest Territories, Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, which are constitutionally protected, which recognize their rights in regard to lands and resources, and the Dene-Metis, clearly the Dene-Metis will receive royalties and resources throughout the Mackenzie Valley. It’s stipulated right in those agreements. It’s stipulated right in the treaties. The same with Norman Wells. Norman Wells, it’s stipulated in the land claim agreements which clearly identify that Norman Wells has to be part and parcel of these agreements. But again, under the subsurface resources section of our land claim agreements, those elements were supposed to be part and parcel of the devolution agreement. Again, it’s the how can we get some clarity on exactly how do we move forward on this knowing that the only options that the groups have moving forward is you have to sign the flawed agreement that you can’t agree to the principles, but yet in order to move on this you have to sign off on something that you know needs some revisions.
Again, I’d just like to ask the Minister exactly where are we in regard to finding a way of including those groups in regard to the implementation of those land claim agreements, those provisions of those agreements, regardless if it’s Section 21 in regard to the surface rights, revision of the Gwich’in Agreement or Section 23, the Tlicho Agreement, or even in regard to the Dene/Metis agreement-in-principle that was signed in 1988 between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, because I believe that those elements make it perfectly clear that Dene-Metis had to be included in the process right up to the negotiation of any agreement-in-principle and not to be brought into a minority situation where you have a minority signing agreement that’s going to have major implications to the majority of Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories, which is the Dene people.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Member is reverting back to his previous position as a negotiator on file, and, I mean, I respect the Member’s right to voice his concerns and advocate for the groups. I must say that we all represent communities and we’re elected to a public government and everyone in our communities. None of us are elected by one group specific, although, yes, there are significant people within our communities of one Aboriginal group or another.
Let’s go down the list, Mr. Chair. Norman Wells: two-thirds of that is under royalty regime. The groups that have signed the land claims agreements and the Tlicho self-government share in resource royalties from that two-thirds. In fact, the Gwich’in share from the development of the diamond mines, so that goal has been met in that sense. In fact, I believe the Dehcho and part of the interim measures approach actually are qualifying right now for a flow of the resource royalties. Akaitcho and Northwest Territories Metis don’t share in that because in their framework as they have it does not permit for that. In a sense, as the Member has quoted that they shall benefit, well, they are benefitting from the royalty regime in place and, in fact, by this agreement would benefit an additional amount when we negotiate bilateral agreements.
In fact, the Member quotes a couple of sections in agreements. Well, let me quote one: “nothing in this agreement shall prejudice the devolution or transfer of responsibility or powers from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories.” That language is written in the Tlicho Agreement, 2.4.1, the Gwich’in Agreement, 3.1.10, and the Sahtu Agreement, 3.1.9. The Inuvialuit Agreement carries a similar provision of 20.(1). Devolution was considered in all of those discussions where we have settled claims and is considered in future discussions as well. But short from negotiating out our own interpretations of things here, what we’ve tried to do in all of this and the role of Aboriginal Affairs in this process is to ensure that we are honouring the land claims agreements, and I believe we have done that. We continue to inform departments of the need of following the consultation framework that we’ve put in place and, in fact, the Department of Justice, as I spoke earlier, is taking that over and will be carrying that workload as we go forward.
It is, I know, a sensitive area and it is fraught with complexities and opinions on what was done or not done. Clearly, as the Government of the Northwest Territories side, we have, I believe, honoured the commitments as we go forward. In fact, in the language of shall be involved, well, in fact, to help write the agreement-in-principle by most parts as we went forward. In fact, there is a seat at the table going forward if they choose to do so. The ability to consult, in fact, if it’s declined, it’s declined because they choose to decline not because they have been overlooked or omitted by a process by the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Premier Roland. We are on page 4-19, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to make it clear for the record, it does not say shall be involved, it says shall involve. The “be” isn’t there. Again, I think that it’s pretty clear from a letter that was sent to the Premier as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Premier of the Northwest Territories which was April last year before the agreement was even contemplated being signed off, which was five months prior to the signing. It clearly stipulated six areas of contention that they had in the devolution agreement. The Gwich’in claim is a comprehensive claim. The president, the board of directors cannot endorse anything until it’s endorsed at the Gwich’in assembly. They can’t remove any lands, they can’t open up any lands, they can’t make a decision unless it’s approved by the collective at the Assembly. A decision that was made previous by the previous leader knew before he could sign off on anything it had to receive that approval. This issue was discussed at the Gwich’in assembly before the letter was even submitted to the Premier. Again, that letter was never taken to the table to recognize those areas of contention.
It’s important to realize that the one clause you read in the agreement regarding the area of devolution included the understanding that the devolution process was contingent on the 1988 agreement signed between the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Aboriginal groups regarding the Dene/Metis claim. You can’t have one without all those elements put together to come up with a devolution agreement that includes those elements so that people can negotiate and be involved fully. Simply because you received a letter from a group that they do not have the mandate or that they have a contention with an issue, that’s the whole area of negotiation and consultation.
I find it kind of odd that you will read one section but not realize the fundamental element of the land claim agreements are the surface rights resources section of those agreements that clearly illustrates that before any lands, resources or before any powers are transferred, that those elements have to be taken into consideration and built into those agreements and arrangements.
Again, I could sit here and argue all day with you, but that is the problem we are facing here today. The consultation aspect of how the Government of the Northwest Territories consulted by simply saying sorry, you’re not at the table, we’re not going to deal with you, yet you know what their issues are but you don’t take those issues to the table and try to resolve them or respond within a reasonable time frame and not wait seven months for a letter that would have made a difference in the devolution talks. It’s not only the Gwich’in who are saying that, but other Aboriginal groups, whether it’s the Tlicho or other regions are having the same aspects, yet it’s pretty clear from the groups that were signed and the information that was provided that they were fully involved in those tables and the other groups weren’t.
So we talk about a working relationship, collaboration and cooperation with regard to the implementation of those agreements, the elements of those agreements, but you have to be clear as a department that you are implementing the obligations that you have under the different land claim agreements and carrying out those obligations that you have to involve those groups with regard to the devolution and Northern Accord process.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Roland.
I agree with the Member; we could be here not only all night, but we could be here all year debating one word or two words. That’s how some folks have made a living on negotiations, decades of discussions and no decisions to move forward. We have looked at that. In fact, by signing the agreement we are bound to the terms. For example, under claims obligations, the Tlicho Agreement, an example, 222.5.1, “the Government of the Northwest Territories shall involve the Tlicho Government in the development and implementation of any northern accord on oil and gas development in the Northwest Territories, which is negotiated in accordance with the enabling agreement dated September 5, 1988, between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, or any other agreement under which jurisdiction over minerals other than specified substances may be transferred from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories.” Yes, that language is in there and, in fact, by coming to the table, they could absolutely be involved.
But one point of correction, Mr. Chairman, the Member stated that only the groups that signed were directly involved and that is not a fact. The Member knows, because we provided documentation that every group was involved in one form or another right from 2001 to 2009 and they received funds, they hired staff, they hired lawyers, they hired negotiations and the last round of agreements, it was the Gwich’in that made it clear when there was re-engagement at the table last April, last January, that they did not want to be involved anymore. I hope that at some point as we work our way around this and we go forward, that there might be some avenue that they would accept coming forward on, but there are some key principles to shall involve, yes. Does it mean you have to agree? No. We have examples of that all across the North, all across the country of Canada. To be involved, yes, the door is open. Thank you.
I might as well use up my three minutes, I guess. Again, I think the federal government has an obligation here to the treaty obligations and also the fiduciary obligations with regard to their obligation to protect the rights and interest of the indigenous people and First Nations people of Canada under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. They also have the right to consult the existing organizations and also the band councils, the band organizations, ensuring their rights and interests are being protected. That is the issue that has to be resolved somewhere and probably it will end up in the courts. Is this government willing to go to court to have this issue settled? If it goes to court, does that mean that all discussions on the devolution process ends until the court case is settled through the Supreme Court or the Federal Court of Appeal, whichever route it goes? Has the government taken that into consideration that the legal costs associated with this government playing hardball knowing the legal ramifications of this agreement put in question under a federal court challenge? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. That sounds like a little bit of a hypothetical question, but I’ll go to the Premier for his thoughts on the question.
Mr. Chairman, the decision to sign the agreement-in-principle was brought forward to Cabinet, was brought forward to Members of this Assembly. The facts were put on the table. Knowing that there would be concerns raised about going forward on an agreement-in-principle, knowing there was the potential for litigation, we took all precautions to ensure we did our work right. By signing that agreement, I believe in the work that has been done. I believe we have covered our bases. I believe in the issue of bringing Northerners the authority to make decisions over development and to benefit from that development. I believe in it so much that I signed the agreement with the acceptance of the Members of this Legislative Assembly. I believe that by doing this and having the door open to leadership to join and by extending again an arm and a hand to help fund a process to understand the agreement-in-principle, we have once again shown that we want to be inclusive. I believe what we have done is in the best interest of Northerners and that we have covered our bases and that we have done our work diligently. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier Roland. We are on page 4-19, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chairman, just in case the media picks up on the Premier’s comments that he had full support of the Members here in the House, that is not true. I think he knows that. Unless you put it to a vote on the floor and see who is for and against, then you might get that assumption. I, for one, did not support this devolution agreement and I would like to put it on public record. I believe that this government basically did not include the Aboriginal groups involved, but more importantly, he may put us in a fiscal problem in the future by signing an agreement with a cap on it which has major financial implications in future years in light of the developments that have taken place. I just want to make sure for the public record that whoever is listening out there, that the motion that was supported by this House, we never even had a chance to vote on it in this House. The other issue is that it was the Cabinet that approved the signing. Maybe just to clarify your comment, who gave you approval to sign? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Roland.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Member, if he looks at Hansard tomorrow, will see I did not use the word full support. I talked about support of this Assembly. Now, yes, as is laid out clearly in policy, any Minister to sign an agreement with any government whether it is a provincial, federal, needs approval of Cabinet. We followed that process, but not without talking to Members of the Legislative Assembly. That wasn’t in this forum, but no one in this Assembly can say they were not informed of the process. Thank you.
Again, just for clarification, I believe he said he got the support of the House. So maybe he can clarify what he meant by “the House.” Is that the upper House or the lower House?
Well, the Member has been a Member for almost 16 years. He knows there is only one House in this Legislative Assembly. So for me to correct him with his experience here in the Legislative Assembly... As I pointed out in my last response, Cabinet gave me the authority to sign but not without having informed Members of the Legislative Assembly and all Members were aware of that. Yes, it is not unanimous, but in the interest of moving forward, we weighed all the considerations and the information before us and the decision was made on that basis. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier Roland. We are on page 4-19, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, implementation, operations expenditure summary, $664,000.
Agreed.
Mr. Krutko, you raised your hand. Were you wanting to speak to page 4-19?
I would like to know what the number is under contract services.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. We are still on page 4-19 and it is contract services, $10,000. He wants to know the details. Mr. Premier.
That is miscellaneous equipment; for example, copiers. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier Roland. Are there any further questions, Mr. Krutko? We are on page 4-19, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, implementation, operations expenditure summary, $664,000.
Agreed.
We are moving on to page 4-20, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, information item, implementation, active positions.
Agreed.
We are moving along to 4-23. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chairman, in regards to contract services, $145,000, could I get a breakdown of that?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Roland.
Mr. Chairman, if I could have Mr. Robertson give us the details on that.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Robertson.
Mr. Chairman, the $145,000 is made up of $57,000 for the office space lease in Ottawa. There is another $10,000 or so for equipment leases. There is temporary office support in the Ottawa office as well. With the one person office going on vacation, we recruit as needed support there. There is $65,000 for the Western Premiers' Conference work for the hosting and preparation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Robertson. Mr. Krutko.
In regards to contract services, do we hire any consultants or people in that capacity to do work on behalf of this department and do we have a list of consultants that we use to do the work for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs...(inaudible)... contract with a retainer as a consultant contract?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Roland.
Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t say we hire consultants. What we have hired in contracts for example under Creating Our Future, we have hired a writer. We have hired facilitators to do that work. As I pointed out earlier, when we have our office position in Ottawa take annual leave, we have to hire temporary staff there as well. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I believe under contracts over $5,000, there are some contracts in there. I am just wondering. So you don’t have any contracts with anybody out in the public service for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to do work on behalf of this government under contract services, or do I have to pull it out of the contracts over $5,000?
Mr. Chairman, while we go into the detail of all the contracts we have and that is not a problem, the Member may be referring to contracts that are held not through Aboriginal Affairs but other consultants that I use as the Premier of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can we get a list of those contracts?
Mr. Chairman, we will give you a list of the contracts we have with Aboriginal Affairs. If the Member asked me a question in the House about contracts with others through other areas of responsibility, I would be able to provide him an affirmative at that time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that intergovernmental relations works with other governments on behalf of our people of the Northwest Territories to develop and promote the interests and aspirations of our residents. I am led to believe that our Minister of MACA and probably other Ministers are as frustrated as Members on this side of the House in terms of our ability to influence the federal government on the issue of trespassers and squatters. What is this department doing to bring accountability to INAC and especially what are they doing to use any newfound leverage we might have under the AIP to finally make some progress on this festering problem here? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Roland.
