I hate to waste questions like this, Mr. Speaker. Sorry. I hate to waste questions like this. I asked what the Minister is proposing, not what she’d like to see. I wonder if I could get that answered. And while we’re at it, has there been evaluation of the existing Healthy Families programs? Mahsi.
I do appreciate the Member’s question and I don’t mean to be in any way disrespectful. I just want to simply state that I agree with the Member and we are aware and we share the view that early intervention and working with children and families does help in many different ways, as the Member stated, and it has been a focus of the government to work in those programs. The Member is also aware that the Health and Social Services budget is under pressure, as are all others. We are having to work with a 3 percent growth in the budget, which is almost standstill. So my answer to the Member is that we look to -- and I would like to -- expand the programs, but we can only do that to the extent that the resources are available. Thank you.
Unfortunately, my questions are accumulating here, Mr. Speaker. I’m just not getting answers. I asked, had an evaluation been done of the existing programs. I asked what the Minister is proposing. Apparently, there is a document to be tabled today. Supposedly, the Minister knows that if she’s proposing to do nothing, I need to know that, Mr. Speaker. I will add a third question. Given that major benefits from programs such as the Healthy Families accrue to the Department of Justice, ECE and other departments, including Health and Social Services to get us out from these budget pressures we’re under, this is clearly profitable, preventative investments in people that saves our budget, Mr. Speaker. What is this Minister doing to get those departments involved in supporting these programs? I wouldn’t mind an answer to all three questions, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
As I stated in the opening statement, there were 72 recommendations to CFSA. We are making this report available a month sooner than required because we do appreciate that Members want to take a look at that. As I stated, we are supportive of the majority of the recommendations. We are moving immediately on 22 and there are others that we support but need legislation change and working with other departments. We do provide a detailed response to those recommendations. I do believe we have ample time to review those. The issue that the Member raised, yes, we are working with other departments to advance those. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why don’t I get a good feeling here, Mr. Speaker? I guess, if I can try and ask a point-blank question here: would the Minister agree that despite an entire section devoted to prevention, and possibly the highest priority in our report, am I to conclude from the Minister’s remarks that in fact there is no expansion planned for the Healthy Families Program?
No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Member should take a look at the responses. We have very positive responses to most of the recommendations. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Premier. I would like to say to the Premier, having been deluged, I guess, with questions a couple of days ago, many differing opinions on the AIP and people telling him what to do and so on, I’d like to know whether or not the Premier is open to making changes to the communications plan that we heard about the other day. Has he considered making any changes, and if he has not to this date, will he consider making changes to be a little more personal in his approach to our residents? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, since responding to questions earlier in the week on the agreement-in-principle, the approach we have looked at we have been revising as we’ve gone forward, taking in the comments made by Members. We are looking towards offering up to go into communities and have a team established that we will be able to go into the communities to explain the AIP, as it is, on top of our communications in Aboriginal languages going into the homes across the North, as well, and on top of that, the householder, as well. We are working on a number of fronts and we’ve revised the letter I said that we would try to get out, and my earlier response to regional leaders, we have changed that letter now and it’s being revised again to offer them an opportunity to meet in the regions with all the chiefs and go into communities as well. Thank you.
I would like to thank the Premier for the response. I am gratified to hear that Members are being heard, that residents are being heard and that there is going to be a change to the approach to getting information out there and educating our residents.
I’d like to ask the Premier, if we are going into communities, and I’d like to state again we need to go to every community. We can’t just hold these meetings in regional centres; every community deserves the right to have a meeting and to hear these explanations. When the Premier and/or his team or a portion of a team goes to a community, what type of community meetings is the Premier planning on holding? Thank you.
We’d be prepared to hold public information meetings with the community, the leadership and residents within the community. It is about trying to get as much information out to people so that they can understand what this document is and what it means as we go forward. Thank you.
Good information to hear and I’m glad to hear that. I would hope that in any meeting, that the government would be open at a community meeting to hearing from both sides, and that if an Aboriginal leader, a regional leader or a community leader wishes to be there to speak to the issue, that they would be able to have the opportunity to do that.
One of the other things that the Premier mentioned is that he is sending a letter to regional leaders to invite them to come back to the process, so to speak. I have to ask myself why would they do that. What can we say to leaders at this point that is going to want them to come back to this table? I guess I need to ask the Premier, and I have to state as well, that I think, to me, the letter is the most formal method of communication that we have. So to the Minister, to the Premier: what is he doing at this point, apart from the letter to regional leaders, to try and mend these broken bridges? Thank you.
I think the language we use here, it sometimes can help inflame the situation that we find ourselves in, to a certain degree. Not all of the regions are in disagreement. We know some are right now planning to hold some of their meetings. We’re in communications with them on a number of fronts around the devolution process and again offer up the meetings. We do have to follow up with a formal process. So there are calls going on to stay in touch and keep in touch with what some of the regions are planning, what they are saying out there or what we are hearing. But we will follow up formally with the letters, as I stated, with some of the revisions that I mentioned earlier.
As we look towards the future and do what we can within the next number of days and weeks, looking at trying to schedule those community meetings that we can and get some acceptance of, we’re prepared to go in and have these information meetings so that people will be fully informed as we progress in our work plan as the Government of the Northwest Territories.
I think it is important to also recognize that as we’ve offered up through this whole process that at times there may not be agreement on some of the key issues. Some of the issues raised by some of the leaders as we’ve responded to are matters outside of the devolution of the authorities, right now practices by the federal government. They’re more matters of self-government negotiations or of amending land claims agreements, which this devolution agreement is not intended to do. We have to get that type of information out to the public as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for his statement, I guess. I appreciate the information. I certainly had no intention to inflame. It’s simply a query that has entered into my head and I’m glad to hear the Premier say that there are phone calls going on so there is some personal touch that’s happening with regional leaders. The more of that that happens, the better, in my mind.
One last question, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with the scheduled meeting for the Northern Leaders’ Forum in March. I wonder if the Premier could advise what the purpose of that meeting is. Thank you.
The Northern Leaders’ Forum is a side table to the regional leaders’ meetings that we had, we established, inviting other participants to be a part of the work we were doing on building a common vision. At our recent meeting we were presented materials from the Inuvialuit and the Metis, as well as the Association of Municipalities, and we are pulling that information together. Our response now is with that material. We’re sending it back to all of the participants, even those that were not there, as they were provided funds to be a part of this and we hope that although they were preoccupied with the days up to the agreement-in-principle, that they’ve got information that they can share or at least provide feedback on the information we have received. The basis of that meeting is to have that response from them as well as the others that did provide a formal response, to look at the next steps as we go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to my statement, I made reference to a letter that was sent on April 19th to the Premier on six outstanding issues that the Gwich’in felt had to be addressed before they’d come back to the table. It clearly states that the Gwich’in were withdrawing, and also they were withdrawing the support for the signing of the agreement on May 19, 2007, because they felt it did not accommodate them in regard to the areas of concern.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it took almost seven months for the Premier to respond by way of a letter. Again, he commits to a lot in the letter, but it doesn’t really address the six outstanding issues that are mentioned in the letter that was forwarded to the Premier. So I’d like to know when are you going to deal with the six outstanding issues that the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council put forward in his letter of April 19, 2010.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve already mentioned this letter a number of times in this House by the Member and spoke to the reasons it’s taken so long, apologized for the delay in some of them, but with all the events happening, it was better to respond with a full deck of cards and positions and send those responses out.
In the letter that I sent back to the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, we touched on those issues that he raised. In fact, we spoke of the fact that a number of those issues were outside of the agreement-in-principle and would be better dealt with, as I was saying in an earlier response, through other tables and other discussions, or final agreements in other areas such as self-government.
We’ve responded to that letter and I know that the president may not be happy with that response, but it is our position that a number of those issues are outside of the agreement-in-principle. There are a number of issues raised in the letter that we feel are actually a part of the negotiations to go forward. For example, resource revenue sharing, that is part of the agreement-in-principle under Section 12 that talks about having bilaterals with Aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. So there are a number of areas that we address where we feel we could better deal with those as we go forward. We would work with all the leadership, giving them time to respond to the letters that were sent by the chief negotiators, as well as work on and sit down together to work on a protocol to see us go forward on the AIP. Unfortunately, that fell through at the eleventh hour, but hopefully with those principles that I believe are common to all the parties, we’ll be able to use that and go forward in the next steps. Thank you.
Again, we ask for input from Aboriginal organizations. They put it in writing, they forward it to the government, we develop a protocol agreement, we have the Aboriginal governments assuming that they were going to have a say in the agreement-in-principle in regard to devolution. Again, that whole process collapsed on itself and I find it kind of odd. Is that a government stalling tactic to not allow the Aboriginal groups to be at the main table during this negotiation and eliminate them from having a real say at the negotiating table?
The Member knows, from his own history as a negotiator, there are times when the main table has participants there from different parties that share that responsibility, and there are times when it’s a team approach and the chief negotiator works with other groups as preparing for the main table so that the messaging is consistent. So we don’t need to go there and debate who has the actual say at the table. There are places in this agreement-in-principle where, in fact, it’s going to be a bilateral discussion between Aboriginal governments and the GNWT. So we’ll, in fact, be at the table across from each other negotiating the final, for example, resource revenue sharing bilateral agreements. There are areas where we’re going to have to work on the jurisdiction and sharing of responsibilities as we go forward in how they would work together where there are private settled lands and there’s the Crown lands that are being transferred and how that integration would work. So there’s that responsibility.
Let’s not forget, from the start of this process from 2001 forward, we’ve had the input from their negotiators, their legal people in the language that is throughout the AIP as it’s signed now. Thank you.
Again, I have to remind the Premier that we do have a legal and constitutional obligation to the land claim governments where the government clearly stipulates that they shall involve the Aboriginal governments in the development and implementation of a northern accord or a devolution agreement. That is on constitutionally protected land claims agreements. But yet, by submitting a letter with six outstanding issues that they wanted to address, which basically states that they are putting forward suggestions on how we can improve the agreement, and also include them in those discussions. So, again, I’d like to ask the Minister exactly why these six items were not taken to the main table of negotiations and put forward in front of the federal government, and why they had to wait seven months for a reply, knowing that these issues won’t be discussed at the main negotiating table.
Quite clearly -- and I’ve shared this with regional leaders right from the earliest days as we received the letters from the chief negotiators -- there are some matters that have been brought to the table, brought to the negotiation teams, that were outside of the agreement-in-principle.
Let’s go back to what this agreement-in-principle is about. It is about what the federal government is making decisions on today with their present infrastructure, their present regime in place, it is about transferring that existing system over to us and once we have the authority as governments in the North, we will be able to influence and make changes to that regime that better reflect what we want to see as Northerners in that type of regime and legislation. So there is that process that will bring all the bodies back to the table to be a part of this process in dealing with those.
So the matters that the Member talks about in the initial letter -- division of power, responsibility and authority that has not been resolved between the Government of the NWT and Aboriginal governments -- well, chapter 6 sets that process up. The resource revenue sharing part, chapter 12 sets that process up. So this AIP incorporates that we will deal with a number of those key matters.
There are some purely bilateral issues between the federal government and the GNWT when it comes to the human resources and the staff of the federal government becoming staff of the Government of the Northwest Territories and then the new positions that we’d have to go and hire and the contract that’s in place that we’d have to work with, the HR side. That’s purely a bilateral issue with the GNWT.
So there’s a number of facets to this that we have to clearly identify, and that’s why we’re working on bringing the regional leaders back to the table so they can help us in some of that work. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also, one of the items in the letter was the whole area of decentralizing government and the concern that they are raising is that it seems all the populated centres are the ones where all the policy analysts are, people that control those decision-making decisions and making them, knowing that those decisions are having effects on Aboriginal people and their traditional lands. I think it’s important to realize that decentralization is one of the issues that also was addressed in those suggestions and yet that’s not being discussed. I’d just like to propose, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier maybe he can get his staff to maybe have better contact with the Gwich’in Tribal Council, because I know that in your cc’s you have a whole bunch of chiefs there that no longer are chiefs in those positions and vacated their positions last spring. So I’d like to know if maybe you can get your department to get out there and maybe know who those leaders really are.
We will continue to update our files on the different elected leaders throughout the Northwest Territories and we will continue to do that as we go forward. Yes, we will focus and make sure we have the right contacts. Of key importance is responding to the person writing the letter originally, and that is the president, and respond to that and go forward on that basis.
Again, as we’ve looked and done this work, it has been inclusive. We have had a seat at the table, whether it is at the bilateral working teams as we presented and even when it was purely a bilateral issue of the GNWT and federal government, we updated all the parties as to the positions and the outcomes of those discussions. We have been at all fronts working to incorporate the groups at the table. In fact, it wasn’t until this opportunity to sign this that some of the positions that are now out there were raised, not in the sense of negotiation positions but of the stance of not agreeing with the signing. For example, in the signed agreement I tabled here, the signatories for this agreement were at one time all in one. It was at the request of the Aboriginal members at the table who said they did not want to have that part of it, because they felt they had to have opportunity to address it at a different stage. That adjustment was made and that’s why the section about coming in whenever they’re ready to come in was put in place.
We’ve adjusted things, as we’ve gone forward, to try to incorporate as many of the changes, but some of the key ones that are being raised are either to be negotiated as we go forward or are outside of the mandate of the agreement-in-principle.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier on the AIP. The devolution AIP is a roadmap that sets out the course of negotiations for the final agreement that the final agreement will follow. Five Aboriginal governments have already indicated some portions of the AIP are not in their best interest. Aboriginal governments have reiterated their substantive concerns with the AIP to the GNWT. The Premier wishes to include Aboriginal in the final agreement and if this requires a departure from the existing terms of the AIP to accommodate the interests of the Aboriginal, will the Premier agree to alter the course that the AIP currently sets for negotiation of the devolution agreement in order to make devolution work? In other words, is the Premier prepared to deviate from the terms of the AIP if that’s what’s required to accommodate the interests of the Aboriginal?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been through the process of working up to the AIP. We’ve heard some of the concerns. We’ve tried to address it through, for example, chapter 4, where we talk about protection of Aboriginal rights as concerns about those groups that have land claims and self-government that are in the negotiation process. We’ve incorporated the language in the signed AIP that sets out the protection and the wording and with the input of the representatives of the groups at the table to put in the language that protects Aboriginal rights. Certainly the fact that the Constitution itself stands and we respect all of those rights as we go forward. We’ve incorporated the language. I could go clause by clause to do this, but we’d use up all the time of the Assembly on this. We’ve incorporated the language to try to bring comfort to the groups that we will not take away any rights that are established out there. In fact, through this and chapter 6 we think we can grow together.
As for saying we will alter the agreement that has been signed, that is not the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories. We believe we can accommodate some of the issues as we go forward in setting our mandates for negotiations towards a final agreement in that. Again, that is why it is so important that the groups come back into the tent and join those that have been there and look at a way forward on this.
I’d like to thank the Premier for that answer. I think a deviation of the AIP is needed, but it’s apparent the government is not prepared to do that. According to the history, Aboriginal people are the true landowners of the Northwest Territories. Does the Premier acknowledge that the Aboriginal people are the true landowners and also landowners of the resources in that land?
The Canadian Constitution is clear about the agreements that have been signed and settled, and those that are... In fact, this agreement-in-principle goes clearly even into the areas where there are negotiations ongoing. The fact that both ourselves and the federal government have heard from the groups that are in negotiations, the clause that’s in there that the federal government can come back in and reach into those Crown lands that have been transferred to the GNWT and alter that so that the groups negotiating aren’t squeezed into a box that has been predetermined. It leaves that open for future negotiations as we go forward.
As the Government of the Northwest Territories, the agreements that have been signed, the language in this agreement-in-principle clearly states that we recognize those rights and authorities that are established.
On January 13, 2011, Aboriginal governments presented a protocol agreement to the Minister. The Premier had made some changes and presented it back to the Aboriginal governments. The Aboriginal governments didn’t accept that. Is the Premier prepared to go back to Aboriginals and seriously consider the protocol agreement that was sent to him in its form on January 13, 2011?
The protocol agreement that we helped in the process -- mind you, we were given a final draft copy late and let’s realize that a protocol is worked on with all partners -- we helped and supported the protocol work of the regional groups. I’d asked at a number of meetings if we would be provided an early draft so that we could respond, if there were concerns with the language that was in there that would not work with us. Unfortunately, we were given a final draft, we had to respond quickly. As I was open with the leaders that I met with and the technical staff that they had that I met with on January 6th saying that it was the last week of January that we were aware that Minister Duncan was coming up and we were planning to work on an agreement-in-principle signing and hopefully we would have the protocol at least initialled by the groups and a way forward. Clearly, the protocol that was written had language in it that said if we signed it, we would not sign an agreement-in-principle, that there needed to be some of the key issues, as they felt, negotiated first; which was the Constitution, which was resource revenue sharing, which was power sharing, which all have their place but have their place in a negotiation process.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to shift gears a little bit and recognizing that the Premier covered some of this in response to Ms. Bisaro, when will the Premier start a communication strategy to begin dialogue with Aboriginal governments and consider their input in the AIP?
We are working at a very fast pace since the signing to begin to put plain language, number one, householder in there and then to have Aboriginal languages do the interpretation, and we’ll provide that to homes across the North as well as through the radio. As well, the communications with the regional leaders, we’re picking up and getting back to them to say are they ready to sit down with us, and looking at going into communities with information sessions to have all of that information ready.
In the Executive side, devolution, we’re a small team now. We’ve returned much of our money, previous years’, because things were not moving ahead. We’ll have to revamp and look at how we get into those communities with those information sessions so that we can provide that. We’re working at that now. I can’t give you an absolute date but, for example, I’ll be looking at material this weekend so that we can hopefully get something out to the firms that could print this information and get it out to households as soon as possible. The Aboriginal language piece we’re working with Education, Culture and Employment on the language side as well as looking to communities for interpreters that could help us in this work.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about dredging and my questions today are for the Minister of Transportation. Since the federal Department of Public Works vacated their role in Hay River in ensuring that the mouth of the river and the shipping channels in that area were dredged on a regular basis, whose responsibility is that function at this time?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility of maintaining navigable waterways is with the federal government.
Since this lack of dredging is impacting industry in Hay River, what role does the Minister see himself in in communicating with the federal government on this situation? Have meetings taken place? Has the Minister met with industry? Has he met with federal counterparts who may have a role to play in this and could help bring some resolve to the situation?
I guess several Ministers could have a role to play in the concern that’s being raised by the Member. The fisheries are being impacted, as was stated in her comments. I guess it could fall under ITI. As a potential disaster, it could fall under MACA. NTCL is concerned about the channel there, so I guess that would fall under DOT.
We as a government have had the concern raised to us by the municipality and we have indicated to them that there was some potential programs that we could flag for them to provide that information to them. We’ve also had a meeting with the Member for Hay River North, our Speaker, who has also raised this concern as something that’s beginning to be a real serious challenge of how we move forward. I believe our MP has had an opportunity to speak with Minister Gail Shea, who is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and those talks are ongoing. We have, of course, raised it also as a department with our federal counterparts and those discussions are ongoing.
