Debates of May 31, 2005 (day 5)

Mahsi, Madam Speaker. A good point you raised on the Dene K’onia future. My questions here today are to our Premier with respect to devolution negotiations that are going on and the current resource revenue sharing negotiations that are going on with the federal government alongside with the Aboriginal Summit in tow. One of the big barriers to the negotiation process, I guess, seems to be hindered by the lack of recognition by this government to legitimately or formally recognize the aboriginal governments in the NWT as legitimate public developing governments and new public governments as the case is with the Tlicho. We’re going to assume great responsibility within their regions in the near future. I just want to know what the Premier is going to do to alleviate some of the bureaucratic foot dragging that has been going on with the negotiation process in order to accommodate a better partnership building arrangement between this government and the developing and newly formed aboriginal governments in the NWT. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The honourable Premier responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure what the Member is referring to when he’s talking about foot dragging. We have negotiations that are going on between the federal government, territorial government and the aboriginal governments on devolution and resource revenue sharing. There are some differences of positions between each of the three parties. We don’t refer to the aboriginal government or federal government as foot dragging. I think those are the characteristics of good negotiations that each party will put offers on the table, each party will be willing to compromise and think of creative ways. We certainly will do that. We don’t issue ultimatums. We simply want to have good, solid negotiations happening. We have respect for the aboriginal governments as representatives of their people and at the table they are represented by the Aboriginal Summit, and I assume the aboriginal governments provide direction to the summit and we honour that.

As far as recognizing aboriginal governments as public governments, there is a process for doing that. In the case of the Tlicho, that was part of their settlement. In other situations we have negotiations going on whereby aboriginal governments are negotiating for what we refer to as self-government where they will take on the provision of public government services. I certainly welcome any aboriginal government to begin negotiations on self-government if they choose to go that route. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Premier, for that reply. I’ll just rephrase that question. I guess the point I was trying to make is the territorial government just doesn’t seem to be too enthusiastic about the whole devolution process as far as aboriginal governments that are going to be coming on stream here in the next 10 years. It seems like the bureaucracy of the GNWT is really digging their heels in when it comes to passing down or devolving a little bit of authority down to the community level, and to the regional level, and to the future aboriginal governments that are going to be coming on line. I think it’s high time that this government actually started moving this process forward and getting the people in the public service to realize that, yes, they are going to have to move either to these regional governments, because these regional authorities are going to be incorporated into these aboriginal governments that are going to be coming on line, and I think it’s time that we start this process today and not when the land claims agreements are signed.

So I just want to ask that maybe the Premier can make the commitment to the aboriginal governments, both new and the developing governments in our territory today, that he will make every conceivable effort to ensure that these aboriginal governments are viewed and respected in the same manner that any other provincial or territorial or international government is viewed by this government, and that the goal of achieving maybe an AIP in June perhaps would be a reality. But more importantly, achieving mutually agreeable, resourceful and respectful working relationships with future aboriginal governments so that we can all be proud of this government’s achievement in just sort of getting the ball rolling in getting these aboriginal governments up and running. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have to distinguish between negotiations on devolution and negotiations on self-government. Devolution is the transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the territorial and aboriginal governments. We are ourselves, as a territorial government, and the aboriginal governments, at the table. We each have to negotiate our own positions and I think we have been very effective in doing that.

Self-government is another process altogether. Deline, Tulita, the Beaufort-Delta have entered into self-government negotiations and, as I said, I welcome any aboriginal government who chooses to do so, to begin the process of negotiating self-government. That is how they become public governments.

In the meantime, Madam Speaker, when we negotiate with the federal government, then we are negotiating as a territorial government, we are negotiating to take those responsibilities that are currently held by the federal government on as a public government. Should aboriginal governments want to take those on, they can negotiate with us, but that’s a separate process.

Madam Speaker, again I would like to emphasize that we have gone a long ways and without getting into all the detail of negotiations, there are some differences between ourselves and the aboriginal governments or the Aboriginal Summit on things like resource revenue sharing, and we have gone a long ways towards in fact arguing with the federal government to provide a percentage of resource revenues to the aboriginal governments even before they take on self-government. But there is only so far we can go because we have to use those revenues to be able to finance and fund the public institutions that we’re responsible for, and until somebody else takes over the education system or the health system or the housing responsibilities, we can’t negotiate all the money away or we’ll be left with no ability to deliver our services. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the fact that this government doesn’t want to negotiate all the dollars away. The point I want to make is that when the federal and territorial governments are negotiating resource revenue sharing and the aboriginal governments want their direct fiscal benefits coming from the federal level right to the aboriginal government in their respective regions, why is that an issue with this government if they want to help their aboriginal people who have been deprived of education, health, housing and help those aboriginal governments, bring those people up, those aboriginal resources that they have, bring them up to a level of capacity where they can actually start to move and take on more government responsibilities from this House and directly from the federal level. So is this a mandate of the devolution and resource revenue sharing agreement, or is this something that’s totally separate as a self-government negotiating item? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Premier Handley.

Further Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Madam Speaker, through the devolution and resource revenue sharing negotiations, the transfer of any resource revenues is being negotiated to come to that government that is responsible for delivering the service. We deliver education, housing, justice and so on. We have to have the money transferred to us to be able to do that on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories.

As I said, Madam Speaker, if an aboriginal government wants to negotiate self-government, they just have to apply to us. Tulita just recently applied to us saying we want to negotiate self-government. I don’t know exactly what programs they want to take over, but when a government does that we welcome it, we reply, we put a team together and we begin negotiations. So I encourage every government in the Northwest Territories, every aboriginal government, to begin the process of negotiating self-government if they want to go that route and be responsible for delivery of programs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Final supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can understand the Premier’s point that the resource revenue is going to go to the government that delivers the service. But if the service that they’re delivering is not meeting the needs of these communities and these regions that are going to be operating under their own self-government, why is it an issue for this government to say well, yes, we’re delivering the base issues of every service, we deliver that, but it just doesn’t meet the community needs? That’s what we’ve been told here for the last few months by all the communities in all the outlying regions except Yellowknife, that the needs aren’t being met. So why is it a problem to give these regions dollars to help bring these services up to a better respectable level? Where the government can’t deliver on housing for instance, why can’t these aboriginal governments get their own money to deliver housing that this government can’t deliver on? That’s just one example I want to make, and I want to get what this government’s view is on that perspective of resource revenue sharing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Premier Handley.

Further Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a fixed amount of money to work with, and all of us here, as 19 MLAs, every year review a budget that will decide how much money is going to housing and education and so on. So whether that meets the needs fully is a value judgment that people will make because they may not be 100 percent happy with the service, but we are doing the best we can as 19 MLAs to provide the best service possible within the money we have.

If an aboriginal government, I’ll say it again, if an aboriginal government wants money to deliver the service itself, then it should enter into self-government negotiations with us and we’d be happy to consider that kind of request.

As far as getting more money, that’s why we’re negotiating resource revenue sharing with the federal government. We want a share of the resources that are leaving this territory. We’re not going to accept a bad deal; we’re not going to make a bad deal. We want a deal that gives us more money to be able to more adequately meet the needs of the people in this territory. None of us, though, have a money tree. There’s no such thing as a pile of money out there that people can just access. We’re going to have to work together and continue to collaborate in our negotiations with the federal government, and we both win as aboriginal governments and as a territorial government. But again, Madam Speaker, I say if aboriginal governments want to take over housing or whatever program it may be, then let’s start self-government negotiations. Thank you, Madam Speaker.