Mr. Speaker, the whole intention of the land claim agreements, the devolution of process is to enhance the land claim agreements to give the aboriginal response in regards to lands and resource responsibility of the Northwest Territories, but ownership of those resources of the Northwest Territories and to take part of the political and social development in the Northwest Territories. Without those enhancements, the Dene-Metis would have never signed the agreements that we have today, because we have settled for arrangement that we will take a share of resource revenue sharing throughout the Mackenzie Valley over and above what is in the land claim agreements and negotiate through the devolution process. That wording is not in the existing agreement. It makes reference to the Inuvialuit to be able to negotiate with government for resource arrangements in the Beaufort Sea. It doesn’t say that about the Dene-Metis. Why is that not in the agreement?
The fact of the matter is -- and I can repeat almost word for word as the Member just spoke -- that the land claims have written in them resource revenue sharing arrangements with the federal government. The fact that what the Northern Accord may have stated is one thing that they never got ratified. It hit a certain point and there it sits. The land claims now hold the legal status of that. The agreement-in-principle now takes it to the next step where in fact if we were to sign this and go forward and agree, the governments-of-the-day, sign an agreement, a final agreement, there would be further sharing of the resource revenues that now go to Ottawa. Thank you.
Again, wording -- what’s in the agreement, what’s not in the agreement -- in the 1988 agreement, the devolution process was the enabling agreement signed between the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories to spell out exactly how the aboriginal obligations were going to be transferred. Again, that wording is not in this agreement. So why is that wording, which was used in the Dene-Metis claim and the land claims agreement to date, not entrenched in this agreement that you’re trying to sign off with the federal government?
The fact that we used the land claims agreements that are signed today, we used the Tlicho Agreement that is signed and today they’re protected, Section 35, we have sat down with aboriginal, technical negotiators as well to come up with the language that sees the further protection of those rights going forward in a government-to-government relationship. Today’s environment, we use those terms rather loosely of government-to-government. This agreement-in-principle and a final agreement would in fact make that an absolute reality.
I think, as we listen to the history of the North, to the people today, and to the aboriginal leadership of today, and to the Government of the Northwest Territories, we all want to do the same thing, and that is bring control and the rewards from development to Northerners. That’s what we’re talking about. This is not take land away from anybody else or the controls. This is to respect those, and the places where there is Crown land now administered by the federal government, in a day where a final agreement is in place, would be administered by northern governments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’d like to ask the Premier why in the land claim agreements we specifically state that the Government of the Northwest Territories shall consult the aboriginal groups in regard to oil and gas and devolution in the Northwest Territories and why aboriginal groups have written letters to the Minister, which have been sitting on his desk for seven months? Is that the way that we deal with aboriginal governments when we make reference that this government shall consult and we’ve put the letters on the side table and, what, wait for the time to run out? Thank you.
We could use up the rest of this time period and go over in fine detail all of the meetings held, all the information shared and the actual face-to-face meetings. The letter the Member is talking about, and he’s raised already on a number of occasions, we’re showing Members our responses. The responses will go out. Meetings have been held and will continue to be held. The fact is, consultation is happening, has happened, and will continue to happen. What is the fear that is really there or is it really a monetary issue that needs to be discussed? All of these things, I believe, the majority of those things can be dealt with as we decide to take the next step. That is go forward in a final set of negotiations and clear up the air and take authority back to where it belongs, and that is home to the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Finance Minister and it gets back to my Member’s statement where I was talking about our Member of Parliament, Mr. Dennis Bevington, who this week is trumpeting his borrowing limit Bill C-530 to his counterparts in Ottawa in the House of Commons. It got me to thinking, Mr. Speaker -- and the rest of the residents here in the Northwest Territories are giving this a lot of thought today as well -- does this Cabinet endorse Bill C-530 in its current form? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Michael Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I read the news clips with interest this morning and the comments from the Member of Parliament as he looks to the future in the Northwest Territories as a maturing political jurisdiction. On the other hand, I noticed the comment from the Member for Kam Lake that said this government is not ready, we’re not old enough, we’re not mature enough, we’re not wise enough to handle any more money, let’s throw out an anchor and let’s throw this whole process down, which is an unfortunate comment.
The Member of Parliament is elected by the people of the Northwest Territories in a general election. He doesn’t answer to this Assembly, he answers to the people of the Northwest Territories. He has tools at his disposal to advance causes that he sees as important to the development of the Northwest Territories, some that we share in common with him. The Member of Parliament had the good grace to contact us, to consult with us, to indicate to us what he was doing, ask for our feedback and our thoughts, which we gave him. But it should be very clear here in this House, he doesn’t answer to us, we don’t answer to him, and he’s doing what he thinks is necessary as a Member of Parliament. We have the common goal in mind to advance the interests of the Northwest Territories to be treated as a mature, evolving political jurisdiction and I hope that all Members would be supportive of that. We’re engaged in a process with the federal government in terms of reviewing our borrowing limits that we’re committed to, and we’ve indicated that to the Member. Thank you.
Yes, that’s right. I remember Parliament does answer to the people of the Northwest Territories. This Minister and this Cabinet answer to us, we represent the people here in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, I support moving forward with the AIP; I’ve said that unequivocally. I support that. What I don’t support is us seeking more ways to spend money. Mr. Speaker, I’ve gone on record as saying this before and I’ll say it again for the Minister: I’m not sure exactly what it costs to service a debt of around $500 million in a Territory of 42,000 people, but my estimate, Mr. Speaker, is around $35 million to $40 million. If you double that, almost double that to over $900 million, that’s going to take money away from programs and services that we provide to the people of the Northwest Territories.
I’d like to ask the Finance Minister if his department has done any analysis on what having a debt in the neighbourhood of $900 million would do to the finances of this Territory. Thank you.
We’ve informed Members of what’s happening with the borrowing limit, that there’s a review underway with federal Finance and the three territories to review the borrowing limits that are currently in place, which are different between the three territories. It’s a common issue for the three territories. Our borrowing limit is currently $575 million. About $450 million of that is self-liquidating, because it’s being paid down through the Power Corp and the Housing Corporation, and the Deh Cho Bridge will be generating its own revenues. We have to recognize that. We’re looking for a review that recognizes that we have those extenuating circumstances.
We have not spent any time, nor do we intend to, to analyze the content of the Member of Parliament’s bill. We’ve indicated to him that while we appreciate what he is trying to achieve in advancing the cause of the North, we as a government have already started a process with the federal government and the other two territories that we are fully engaged in and intend to see to completion. Thank you.
If Bill C-530 does pass, within two months that would increase the borrowing limit of the Government of the Northwest Territories to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900 million and if the Minister of Finance hasn’t done the work, the analysis of what our spending would get us, the $900 million, what that would do to our finances going forward, then again, I think we’re missing something here. I’d like to ask the Minister if he could share with the Members of this House any official correspondence he’s had with the Member of Parliament on Bill C-530.
I’m not a federal parliamentary expert but my understanding of the Private Member’s Bill process is that this process will take years. It will take until sometime in the new year to even get back before the House for further discussion before there’s even any decision made.
I can indicate to this House that there was correspondence from the Premier to the Member of Parliament on October 20th confirming what I’ve stated to this House, that we thank them for contacting us, but indicating that we have a process that we are engaged in with the federal government and the other territories to review our borrowing limits and that we will fully engage in that process to its conclusion.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for that. I guess for me the bottom line is whether or not -- and I said this earlier -- we’ve never discussed in any meeting I’ve been in during the seven years that I’ve been here, a percentage on our expenditures as a borrowing limit. It is the first I’ve heard of it and I’d like to again ask the Minister if this Cabinet endorses 70 percent of our expenditures as a borrowing limit for this government.
Let me state once again for the Member and the general public, that we have indicated to the Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic that it’s his right to pursue a Private Member’s Bill. He has our interests in mind and in his opinion he’s using the processes he has. But we have made it clear that we have embarked upon a process with the federal Finance department and the other two territories to review our borrowing limit. That’s the process we’re engaged in. That’s the process we are committed to. That’s what we are paying attention to. That’s where we see the issues with our concern of the borrowing limit being addressed and it’s the one we’re fully engaged in.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I was talking about the housing problems and issues that we have in Paulatuk. I would like to ask the Minister of Housing what is holding up the Housing Corporation’s work to solve the problem of unfair arrears in the community of Paulatuk.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had a good trip into Paulatuk and we had a good public meeting. There were a lot of concerns raised by the residents of Paulatuk. We received a great number of correspondences as to some of the problems that we’re facing. I did commit to them that we would have a look at the question of arrears. There was some question there as to the amount of arrears and the time it was taking to get assessed. I did commit to them that we would work with them.
As it stands right now, the LHOs are starting to do the assessments again. For the assessments that were done prior to Housing Corporation getting the responsibility for assessments back from ECE, tenants have the ability to go into their LHO, provide the proper documentation, and the LHO will then work with ECE and if there’s a need to, the reassessments will be done. The onus is again on the tenants to bring in the verification of income and we’re hoping to do that across the Territories. We have heard the question that there has been a lot of arrears accumulated during that time. This is a process that is going to take awhile. We are working with it and will continue to work with it with the residents in Paulatuk.
What has the Minister done about the arrears problem in Paulatuk since our last visit?
I just explained to the Member the process that we are undertaking right now in helping deal with the arrears. There was a question of extremely high arrears in Paulatuk and we heard some of the stories from some of the residents there. We are undertaking the process again. The LHOs are doing the assessments currently, since the transfer back as of June 1st, for the assessments prior. Tenants have the opportunity to bring in their verification of income into Housing and they will then work with ECE to try to do the reassessments if it’s needed.
It is a big mess that ECE left behind in the communities and all across the Territories. Has the Minister told the LHOs how to resolve the problem? Will the Minister try to come back into the community? We had about 65 people in attendance at the meeting for the questions that we did have. Is the Minister, with the correspondence he does have, how is the department making out with regard to answering the community and myself?
We just recently, or this fall, I believe, we were up in Paulatuk and I made a commitment to the people of Paulatuk that were at the meeting. It was a well-attended meeting. I did make a commitment to deal with a lot of the issues that they were bringing forward. There were a lot of individual issues that were brought forward by way of letter to myself and we are responding to those individually. If time permits, sometime this spring, having been given an opportunity to try to work out some of the issues that they raised in Paulatuk, as time permits I’d be glad to go back in.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope it’s before April. I’d like him to come before Christmas or let one of his staff come to the community with me to meet with the community. When you’re getting the mayor of the community calling me regarding the issues and the way things are being handled over there, it’s a great concern to myself that these issues are not being done, because it’s a satellite-run community out of Inuvik. So nothing is being passed in regard to the paper. Why did NWT Housing Corporation not go back to the program before ECE?
There were some issues that came out of the whole transfer that we heard of. We are working to try to address some of the concerns that were raised. Paulatuk is just another good example. We have many communities across the Northwest Territories I still have to go into and visit and continue to get the message out there that this is not something that can be done overnight. There has been a challenge as far as the assessments go. We’ve heard that. I can tell you that Paulatuk is not a satellite-run community anymore. We have a management team in place in Paulatuk that is dealing with the situation there. Unfortunately, there was a time when a lot of the operations of the community were run out of the Inuvik office because we were unable to get staff in there. The assessments were being faxed to the Inuvik office and the assessments weren’t being done in a timely manner. We recognize all that. Now we’re taking steps to try to deal with it. If the opportunity arises and I make it into Paulatuk again, hopefully by then all outstanding issues would have been dealt with and people will understand exactly where they are in the community as far as arrears and assessments and everything else go.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have questions for the Minister of ITI on the Community Harvesters Assistance Program. Trapping season nears and I have questions for that Minister. Can the Minister tell me what the total CHAP allocation for the NWT is?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supporting the traditional economy in the Northwest Territories is a very important priority for our government. As a government we spend approximately $2.25 million to support harvesters. Specifically for Community Harvester Assistance programming we have $593,000.
Can the Minister tell me if there will be an increase in CHAP funding overall for this trapping season that we’re into right now?
CHAP funding is only one of many programs that we have in place to assist harvesters. A large part of the funding that harvesters receive is based on their activity and how successful they are in harvesting and trapping. With regard specifically to the CHAP program, the budget for 2010-2011 has been set and the budget has remained the same. I should also point out that through the Growing Forward Agreement that we have with the federal government, we’ve also negotiated provisions in there to assist harvesters as well. On an overall basis, the amount of funding available for support to the traditional economy has increased.
I understand that the department provides CHAP funding through local wildlife committees. Can the Minister tell me how the allocations are done from community to community?
We have 33 communities in the Northwest Territories. Some regions have land claims while others don’t. Some communities have committees that have been negotiated through the land claim and they have responsibility for wildlife harvesting. Other communities that don’t have those arrangements, we recognize those that apply and it’s based on the number of harvesters, the number of general hunting licence holders. They have to apply to our department and if we recognize them, then we fund them on that basis. For those communities that have no harvesting association or they can’t reach agreement on how the harvesters’ assistance money should be spent, then in some cases the department allocates the funding on behalf of the harvesters.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was interesting to me to go and talk to the trappers who were saying that they can’t afford to go trapping. That must be an issue. With the price of furs being unstable and low, will this government look at reviewing this program in the sense of looking at the subsidies for the program?
As a government we’re always reviewing our programs so that we can improve upon them and make them better. As I said, we have a number of different programs to assist harvesters. CHAP funding is one part of it. The other part of it is the Genuine Mackenzie Valley Fur Program where we guarantee prices for furs. For those active trappers that go out and trap and sell at least 20 pelts a year, we also provide a Grubstake Program so that they can get a grubstake before the next season starts. We review our guaranteed prices every year based on the auctions and results of the auctions. Before a trapper goes out he knows how much he’s going to get for a pelt that’s been well maintained and has been cured properly. Every opportunity is there for a trapper to maximize their returns.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a similar vein as my colleague Mr. Ramsay who was raising concerns about what’s been decided or discussed about this bill presented by our Member of Parliament, which is C-530. I’m not concerned about the autonomy of the Member of Parliament’s issue of being able to advocate things he thinks are important. That’s not the issue at hand. My concern is, although I agree with his spirit and intent, what has he done to communicate this particular issue with this particular government, which is accountable to the Members of this House and to the members of the public. Mr. Speaker, in short, has the Finance Minister received any official correspondence from the Member of Parliament on this particular issue, and has he taken it to Cabinet for any official decision and direction, and how has he communicated that to the Members of this House? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member of Parliament indicated to us what his intention was, and as I indicated to the Member for Kam Lake, on the 20th of October the Premier wrote to the Member indicating to him that we had our own process underway with the federal government that we were fully engaged in and on a government-to-government basis with ourselves and the federal government as well as the other two territories to sort out our borrowing limit. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, again, clearly I want to say I’m not against the spirit and the intent, but it seems to be a real communication problem here. Mr. Speaker, I can’t imagine such a significant change in the way the government can operate its business to the people of the Northwest Territories. I can’t imagine such a significant change in the way we can borrow money and put risk at hand here, that this government wouldn’t communicate some of these intentions, either the Premier’s position, interest or whatnot, to the Member of Parliament, and he wouldn’t reach out to Members of this House and express that this is happening. So, Mr. Speaker, it’s a bit of a surprise.
Would the Minister of Finance agree to table the Premier’s letter before this House or leave it up to us to access it through an ATIP request? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the Member of Parliament that the processes we are involved in as a government with the federal government, which is basically the status quo that the Members are aware of, is the position of this government. The Member of Parliament’s intent to proceed how he sees fit through a process that they control may take years is his business. We have stated clearly what the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories is. I will check to see if we can forward the Premier’s letter to committee for their perusal. Thank you.
