Thank you. One of the things I’ve realized is that the bigger the group gets, the longer it takes the process and decisions. What I will say is that I’m prepared to discuss with the Executive to see how this working group can do its work along with the advisors on this and see how that can function, or how we can improve that relationship. But as the Member has stated, one, to see something come forward in the lifetime of this Assembly and one of the things we have to realize is it’s one thing to establish a working group or come up with a strategy, it’s another thing that we have to come up and fund that and we have to make sure that we line up all of those as well. So I’m prepared to go back to the Executive and have a discussion about that process and how that work gets done. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got questions today for the Minister of Transportation. It gets back to my Member’s statement in regard to the Deh Cho Bridge and potential financial liability for the Government of the Northwest Territories with that project.
Back in the spring Members were talking to the Minister and the department about a construction audit that was to take place on the project. It was supposed to, at the time, take a couple of months to perform that construction audit. There hasn’t been any report come back through standing committee or to this House. So I’d like to ask the Minister what is the exact status of that construction audit and are there any potential financial liabilities in regard to that audit. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see a Member consistent in these questions on the Deh Cho Bridge. The Deh Cho Bridge is proceeding very well. Over the summer months we’ve achieved our targets for the summer construction. The steel is en route and we’re expecting to start seeing the superstructure starting to be put up in the next little while.
As to the report that the Member is referencing, the draft is completed. We’re now doing a reconciliation with staff on it and we don’t anticipate there’s going to be any additional cost to the government. Thank you.
If the audit was to take two months and it’s taken six, I’m just wondering if that’s cost the government any additional money to have the construction audit finished. Thank you.
I don’t believe it has cost us any more. Thank you.
Can the Minister let us know exactly when the report will be coming through to standing committee and Members of the House on the construction audit? There was a number of concerns regarding the scour rock in some of the structural components of pier 3 south and I’d just like to ask the Minister when that report might be coming through. Thank you.
We’ve committed to provide that information. We will provide the information to the Members as soon as the reconciliation of the audit is done. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will that information also be posted on the Department of Transportation’s website for the public to see? Thank you.
We will release the report once it’s finalized. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for the Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
QUESTION 213-16(5):
DRAFT DEVOLUTION
AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to my Member’s statement I noted that this process, yes, it has gone on for a while, but the whole intention of the devolution process came about because of the settlement of the Dene/Metis Land Claim in 1988, which spells out the provisions of the Northern Accord and how the Dene/Metis were going to be involved under the section of the Northern Accord, which is called the Aboriginal Rights section. In that section, Mr. Speaker, it clearly stipulates that the government has an obligation to ensure that those parameters of the land claim agreements are upheld.
So I’d like to ask the Minister when we talk about the majority of Members on board, I know in the past there were letters by way of Ron Irwin in regard to asking for a majority of the groups on side, and also in the previous government in regard to Mr. Handley’s government, that you had to have a majority of the Members on side. So I’d like to ask the Premier why are we now taking the position where we’re basically going with a simple minority and moving forward without having the majority of aboriginal groups on side. It seemed to be good enough. So what I’d like to know is why have you come to that conclusion?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Member’s lead up to the question he talked about the comprehensive Dene/Metis claim that was concluded. Mr. Speaker, that was not concluded. It was a discussion that was going on, but that process then led to the regional claims process and those are in place and we continue to work with those in implementation in fulfilling the agreements.
On the area of how many groups it takes to go forward, the draft AIP is in the hands of both the Government of Canada and ourselves, as well as a letter has been sent to the aboriginal organizations, and they have to the end of this month to decide how they will participate in this and we’re awaiting that outcome. Thank you.
Again, under the land claim agreement it’s pretty clear that the Government of the Northwest Territories shall involve the Gwich’in in the development of an implementation of a Northern Accord for oil and gas development in the Northwest Territories, pursuant to a negotiation enabling agreement, September 5, 1988, between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, which is the Northern Accord agreement. So I’d like to ask the Premier, are we sticking to the elements of the 1988 agreement in ensuring that we have the conclusion of those negotiations with the Aboriginal Rights section which clearly identifies that this includes land claim settlement agreements in regard to these agreements? Thank you.
Throughout this whole process -- and the Member talked about this -- this has been ongoing for a number of Assemblies. In fact, as I stated, half of my lifetime we’ve talked about devolution and resource revenue sharing or the Northern Accord in trying to move those authorities to the North. So there has been inclusion at all levels in the Northwest Territories, including aboriginal leaders and negotiators at quite a number of tables. In fact, if you look, we work with the claims that are in place and that are protected and we continue to honour that protection. When you look at the Tlicho Agreement of Section 2.4.(1), you look at the Gwich’in Settlement of 3.1.(10) and the Sahtu of 3.1.(9) and the Inuvialuit have a similar provision in their Section 20.(1). So we use the existing claims as our processes in how we conduct ourselves in our discussions. Thank you.
Under the Northern Accord agreement it states:
Nothing in this agreement will abrogate or derogate from any of the provisions included in any aboriginal land claims settlements including the following subjects:
land use planning;
environmental impact screening and review;
land and water use permitting;
wildlife management and compensation;
surface rights;
subsurface rights;
benefit agreements;
creation and management of national and territorial parks and conservation areas;
resource revenue sharing.
For greater certainty, the oil and gas management are required in the establishment of pursuing this agreement shall be comparable to those in the land claim agreements.
So this agreement states that you have to follow the land claims agreements with regard to how you implement devolution.
So I’d like to know why we aren’t following the Northern Accord as it was laid out, to ensure those provisions of the land claims agreements will be upheld.
As I had stated earlier, much like the comprehensive Dene/Metis claim, the Northern Accord work had a lot of work done that led up to that. As to actual implementation, we’ve been using the agreements that have been signed off, that have been voted on and protected under the Constitution and our work as signatories when those parties or those agreements were ratified. The Northern Accord was a process that led up to and many hoped that it would be finalized, but much like the Dene/Metis Comprehensive Claim it did not proceed beyond that. In fact, we do now use the agreements that are in place and we continue to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to ask the Premier exactly how many aboriginal groups were in the negotiating process, at the table negotiating this latest devolution agreement since previous statements by the Premier in which he put this arrangement on the back burner, as he stated. Can you tell us how many aboriginal groups were actually at the negotiating table when this was being negotiated between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government?
We’ll be able to document the fact that we’ve had all groups at the table through the process up until April. That’s when the Gwich’in decided to pull out from those discussions.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on the questions asked by my colleague Mr. Bromley on how we can take a more common sense approach to things which seem to have an obvious and simple answer, but because policy is strict and there isn’t a lot of latitude for discretion to be applied it makes it difficult to plead these cases.
The cases that Mr. Bromley refers to where we have students in southern Canada who need medical attention and because medical travel must originate in the Northwest Territories to be covered, the fact that these students couldn’t then access any kind of travel assistance even if it would be far less than what it would cost to come home and fly from here, but they can’t access any kind of support. It doesn’t make sense. Mr. Bromley clearly referred to it as a common sense approach.
We know, as a government, that we can’t have policies that have too much discretionary latitude attached to them because then we don’t have any way of controlling it and we don’t have any way of controlling costs and the whole thing can just go awry. But there must be a way.
I didn’t really hear anything very specific being responded from the Minister as to how we could deal with these sorts of things. I have a suggestion and I’d like to ask the Minister what she thinks of this. We need some kind of a person, a point of contact in the government, where people or MLAs, on behalf of constituents, could make a case for where the government needs to alter a policy in order for it to apply to a certain set of circumstances; somebody that the government trusts is not going to put the government at some kind of risk and somebody that will also be understanding and apply some common sense and discretion to the situation. I suggest some type of an ombudsman. I’ll ask the Minister, first, what would she respond to having somebody in the Department of Health with that kind of ability.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An ombudsman or some kind of an arbiter or in many cases, no matter what Health and Social Services issues, they end up on the Minister’s desk. The important thing in a society based on rule of law and rule of rules, we need clear rules. Even an ombudsman would need a rule to arbitrate or rule on these things.
On the specific issue in question that we have here -- just so that Members know that the Department of Health and Social Services is not completely without common sense -- the Members could imagine cases where, I mean, see some merit as to why we need to require the medical travel originating in the NWT. Because we use out-of-town uses, we audit cases where things come out of the Territories, because sometimes people move away and they use our medical benefits and such. That’s why. But in the cases of students, there’s no question that our students who are living and going to school outside of the NWT should be able to get their medical procedures from where they live. That is a definite anomaly and I am looking to change that.
That is encouraging and I’ll be very interested in seeing how the Minister plans to address that. I’ll be looking forward to some proposal being brought forward.
The Minister referred to these kinds of situations landing on her desk. I would question whether or not, considering the number of portfolios, the amount of workload that the Minister and her executive assistant carry, the fact that the Department of Health and Social Services is the largest department in our government, if this is the highest and best use of the Minister’s time for her to take on that role herself. Is it not possible to delegate this to a reasonable thinking, critical, analyzing person and have this person accessible to everyone? Not everyone has the same access because not everyone can advocate for themselves and not everyone has an MLA that they feel they can go to that can advocate for them. So does the idea, and for a lack of a better word, an advocate or ombudsman, does the Minister believe that has merit or would she just like us to continue sending these off to her executive assistant?
I definitely feel that notion, that idea does deserve merit for us to further explore. I think, under the given resources, I don’t think we can create an entire office, but I think there is definitely room for us to consider it. I would like to further work with the Members to consider some kind of appeal for certain benefits under health care. It’s usually about insurance services, what’s insured, what’s not, medical travel, maybe supp health benefits.
Under supp health benefits we are definitely looking at some kind of appeal mechanism. Student Financial Assistance has that. I don’t know what other social programs have them, but I think it’s something worth pursuing and I will commit right now to look at that.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Sorry, and I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am very encouraged to hear this. This is something that I believe has been missing in the government for a long time. SFA is another area where you could combine different appeals for different departments under one person and they could expeditiously deal with these matters. I don’t envy that person’s job, mind you, because it might necessarily involve saying no to some people. But does the Minister concur that in the scope of these policies that there are extenuating circumstances from time to time which do require a common sense solution which often would save the government money?
It may or it may not, but the important thing is that I think our people need to feel that they have a place they could go to that should be outside of the political process, that can’t be depending on the level or the strength of advocacy capacity of certain Members or the heartbreaking side of the stories. I think we could all benefit from having some sort of objective standard by which our people know exactly what they qualify for, what the rules are, why do they not qualify, or do they qualify, and if there is any room for improvement it has to come back here for us to make the decision. But I definitely feel that the time has come and we need to consider that.
It will be complex, I think, more complex than we think, but I think for the benefit of the next Assembly -- and these issues will not go away -- we do need an objective process. I would commit to working with Mrs. Groenewegen and other Members to see how we could move this forward.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier of the Northwest Territories. I want to ask the Premier regarding the draft Devolution and Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement-in-Principle in terms of allowing the people of the Northwest Territories ample time to look at this deal. As has been noted by CBC, parts of the deal are out there. Can we have our constituents in the regions look at this deal to see if it’s something they want to join with the Government of the Northwest Territories to initial at the start of the negotiations? I want to ask the Premier if his Cabinet has considered bringing this out to the public to have a public debate and to see if we are all in one on this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have, as a government, used a process that is well established and one that is working with the parties at the table and the aboriginal organizations that have been a part of this process. We are awaiting their input with the joint letter that went out to them. We’ll have to decide at that point how we proceed as the GNWT.
I’m asking the Premier in terms of some innovation and thinking outside the box regarding the established guidelines and policies to bring this significant deal to the peoples’ front doors and asking if this is a deal that we want to sign on with everybody in the Northwest Territories. I have the K’asho leadership coming here today and I’m meeting with them after this House session here today. I need to let the K’asho leadership know. What should I tell them about this deal?
We have 13 days, the Premier has indicated, to get responses from the aboriginal leaders; 13 days to tell my leaders what to do for our children’s children on this significant deal here and in terms of signing on with the government. Can the Premier allow the people of the Northwest Territories the dignity and respect to debate this in an open forum?
The aboriginal representatives received a draft AIP in September. They at that point were hoping and I’m sure that they’ve had their discussions or are in the process of having their discussions with their elected representatives of their representative organizations and will be able to respond back. We’re awaiting that response. We’re trying to honour, much like at the regional leaders table, the role of governments and have that interaction government to government as we have been told so many times. We’re awaiting the regional organizations’ responses to the letter that’s been sent to them.
The time frame for the aboriginal leaders to respond, again I would wait until the end of the month to see. It would have to be on Halloween Day, too, so we’ll see what type of a response we’re going to get.
I want to ask because right now I’m not hearing the aboriginal governments jumping up and down saying “sign here.” I’m hearing different views as to this agreement and it seems that we don’t have much support from the majority of aboriginal governments. I want to ask the Premier again if this is the type of sentiments and feelings out there at the end of the month, would we as the Assembly make the decision to initial or not this agreement?
Mr. Speaker, the work that we have done and this draft AIP that has been sent out has been many years in the making. In fact, the specific work on this area started as far back as 2001. The previous government along with four of the groups initialled off and sent it in. That work has been the foundation, the basis of the work that has gone forward. So there has been much involvement in that process and as our process is established and works, before I can sign off on that I would have to go to my Cabinet colleagues to see their input on that. As well, as we do in practice, we seek the input of Members on that before coming up to that decision point. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. A final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier and Mr. Krutko have exchanged on some of the history that went on with the devolution and resource revenue sharing beyond 1988 and from there today where we have an initial agreement that we’re discussing whether we sign or not sign, Mr. Speaker, in terms of that history it also shows that the government has also changed its views in terms of the majority of aboriginal governments on board to the full support of them to some support. Now it seems like we have a government-to-government relationship and I’m afraid that this initial agreement will not recognize the aboriginal governments as being party to this initial agreement. I think there are some significant changes that need to be made, if I read it closely enough, in terms of moving forward.
I want to ask the Premier in terms of allowing the people of the Northwest Territories the opportunity to say this deal is good for us or not. Will the Premier, again, commit to some type of open forum for debate on the initial AIP?
The work that we have done and we’re at now, we’ll be facing a decision as the 16th Legislative Assembly whether we go to the next level of negotiations. As pointed out, even the language that’s there before protects the aboriginal rights, and it’s our role as a public government to ensure that the rights of the public as a whole of the Northwest Territories are also represented.
It’s been through the many years that this work has been done and we count on the input of Members who are representatives of the many constituencies across the North to voice their input, as we do commonly practice in our system of government. So we will go through that process. We will have to decide on a decision in the future as to do we make this and go to the next level and begin those final set of negotiations moving the file forward. At this point that’s where we’re at. We want to wait and see that response to the letters that have gone out and then, as I said to Members, we’ll be discussing as our process is established and seeking input from the Members as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on some questions from my colleague Ms. Bisaro on the Anti-Poverty Strategy. I was wondering if the Premier could tell me which departments are represented in the internal working group that’s working on the strategy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
