Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister tell me, when something like this happens in small communities and the Power Corporation in Inuvik, what’s the outreach that the Power Corporation Inuvik office is doing to help community members?
Again, I will provide that and it will all be spelled out in the policy what the members are able to claim for. The process that they go through when making a claim will be spelled out, we’ll get that information.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions today I would like to address to the Premier. I have yet to weigh in to express an opinion on the devolution agreement-in-principle, which has been an issue for the last week or so. In general, I want to say that I agree with the agreement-in-principle, with the components, the elements that are in there. I think we probably should move forward on this.
I listened with great interest to the CBC Morning Show this morning as a former Premier made some comments on the agreement-in-principle. His comments triggered a few questions in my mind and I’d like to look to the Premier for some clarification.
The first comment was that we should not agree to a cap of 5 percent as indicated in the agreement-in-principle, but we should look to a cap that is equal to our transfer payments from the federal government. I’d like to ask the Premier, off the bat, if he could comment on whether or not, what his opinion is on our waiting for an agreement to get a cap that’s equal to our transfer payments.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We’re getting into the contents of the AIP here, which is a document that’s not formally before the House. I’m going to caution Members to ask for details of the AIP. Mr. Roland, do you want to respond to Ms. Bisaro’s question? Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I did not hear that interview, at least this morning when I was having my coffee, otherwise I might have burned myself, I guess, in the surprise that a former Premier would wade back into the political arena. I didn’t know that the federal campaign for the Western Arctic had started yet, but maybe that’s the case and he’s priming for that or something. Simply the facts that were there, I guess that’s the danger that we all face. When we leave this place our memories tend to lapse a bit.
The fact is the previous government put in place and signed off an agreement that got sent to Ottawa that had some support of aboriginal governments that laid out some parameters. I understand, in looking at that interview, that was done, there was some reflection on some of those numbers. The simple fact, as we talked about our process, what we’ve been presented with and what we have to look at is, is this the same as other agreements across the country? I can say, without a doubt, that the process we’re in falls within what other provinces have signed through their programs within the government.
Thanks to the Premier. The other comment that was made in the interview this morning was the dollar value of the agreement, and I believe the former Premier mentioned $85 million and that the agreement contains a figure of $65.5 million. The former Premier seemed to indicate that we should be holding off on this agreement-in-principle because we’re not making up that $20 million difference. I’d like to ask the Premier if he could comment on that comment.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I’d also like to remind Members not to be referring to individuals who are not in the House to speak for themselves. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Believe me, over the life of this government I have tried to respect that process. We do need to be careful. At the same time, I think, I know in my time when I leave this Assembly, the new Assembly that comes to do their work, I’ll leave them to do their work.
The numbers, unfortunately, that were used, again without the proper context, can spell a rather inflammatory process and response. As we have scheduled time with the committee around this, we hope that we’ll be able to supply all that information for Members to be aware.
The unfortunate part is we’ve got to deal with the public now that have heard information that they have nothing to balance that with. I must say that as governments in the past and as we’ve looked at this, we know that the base case and the business case for negotiation was put in place and that’s what the case was. What we’re looking at now is the best negotiation that could come forward and we’re faced with that work and need to make a decision on how we proceed.
It seems to me that we have reached this point or close to this point before where we seem to have an agreement. We seem to have an agreement here. We seem to have an agreement-in-principle that possibly could form the basis for us going forward and negotiating a final agreement. I’d like to ask the Premier, in the absence of… Sorry, there are some people who agree. There are other people who are quite negative about this agreement, that we should not go forward because we don’t have everybody involved, we don’t have the agreement of everybody. What is it about this particular situation where we are at this point in the evolution of the NWT and the evolution of our, sort of, life as a Territory, what is it that makes it so important that we go forward at this particular time? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, why is it so important that we proceed at this time? Well, I think there’s a long history of talking about development and grabbing the authority from Ottawa and bring it to the North, and sharing the powers amongst northern governments has been discussed for decades and we’ve come to a place now where, in fact, as I was speaking earlier today, this is not the first occasion that the Government of the Northwest Territories faced a situation of making a decision if we go forward or not. In fact, the 15th Assembly was in a very similar place and had a number of the groups sign on with the Government of the Northwest Territories and sent that in. If that was accepted at the time, we would actually be negotiating a final agreement at this time. That wasn’t done. In fact, I believe it allowed us more time to improve on the package that was signed off back then by the 15th Assembly.
We have come to a place, a time in the history of the Northwest Territories, when we talk about the future and what that may mean. If we just look at the examples that have happened, for example the JRP process, when you look at decisions that have been made around the Mackenzie potential, Mackenzie Gas Pipeline, when you look at the conditions that are put in place, right now those decisions are being made by others outside of our Territory. We talk about having that control. This provides that kind of control. Even during our Creating Our Future Together roundtables, the youth of the Northwest Territories were saying we need to get that authority and we need to bring it home. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Premier. I’d like to play a bit of a devil’s advocate, as I am wont to do sometimes, and if, as we get to the point of possibly signing this agreement-in-principle and we don’t have all of our partners on side and with us, or in terms of what the federal government is willing to offer us, they’re not offering us what we think we need and the amount of money that we need to go forward and manage ourselves from within, should we play hardball with the federal government in particular? Should we basically throw our hands up and walk away from the table? Thank you.
Some might say, in fact, that has been done in the past in the Northwest Territories when people say no, that’s not it, and walk away. We then talk about the revenues we left on the table, for example, as we have spoken with others in the past five years, we’ve left on the table $200 million of potential revenues that could have been a net benefit to northern governments.
As we were talking about earlier, in fact, a report that we just read earlier today highlights there’s going to be a need for more resources to implement any of those types of changes. In our environment today, we are unable to do those things within our own sources unless we take it from one department or one program to another. So that is the challenge we are faced with looking at that future of what can we do and make things happen in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are also for the Premier on the devolution AIP. Without getting into specifics, I want to say at the out start that the Premier has brought forward this potential and I sense a stirring of some possible excitement out there. I think I’d like to be a part of that excitement. It’s to that end that I am seeking to have some of my concerns elucidated or, hopefully, resolved.
But as I said in my statement the other day, the creation of a new resource management regime for the Northwest Territories must be based upon broad and inclusive public consultations involving First Nations governments, stakeholders, including industry, environmental advocates, municipal governments, social development NGOs and the general public; a really thorough, comprehensive process.
Will the Premier commit to putting in place these consultations and having a finalized and explicit made-in-the-NWT vision and implementation plan on land and resource management before the final agreement is signed to be put into legislation as soon as logistically possible after the final agreement? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess one way of looking at this as we talk about what the possibility is, the potential, right now an agreement-in-principle is a base document to begin serious negotiations on what authorities would be drawn from Ottawa, and it’s, if I can, to try to compare it to what we would do, I’ll use the house scenario, for example. Many potential homeowners, as you buy a new house or upgrade, you find you need to do some renovations and make some changes, but you can’t do that until you actually buy the house. In a sense, we’re negotiating this fixed piece of work and looking to those changes that need to occur as we take on that authority in the Northwest Territories.
So similar to what we would do in the case of the homeowner, the Government of the Northwest Territories, I believe we can, if we were to sign and decide to move forward on an agreement-in-principle, and as the negotiations started with all our partners including those that would join us from the aboriginal groups and governments, that we would be able to then move forward and start to identify those legislative changes that need to occur so that as we take it over it spells out a timeline initially. After that it becomes… We have to be prepared and ready to implement what we see as our programs and our changes in the North. I believe we can begin that work after the signing of an agreement-in-principle is made. Thank you.
I appreciate the Premier’s comments there. Of course, we can begin anything that we want. What I’m asking is can we complete this process? Can we get it done in the interim between the AIP and the final agreement in terms of a vision and the sort of implementation plan that’s explicit enough that we know the legislation we’re going to want to develop right after the final agreement is done? I’m looking for something a little more than just, yeah, we can do that, we can do anything. Thank you.
In the life left in this 16th Assembly and the timelines we are faced with and what decisions can be put in place and acted on, our window is shortening every day. On top of that, the fact that we’re committed to working together with the aboriginal governments and the federal government on the process forward and that negotiation process would have to spell some of that out as to what we can start to look at and change and build into a work program that would go forward. It would be difficult to say that we could have it all done, wrapped up and ready to present.
What I could say is, depending on the will of the House and aboriginal and the federal government as the final set of negotiations begin, to highlight those changes that would need to be made to truly make it a northern piece of legislation, we’d have to start that process with our partners, and, of course, we can’t dictate the timelines on that process. But I would say we can start it and get a plan in place. Thank you.
I like the last phrase there. The hope there’s room for that if we do go forward with this AIP.
I guess I haven’t quite developed the confidence I need to lay myself completely behind this yet, but the draft AIP lays out the financial provisions of the devolution transfer, including the transfer of funds currently devoted by the federal government’s resource management in the NWT. As we all know, the funds currently devoted by Ottawa are inadequate for the job. Major holes exist, such as the lack of completed land use plans, underfunded or incomplete cumulative effect research and monitoring, other underfunded or temporarily funded programs, new software, et cetera. If we accept this transfer of resource management responsibilities on the basis of current expenditures, we’ll be short-changing ourselves forever. The federal government cries poor, but has...
Do you have a question, Mr. Bromley?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government has $16 billion for fighter jets, but how will the Premier ensure a final financial agreement provides funding for the real cost of the sustainable, responsible and northern resource management regime for the future, or what options can be considered to address this cap just recognizing the value here, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
The caps that are talked about at times, if you look at, again, I go back to the scenario of a homeowner in the Northwest Territories, the fact that if we look at that house we want to buy and we know it’s not going to fit our needs, we’re going to have to make some changes. Now, that unit, as it stood, may have a dollar figure attached, but if we’re going to expand it, build on it and strengthen it, we’re going to go to the bank, or in this case the federal government, to say we believe it should be done this way. In fact, this AIP identifies that and has gone a long way to reducing the caps that were initially identified. Again, as we talked about creating that legislation in designing what we would have as our northern piece, we would be able to build what we want in the North and we’ll have to use the budgets that we’ve negotiated. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The recent rejection of Canada’s bid for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council speaks volumes on the world’s verdict on Canada’s devotion to fundamental principles; tar sands to refusal for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and so on. We could look to the IGR, the interim government response to the Joint Review Panel as to why Northerners might say no to the GNWT. So there’s still time to demonstrate responsible action here.
So my question -- Mr. Speaker, this may be the way the Government of Canada does business, but not us, hopefully -- before signing this AIP, will the Premier commit to refusing any devolution deal that does not meet this government’s commitments for inclusion of aboriginal peoples and commitment to economically, socially and environmentally sustainable development? Thank you.
What the Member is requesting of me is one that the Executive Council will have to wrestle with as we hear the response back from the joint letter that went out to the negotiators as we hear back from Members of the Legislative Assembly on a decision forward. The fact that this agreement-in-principle highlights the working relationship government to government, After this, if a future government is to say yes, this agreement, the final agreement is done, we’re going to accept it, what we need to do is decide how we’re really going to negotiate. What we’ve talked about for almost three decades is a plan to negotiate. This would bring us to actual negotiations and I think that at that point and what we have now offers the aboriginal groups the opportunity to continue working as we progress. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, was very interested in the news report this morning that saw a former Premier question the AIP and the way forward for this government. Mr. Speaker, it came across as being negative and blatantly self-serving, if I can say so. It got me to thinking that here’s a former Premier talking about a deal like this and where does that leave the public that’s out there in the Northwest Territories? What are they to believe? So I guess the first question I have, Mr. Speaker, is I’d like to ask the Premier how he is going to take this deal out to the people of the Northwest Territories to show them that it’s a good deal for the Government of the Northwest Territories and a good deal for the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, it is disappointing to have the media jump on this before we’ve had an opportunity as governments that are directly involved to allow the process to flow. We are in a process where we have to evaluate how we now inform the public, but again I go back to the fact that this agreement-in-principle is a starting point if we decide it needs to go forward. It is a starting point to a series of negotiations that then we will be able to get out to the public and let them know what is on the table and what we’re trying to do on that process. In the meantime, I’ve instructed the staff within the Executive to begin looking at our options of trying to get factual information out to the public and not just listen to the one-sided questions being put out there. Thank you.
I support the government, I support the Premier in their efforts, in his efforts to try to get signatories to that deal, to get it done for the people of the Northwest Territories. We need jobs, we need opportunities and we need some prosperity here in our Territory and I think this is a great way to kick-start that effort.
I’d like to ask the Premier, given the fact -- and I know, Mr. Speaker, you’ve cautioned some Members today about speaking about the specifics of the AIP -- I’m wondering if I could ask the Premier if his intention is to table that document in this House so that we can have a good, clear and frank discussion on its merits in Committee of the Whole? Thank you.
Although it’s put out in the public, it’s interesting, I believe, as it first went out, CBC said it’s out there, but it’s still a confidential document. I don’t know how they could put that disclaimer in there. We have a process and we’re trying to honour that process. There are other partners involved in this and I want to respect them, being the aboriginal governments and the federal government. At some point we’ll have to make a decision on how we go forward. The typical process we’re involved in is laid out. It’s the normal practice. We’ll continue to use that.
I think the more important question becomes the time when an agreement, a final agreement is ready to be ratified. How then do you take it out and have that type of broad, overall debate?
I can recall in my previous years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly the Tlicho act that came forward establishing the self-government and our role in that. That’s when we had a debate in the House and motions were passed accepting that legislation. So I would see that being somewhat similar, when we actually have a document that we can ratify and decide if it’s good enough to move forward on. At this point we are trying to get to a place where we start a final set of negotiations. Thank you.
In an effort to kind of clear things up, the Premier was the former Finance Minister in the last government and much has been made of the deal in ‘07 and the new one that is before us, the AIP. Can the Premier just elaborate a little bit on why the deal in 2007 was not signed and was not ratified? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. That’s actually a question asking a question of the former government. I don’t know if the Premier wants to make any comment on it, but he doesn’t have to answer that one on an initiative of the former government. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t talk about what the result was or decisions made. All I can put out is the fact that in 2007 the Government of the Northwest Territories, along with four partners, signed an agreement, sent it in to Ottawa, and in fact I would say that the agreement that is before us today has improved upon that deal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try to stay away from numbers, but obviously when you’re looking at transferring, say, hundreds of jobs to the Northwest Territories, you’re going to have to negotiate a number. Obviously our negotiators aren’t going to be working with the federal government on some numbers that are woefully inadequate. I’d like to ask the Premier, on the ‘A’ Base, and that’s the funding for programs, how was the proposed number substantiated in the AIP?
That is a fair bit of detail that we’d go into, but the fact is we as a government have the work done to look at the delivery in today’s environment. Leading up to 2007, the government-of-the-day did that work. We also looked at that work and the consideration of what really needs to be done in the North was also put in place, a business case, and the negotiations around the AIP began in that manner. We have looked at those jobs. We have looked at what needs to be delivered and built the negotiation based on that. As I pointed out, the chief negotiators of both sides have signed a letter now, saying they’ve hit their mandates and it’s now time for a decision to be made.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to weigh in on the devolution issue that’s been raised by a number of my colleagues here today.
Firstly I’ll say it’s a real shame that it is now posted on the CBC website. I think that’s caused real ripples out there in the community. That being said, some of the aboriginal groups aren’t necessarily pleased. I know I had people looking at it and they’re concerned. People are wondering if it’s the real true document. It’s kind of like negotiating in public here. It’s really the future of the Northwest Territories and I think it’s a real shame that this type of disruption has been put out there.
The question for the Premier really is, now that CBC has done what they have done, whether they legally had the right -- they may have, but they may not have had the moral responsibility to do it -- would the Premier consider the opportunity of maybe putting out a plain language document to help people understand what exactly is happening in this AIP agreement? The fact is, that is technical information and I think it’s caused more confusion and frustration out there, and this may help clear some of this issue up so we can go forward.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say it is a shame that it has come about in this manner. To think what may have happened if the first land claim was being negotiated and this type of document was put out before the groups had a chance to really look at it and make their decisions on that, we may never have had an agreement. I think that is, in fact, a concern.
More importantly, now that it is out there, we do need to look at how we inform the people of the North of what’s there and clear the air. That’s the confusion that’s been caused. We are looking at our options of trying to get that out and looking at what we can do.
Again, sort of just to narrow it down a little further to help clarify the confusion out there, I’d like to highlight again my concern, because it does seem insulting to many of the parties that are involved here in a very offensive type of way that it is now out there and the public are running around. It’s an open negotiation and it really shouldn’t be.
The reality here is, it’s there and we have to sort of deal with it. The question really comes down to is a plain language document one of the options that the Premier could conceivably be working on when he says there’s things they could look at.
Again, I’ll say it quite clearly that we’re now negotiating in public so we might as well, quite frankly, tell people what we’re negotiating. That way we can clear up any misnomers that aboriginal groups may lose rights or they won’t lose rights. That type of thing is protected, the type of money, the type of jobs. Like I say, if it’s already out there, let’s make sure it’s in plain language so everyone sees exactly what’s there.
We will consider what can be done and if that is one of the better ways of clearing the air or if we just continue to respect the process and honour that.
The only ones that seem to have respect for the process are the Members around this room. I’ve listened to my colleagues very cautiously and asked questions about this, and it’s a shame the agreement is out there. Does the Premier think he could maybe address the situation by the upcoming deadline when they’re looking for feedback from the aboriginal organizations that perhaps at that stage with their agreement? I stress that it is a partnership, as he’s well aware. Perhaps with the parties all in agreement they could work together with the plain language. Although technically it’s a bilateral agreement with the GNWT and Canada, we have to respect our aboriginal partners. Would he consider that option once we’ve got our feedback and some support from the aboriginal groups to go towards the plain language?
