Debates of October 28, 2004 (day 30)

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Premier. I’m quite enthused by the fact that assuming that no major significant changes to the letter happens, that the letter will be going out. I am more than happy to wait for a copy of that letter after it goes out. I think that is probably reasonable. It sounds as if it’s going to be out in a timely fashion, so I think a few days, a week, is very, very reasonable for the Premier to get all updates or whatnot to address the letter.

I think my final question would be is, the Premier did allude to some type of package and whatnot, I wasn’t sure I heard, I thought I said some package for this earlier, and if the Premier could maybe further elaborate, the package of information in regards to this ballistic missile information. I’m not sure; I thought I heard the word package. It’s hard to hear on this side of the House. I wasn’t wearing my earpiece.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chairperson, no, there is no package. It’s just a joint letter from the three Premiers.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess then that’s fine. I must not have been able to hear it on this side of the House without my earpiece. What I will say is kudos to our Premier, because without us having a letter out there to say we want to know more, it’s difficult to make good policy. So I will lend my support to the Premier of seeking further information at this time. He can have my support on that basis, and we will proceed to the next level when we get to see the letter and we get the reaction from Ottawa on that potential briefing some day. Thank you, no question.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Next on the list I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The press reports from the activities in Ottawa earlier this week make quite an interesting package of reading. I was looking at a summary of the last day or two of coverage in the southern press. An interesting thing about the whole process, Madam Chair, is that it’s viewed in so many different ways depending on where you’re from in Canada and you’re perspectives or your expectations. The process does not seem to have really connected with a whole lot of certainty in the rest of Canada. We had one Premier literally storming out of the process, others saying that they did fine, others saying that they thought they should have done better. Equalization in Canada is one of those things that I think people’s eyes kind of glaze over when they hear it. It sounds like a very complex and bureaucratic thing and it is. But it is something that we in the NWT should really pay close attention to because I think it’s somewhere around two-thirds of our revenue or 70 percent of our revenue that comes directly from Ottawa through processes based on the idea of equalization and formula financing.

The Toronto Star says that it’s a laudable principle and it holds that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, should have access to reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. Ottawa supplements tax revenues collected by the so-called have-not provinces with part of its own revenues and theoretically Canadians from coast to coast to coast can live on essentially the same standard. In practice, the Toronto Star goes on to say, the whole process reads like a recipe for a pot of borscht soup. So it is a complex thing, but we have to pay attention to it.

With two-thirds of our revenue coming from Ottawa, we were set up for some fairly strong expectations, Madam Chair. Especially after the First Ministers' meetings at the end of September when the Premier, joined by the Premiers from our sister territories, came out with quite a glowing expectation of what had been agreed to with the Prime Minister. But in the statement that Mr. Handley has given today I think we’re seeing something that’s been tempered, that’s been downsized. It’s regrettable that the expectations of just a few weeks ago aren’t realized here and I’m trying to get a sense of where this puts us now and where we go from here.

The Premier has already indicated that a certain amount of money is going to be allocated to the three territories. There is an escalator clause in there of 3.5 percent for five years. If we look at just this fiscal year, the current fiscal year, the NWT is going to realize $25 million more and $38 million more next year. Given the size of our budget, we are approaching $1 billion in operations and maintenance costs for the territorial budget. This is, I guess I would have to say, a disappointingly small number. I had anticipated something that would be more, that would really give us some room to start moving and making a difference up here.

I think where the Premier and his team and the people at Finance Canada deserve a pat on the back is that for the second year in a row, I understand, we are going to see left on the table, to our credit, a $50 million credit for the tax effort adjustment factor. I won’t even begin to try to explain it, but it does work in our favour and this is perhaps the singular thing that’s going to help us through our fiscal situation.

Madam Chair, we are in a tight fiscal situation here in the NWT. We are under instruction and direction to find, I believe, this coming fiscal year $20 million in our programs; to reduce our spending by that much. Hopefully we’ll be able to do so without going in and getting rid on a wholesale basis any programs or too many programs. We are also in need of restoring our capital spending in the Northwest Territories, Madam Chair. We have to protect the investment that we’re making and continuing to make in our infrastructure. We, of course, want to avoid the debt wall as much as we can. I have the understanding of our go-forward financial situation now, Madam Chair, given what Premier Handley and Minister Roland have come back with, that we will indeed be protecting our capital spending plan and, in fact, there may be some anticipation that it could be enhanced.

There is no indication here that we will be threatening our position in terms of the debt wall. So we can stay out of unnecessary debt. Through this five-year deal, Madam Chair, we will have some greater stability and predictability in what our revenue stream is going to be. So those are positive things and I congratulate the Premier and his people for bringing these things back to us.

But on the less optimistic side, Madam Chair, I was really genuinely hoping, as just about every other region in Canada was, that we would see some fiscal arrangement that would allow the Northwest Territories to break through some of the log-jams that we’re facing. Because of our revenue situation we are more and more compelled or restricted, Madam Chair, only to look after what is essential. We are forced to try and accommodate forced growth, the pressures of inflation and the higher cost of doing business. We just talked about what energy is going to do to us this winter.

While we have some of these advantages and some more stability and a bit more security in how we’re going to go about our financing, Madam Chair, we are essentially still in a status quo. We are still more in a management stream here. We are tied down and limited to the scope and the range with which we can grow the Northwest Territories, with which we can develop our infrastructure, and with which we can go and really make aggressive strides, especially in our social arena, Madam Chair. We have not changed that situation. Of course, I want to remain optimistic and be a cheerleader for our Premier and the other northern Premiers to make some headway on this, but what I’ve learned today from the statement, Madam Chair, is that we have not broken any new ground.

I’d welcome the Premier’s comment or reaction or challenge to those impressions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, I think we have had some very significant new ground broken. I’ll explain it to you. Under our Constitution we have an equalization program with the provinces. Section 36 of the Constitution says that Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. That has always existed for the provinces. It has not existed for the territories. We used to have one where we’d have to go to Ottawa and defend our spending line by line and negotiate each thing. Then we got onto a formula that was different. What the Prime Minister has done is he has said from here on I want to treat the territories the same way I treat provinces. That’s a big step to me because we’re now in a different league. We’re not just little territories, part of DIAND, in the Prime Minister’s mind and how he’ll deal with us. This is a step in our evolution and I think a very important step, as we’ll find in the years to come.

In doing that, then that piece of the Constitution is also going to apply to us, in my view. Because if he’s going to treat us like the provinces, then as the provinces equalization program builds -- and it will, over 10 years it’s going to go up by almost $29 billion -- then so is our money going to go up. In fact, we now have the same rights in many ways as do the provinces under the Constitution. I think that’s pretty important that we’ve achieved that rather than just be funded at the whim of the Department of Finance in Ottawa. That one is significant. It’s hard to measure that in dollars, but I think it’s significant to be treated as grown-ups.

The second major breakthrough, Madam Chair, is that having a floor amount, a floor…What’s the term he uses for it? It’s a minimum funding floor of 1.9 and 2.0 and so on as we move ahead. It says that those days when we had to worry about clawbacks and not know how our own-source revenue was going to be treated and all that stuff, that’s all passed now. From now on it’s going to make Mr. Roland’s job a lot easier. I shouldn’t say it’s going to be easy, but it will be easier in that he knows how much money we can expect from the grant. In our case I believe it is around 70 percent. But that’s a known quantity that we’ll know from year to year what we’re going to receive. We don’t have to worry about, whoops, somebody made an unexpected readjustment back for prior years and we just lost $40 million or something like that. That’s gone. That, to me, is significant.

The third piece is when he put a floor in place, then that is going to give a lot more flexibility for us in terms of our own-source funding. If we raise taxes, if we raise revenue in some way ourselves -- whether it’s cigarettes or gasoline or whatever it may be, or liquor -- then that is not going to be adjusted back below that floor. We’re guaranteed a minimum amount of money; that’s the 1.9 and 2.0. To me, that is also significant. Our own-source revenues now become a much more important part of our budget. I certainly like that better than having to depend on the federal government for a grant. Any steps we can take toward becoming more self-sufficient I’m in favour of.

There are some questions that are outstanding yet and Mr. Roland and his people will certainly be looking into those and making sure we’ve covered all the bases as we move along. Not everything is 100 percent clear yet.

There are some pieces that I don’t like as much, and I think Mr. Roland shares my view on it. One of them would be the 3.5 percent escalator. I’m hoping that when the panel does its work that it can, even though it’s not within their mandate, hopefully take a look at the impact of that because I know our growth is more than 3.5 percent. If we were stuck on 3.5 percent year after year after year for a long period of time that could end up eroding any of the gains that we made. When you get a package, sometimes it doesn’t come as 100 percent wins. We have to deal with it incrementally. So my sense is that this package is setting us on a path that is going to give us more benefits and more flexibility than we ever had before with the old formula.

I have to say that I agree with the Prime Minister in his approach. I do want to have more discussions with him to clarify what he means when he says treat us like a province. I have lots of questions about that.

In terms of how we spend the money, allocate it and so on, again, I’ll leave that with our Finance Minister. We have money during this fiscal year. It’s late in the year and I don’t think any of us as MLAs really want to see us go on a shopping spree with this. We’ve got to work our way through and we can always carry money forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Next on the list I have Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Menicoche is next.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say I’m pleased with the outcome of the recent negotiations that the Premier and Deputy Premier had down in Ottawa speaking with, of course, the Prime Minister and respective Ministers.

I just wanted to speak to a few things. We all know that our formula financing is very old, Madam Chair. I can say about 30 years old and I’m glad that there is some appetite in Ottawa to say yes, you as the NWT are an important part of Canada and, yes, you do have a base in which to control your own destiny and futures. Here’s a way of doing it; by loosening up the formula financing agreement, giving us this floor base that the Premier speaks about. That’s a good thing for us because then we can start looking at some tax efforts that can raise some extra revenue for us. The next logical step is going to be the huge step to say let’s generate tax and revenues from our lands and our resources. That’s the next huge step that we have to do.

I still believe that, yes, in the year 2005, we’re planning on another northern leaders’ conference and we are still going to have to use that as a lobbying effort. We even may have to all go down to Ottawa. We’ve talked about that time and time again. I believe that worked to some effect. I think it was the 12th or 13th Assembly that actually went down when they were bringing the Constitution home to Canada. Because of that effort, we were able to get aboriginal rights recognized in the Constitution before it was all voted on by the provinces.

I have a few other concerns. I’ll bring it up right now and the Premier can address them for me. Can the Premier assure our northern leaders and our First Nations partners that we, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, are not going to interfere with the opportunity to devolve or take responsibility for their lands and resources? What I mean by that, Madam Chair, is that our aspirations are the same as the aspirations of aboriginal groups and now they’re saying, well, what’s going on; why is the government speaking on our behalf. In that sense, what are the Premier’s plans in order to address that? We don’t want to, of course, weaken our position. We want to have a nice united front as we approach Ottawa and say yes, we’re ready for the next step and we’re united. So how is the Premier going to broach that subject?

As well, I believe one of my colleagues brought up the question should we be lobbying other political parties federally. Is there benefit in doing that to lobby these other parties and ask will you help us lobby Ottawa as well for our aspirations and goals? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, yes, I will certainly be respectful of the rights and aspirations of the aboriginal governments. There’s no intention at all to try to take over or interfere in other people’s rights when it comes to devolution or anything else. But we will work with the aboriginal governments. We made that commitment ourselves.

Having said that, we, as 19 MLAs, represent all of the people of the Territories. Hopefully the thoughts of the people in your constituencies all come back here, and we can debate how far we should go or shouldn’t go on various issues.

On the discussions on territorial financing formula, I view that the territorial financing formula is just an issue that is internal within our government. It is how we are funded as a government. When we get into the issue, if we do make headway on that side, on resource revenue sharing, then that is where we have to work with the aboriginal leaders, because they also have rights in some land claims. In fact, even in all of the land claims, there are some provisions for resource revenue sharing, and, in some cases, even when there isn’t a land claim in the Deh Cho, there is a provision there. So we recognize that and we have to work together on that.

Quite honestly, a concern that I have is that we need to complete devolution and resource revenue sharing quickly because there is a lot of economic development going on, and it is much easier to have an agreement before we have some of these major projects maturing and in operation. We have already gone a long ways with the diamond mines. There is a lot of revenue going out of here. I did look, following up on a Member’s question last week, at how much revenue is raised by the federal government in the Northwest Territories. Last year, it was in the neighbourhood of $170 million. A few years ago, it was only $38 million, so it is going up fast. I believe we should be getting our fair share of it. That is another argument besides territorial financing.

You made reference that we all have to go to Ottawa and so on. I don’t want to suggest it, but I think we should keep in mind that we don’t have to wait to do something like that until we are so desperate that we have to go there and then beg for things. I don’t think there is anything wrong, personally, and if we wanted to have, for example, a Northwest Territories day in Ottawa and let the MPs in Ottawa know what is going on up here, what the potential is and so on, we don’t have to wait for a crisis to do it. If the Members were interested in doing that, then I think it is something we should talk about. It may be worth it to spend a day just saying here is what we are all about, here are the issues we live with. You will have to pay for it, but…

---Laughter

...we can work it out. I don’t think always waiting until there is a crisis is the best way of doing business. I think we can be open to other ways of getting our message through to Ottawa. It is important that we do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Menicoche? Mr. Menicoche.

I have no further comments, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. I am not reading the sign language that well; sorry. I have Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Yakeleya, but Mr. Yakeleya hasn’t had a chance to speak yet. Would it be all right to let him speak? Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I have short comments to the Premier. I want to thank the Premier and the Deputy Premier for going to Ottawa and working on our behalf. You came back with some good news. We see some changes that would affect our government. But, also, I believe you took the message to Ottawa from our last discussion here last week. I want to ask the Premier regarding his discussions about the aboriginal land claim groups that have settled and the other land claim groups that are in negotiations on self-government or land claims issues themselves in terms of the resource revenue sharing process.

I want to ask the Premier if he would help me understand how and what types of engagement is going to involve the aboriginal groups in developing a comprehensive strategy for the Northwest Territories. By mechanisms I guess, because it says in his first page here, that the federal and territorial governments, in cooperation with the aboriginal people and northern residents, should include joint priorities -- some of these groups are in self-government -- to see how these aboriginal governments would be involved in this process. I think that is all I have, Madam Chair.

I guess what I’m looking at is the Premier is right; we do represent all people of the Northwest Territories. Part of the reality is that some of these aboriginal claimant groups have a special relationship with the federal government. That is part of the reality. They are going to be a third legitimate government in the Northwest Territories. Maybe one day we will see that. Right now, we are the government that the federal government wants to negotiate these arrangements with. At the same time, Mr. Premier, that is still the opinion of the federal government, that we are the government that they want to have some discussions with or they open up the doors to the aboriginal governments to talk about resource revenue sharing and some of the other transfers of federal funding to the Northwest Territories.

I know it is a sensitive issue, a complex issue, but it is an issue that is very important to the people in the small communities who believe and who have strong support for their aboriginal governments, just for them to see how they look at negotiations and how they look at their government. I think that is about it.

But I want just to say in closing that I thank the Premier and the Deputy Premier for going out to Ottawa, getting something and coming back to us. It is good news. I know sometimes it is hard to deal with them. I am glad that the Premier is saying that the Prime Minister is looking at the Northwest Territories more like a province now. Maybe one day we will have some other discussions on that. His attitude is changing, I guess, with the Cabinet Ministers down there, that the Northwest Territories is becoming more of the South in terms of how we are going to see our governments in the future. That is all I have to say, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, I think I will deal with the questions in the reverse order. First of all, in terms of respecting the relationship that aboriginal governments have with Ottawa, we will fully respect that relationship and have no difficulty at all with it. We are not trying to say to Ottawa we are the government that you should deal with and then we will deal with the aboriginal governments at all. In fact, while I was in Ottawa, most of the Akaitcho and the Tlicho were well represented in Ottawa, holding their own meetings. I think that is healthy and it was good. The one thing that I would like to do, as the Member suggests, is make sure, as much as we can, that our messages are consistent.

Going to one of the questions that the Member asked is how do we engage people in this. I would like to say that at the close of the meeting on Tuesday, the Prime Minister offered to the Premiers that he would like to have the next First Ministers’ meeting held next spring and that would be on national priorities where we would meet as a group of Premiers and the Prime Minister to determine what the national priorities are and what we have taken on. We’ve taken on the health issue, the financing issue. What should the next major issue be? Before that meeting takes place, I think we should have another meeting with northern leaders to be able to clarify what our priorities are and what we need to take forward to that Premiers'/Prime Minister meeting.

So we need to engage it. I think the northern leaders’ meeting we had last year was a good forum for doing it. I have continued to meet as well, Madam Chair, with the aboriginal leaders on various issues. I’ve had a face-to-face meeting, I’ve had a teleconference meeting and I was going to have another meeting with them, but it was postponed a couple of weeks ago. We want to continue to work with them. When we come to issues like resource revenue sharing, then clearly we have to work very, very closely with the aboriginal governments and other people in the Territories because this is an issue that goes broader than just financing our government.

One of the issues when we talk about resource revenue sharing that we are going to face in Ottawa is they have to figure out how would they pay us for resource revenues from the extraction of non-renewable resources of land that is still federal land. The federal government owns the land and water in their terms legally and also has the sub-surface rights, not us. So they are grappling with that. How do they pay us royalties or share with us when we don’t have any legal right to it? So that’s why devolution is important to me that we need to complete devolution in order that we’re then more like a province. We own the land and resources, but until then it’s going to be a hard struggle for us to be successful on interim resource revenue sharing, in my view. It will take all of our negotiating skills. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Next I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Premier a little bit about the work that the territorial government is going to be working on or doing with the federal government in terms of developing this northern strategy and we can go back a lot of years, Madam Chair, to even the 12th Assembly, the 13th Assembly when they had the road map. In 1998, the Premier at the time said in this House from Hansard in 1998 that the federal government has committed to working with the Yukon and Northwest Territories in developing an economic development strategy. Where is the EDA? It’s six years later, Madam Chair, and we still do not have an EDA and we’re in desperate need of one. My big concern is and my colleagues here know that I’m sceptical of what Ottawa has to say and what Ottawa is doing, but my big fear in this is again they are putting us into this strategy and developing a strategy.

Madam Chairperson, this takes time, effort, money and I hate to think that we’re going to be spinning our wheels for another six years, another 10 years. Where do we draw the line with Ottawa in terms of getting us where we need to be in terms of resource revenue sharing and devolution? We have to have a timeline, Madam Chairperson. This can’t go on forever and I’d like to ask the Premier today what is this northern strategy, the forward looking? We’ve been looking at a strategy here for a number of years. Can the Premier please tell us how we are going to work with the federal government to develop this northern strategy? What’s going to be in this strategy, Madam Chair, that’s any different than all the other reports, all the other studies that led us to where we are at today? What’s going to be different, Madam Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, it’s true that there have been good words said about various strategies over the years like devolution has been around for years and never borne any fruit. The biggest difference on this one, in my view, is the engagement of the Prime Minister himself. When we talked about the strategy, he brought in the key Ministers. We talked about it and he directed his officials to get to work. This was in the afternoon and he directed that they be meeting the next day on it, starting to work out some of the detail.

The presentation that we made to the federal government included a set of principles of what we thought should be there. There should be a government-to-government process that should be comprehensive, should be inclusive. Some of the main things that were included in the strategy include things like governance, land claims, implementation, for example, economic development. We’re close to having a mechanism for delivering the $90 million economic development fund that was announced months ago.

Regarding environmental issues, there is $3.5 billion that has been announced for waste site cleanup. About 60 percent of them Minister Goodale tells us are going to go to the North. We need to make that into an action plan. Let’s get the plan together and get on with that now. It’s been sitting there. We don’t need to announce it again, we just need to get on with doing a cleanup.

Regarding infrastructure, housing, northern science and research, there’s a whole list of things that are included in there. The one recommendation that we made and I spoke to in the meeting was that general oversight and direction for this project should rest with the Prime Minister and the three northern Premiers so that right from the top, it’s being led by the Prime Minister and Premiers themselves; that there be a steering committee made up of Ministers who are responsible for the various areas and, of course, the work areas.

The Prime Minister also agreed that we have to work toward quick, short-term deliverables, medium-life deliverables and longer-term. I think the difference between what I want to work toward here is one that is going to show us some deliverables within months. It’s not all going to be a long-term strategic planning and visioning exercise, but one that’s aimed at getting some things moving right way. I can’t be 100 percent sure that we won’t get frustrated again and just find ourselves bogged down in another big strategy.

The other point I should mention is that when we talked about this, I also reinforced the message that we don’t want to get our initiatives that are currently underway tied up into some strategy where it’s to the point where we’re saying we go to talk about resource revenue sharing and say leave that because we are dealing with a strategy right now. I don’t want to go that route either. So the only thing I could give, Madam Chair, at this time is my commitment that I am going to work along with the other Premiers as hard as we can to make sure this thing does get legs this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Premier for his response and I’m glad to hear that the Prime Minister might have a steady hand in overseeing this and that the three northern Premiers will be working together on this committee to try to develop this strategy. But the Prime Minister six months ago put Minister McLellan in charge of the pipeline file and to be honest, Madam Chair, we haven’t seen Ms. McLellan in the Northwest Territories since she’s been appointed to overlook that file. To me, that is wrong.

Again, I’m sceptical of Ottawa of what they say and what they do and I think when we are talking about devolution and we’re talking about resource revenue sharing, I think that the answer to it all, Madam Chair, is that we sit down with Ottawa, politician-to-politician and we leave the bureaucrats out of it because in my mind that is the problem. Once you include the senior level bureaucrats of DIAND, and we’ve got bureaucrats here, it gets into a quagmire that you can’t solve and I think we have to sit down and hammer something out between us and between Ottawa. I see that as the key to us getting over this hurdle. Once you start looking at another strategy and you get bureaucrats involved, the tires keep spinning, Madam Chair, and they’ll spin forever.

My fear is we’re going to go another six years, or we’re going to go another 10 years without anything. The time for talk has got to almost be near the end because we really, really have to get something concrete from Ottawa. Some of my colleagues were happy with what happened down there but, Madam Chair, it’s not what the Prime Minister told our Premier three months ago when he was in Ottawa. He went back on his word already on the monies that he said would come North. So are we going to trust him again to oversee this process? We really have to get some firm commitments from Ottawa and, to be honest, Madam Chair, I have not seen one firm commitment. We’re sitting here, it’s 2004, and I hope to be here six years from now or eight years from now and I sure as heck hope I’m not talking about the same thing at that point in time six or 10 years from now. The way we are going in including all these bureaucrats, it becomes a real mess, Madam Chair, and we really have to do something about it and now is the time for action. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That issue certainly came up of getting it tangled up in the bureaucracy and, in fact, the Prime Minister himself referred to it as we don’t want to get into bureaucratic morass, is what he had called it. So he’s very aware of not letting this thing start to spin out of control here. Do we trust him? Do we work with him? I say yes, we haven’t got a lot of choice. Has he delivered? I guess I’d differ with you if you say we haven’t seen anything concrete because I tell you in the last month, it’s been a lot of hard work, a lot of slugging from our side, but I think we got a lot on the health front that benefits the North greatly.

I’m pleased with what we achieved in September on the health front, both for ourselves, as government, and also for aboriginal governments. I also think that the arrangement we have now on the financing formula is a big step. It’s not everything we want, but I tell you it’s come a long way. Those two things specifically I think are more than what we have seen in years with other Prime Ministers. So yes, I’m going to work with Prime Minister Martin. I think he is delivering. He’s not delivering everything at once and we wouldn’t expect anybody to be able to do that.

I agree with Mr. Ramsay that we have to keep our hand on this ourselves and that’s why we said the steering committee has to be the Prime Minister and ourselves. I intend to put whatever time is necessary to make it happen. Prime Minister Martin didn’t walk into this one easily because I first talked to him about the need for a more strategic approach to northern development in January and his first question was how would this work and his statement to me was he did not want to get himself into a process that lead nowhere. So I’m going to work with him. I think he’s delivering and I think we’re much better off to work with him than to try to work against him. That’s not going to get us anywhere. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Next on the list I have Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I have to commend the Premier with securing over $100 million over the next few years with the federal government in our territorial formula financing and equalization. I have to express my scepticism in promises that are made and agreements made with our federal counterparts with regard to equalization and territorial funding just due to the fact that these programs are highly unpredictable and they are volatile depending on economic fluctuations in various parts of the country. Then our equalization gets off balance and new formula financing agreements come into play. So I guess we’re just going to have to ride it out and see what happens on that initiative.

With regard to the development with a work plan on how to move forward to develop a strategy on devolution and resource revenue sharing, just to get back to a point the Premier made with regard to a joint working relationship with the federal government on developing this strategy, I know I’ve been getting and seeing some correspondence coming from a lot of the First Nations claim groups and negotiation tables that this whole approach and the whole initiative of government-to-government work plan on devolution and resource revenue sharing is undermining and may threaten to derail some of the First Nations negotiations that are going on right now between like the Akaitcho government, for instance, and the federal government.

I’m just wondering how the Premier is planning on integrating these First Nations. Not all of them really put all their trust and their confidence into the Aboriginal Summit or the Intergovernmental Forum. So I want to ask what other direction or options could be available to work with this resource revenue sharing and devolution because I know that everybody is in agreement. That is the common goal that we all want, but as far as the federal government devolving powers over land or water and resources to the territorial government and then the territorial government saying we’re going to start devolving some of that powers to the First Nations group, once you get it, you are not going to let go as provinces have done in other jurisdictions with First Nations land claim negotiation groups. What can the Premier tell these First Nations negotiations that they are trying to coincide with what they are doing at their main table negotiations and how their input is going to be taken into consideration; how they can have some meaningful role in developing this devolution strategy?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, I can assure the Members that we are not at all going to try to negotiate devolution between the federal government and the territorial government. We will not go there. What we have done in going back to the last government is worked very closely with the Aboriginal Summit as the representative body or the body that represents the aboriginal leadership and try to work with the Aboriginal Summit and our government to negotiate a plan for how devolution would work. That has cost us a lot of time and money and the same with the aboriginal leadership.

Those who don’t have settled claims have told me that they don’t want to put priority on devolution. So rather than trying to just run over them with this exercise of devolution, I have proposed to this Assembly and to the aboriginal leaders that we carry on with devolution as it moves along slowly, but in the meantime lets work an interim resource revenue sharing arrangement that would enable resource revenues to be shared between the federal government, territorial government and aboriginal governments. This kind of arrangement would be without prejudice to what aboriginal people may negotiate in the future because I don’t know what those look like five or 10 years from now, but we would want to negotiate something that makes sure that some of the resource revenues today stay in the North rather than flow to the South for another 10 years or whatever it will take for everybody to have their aboriginal processes completed and then start negotiating.

Otherwise, if we do that, I believe we stand the risk of being here for 15 years and resource revenues just leaking out of here like crazy. So I have focused on an interim resource revenue sharing arrangement as a way of getting some of those resource revenues into the hands of our people quickly, but there is no intention if anyone believing that we are going to try to negotiate devolution without aboriginal governments or just even have devolution negotiated only to our government and then we would negotiate with aboriginal governments, that’s wrong. We’re not looking at it at all that way. This is clearly a three-party or tripartite form of negotiations; aboriginal governments, our government and the federal government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you are probably well aware, the First Nations negotiating groups right now are, I guess, in a bilateral negotiation process right now. So how are we going to integrate this trilateral strategy into their arena? I just want to find out how you plan on coordinating that with the First Nations right off the get go because I know they’re kind of, like I said, the First Nations groups are right now sceptical about this whole devolution approach. How can we regain their confidence in the government saying we are going to go on a three-way tri-party system to get devolution, but your bilateral negotiations aren’t going to be compromised? I’m just lost on that. I don’t know how.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Premier.

Some aboriginal groups are frustrated with talk on devolution because they are not focused on devolution, they are focused on settling their aboriginal claim or process. Some aboriginal groups, on the other hand, are frustrated because they already have claims and we’re not moving the next step. They feel they’re losing economic opportunities and so on. So my view is that we need to continue to negotiate devolution, but do it in a way that it's not going to interfere or prejudice negatively anything with those groups who don’t yet have settled their aboriginal rights; so the Akaitcho people, Deh Cho, for example. I want to be very careful that we’re not somehow going to pre-empt them or trump something that they’re doing. I’ve remained very open with them. I met with the Akaitcho chiefs in Ottawa while I was there and we talked about their process and about some of their frustration in trying to keep their negotiations moving. I saw some of the documentation they have on devolution and I have told them I will not do anything that’s going to jeopardize what they are doing. If we ever cross that line, then I hope they will tell us that we have crossed it, but so far it seems to be working in way that they can’t say we’ve done anything yet that’s going to compromise their position. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it’s good that we’re definitely taking a strong stance on that issue with respect to the ongoing negotiations. I still am just having a problem trying to figure out what the big picture is going to look like at the end of the day when we have devolution negotiations in place. I guess there are going to be a lot of contingency scenarios with respect to ongoing negotiations when the land claims do get settled. Say they have a settled claim ratified after the GNWT and the aboriginal governments come together and sign a resource revenue devolution interim measures agreement. Is putting these First Nations negotiations processes in that, as in having a significant role in this whole devolution, resource revenue plan -- just getting back to what my colleague was talking about time frames -- is that going to make this whole strategy on devolution and interim measures resource revenue sharing a very long-term process? To me it’s going to be a very big compilation of many different agreements with different governments up and down the valley, land claim settlement areas like the Tli Cho and unsettled areas. I just want to get what the Premier’s view is on the big picture. Are we looking at a whole mirage of just small bilateral agreements, some large trilateral agreements and sub-agreements and in-sub-agreements? What’s your take on it?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Premier.

Mr. Chairman, my view would be that we would have one final devolution, final resource revenue sharing arrangement for the whole Northwest Territories that all aboriginal governments would sign on to along with us and the federal government. Then depending on the specific nature of their land claim or aboriginal rights claim, then there would be different arrangements, particularly on the resource revenue sharing side. Because we have to respect each of the claims and if they’re not identical, then we need to have a different one for the Inuvialuit, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu and someday the Akaitcho, Deh Cho and Tlicho and so on. So I see it as one agreement on devolution for the whole territory, one agreement on resource revenue for the whole territory and then sub-agreements that suit each land claim area. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is very close to how the federal government sees it as well. I don’t think they want to create a whole bunch of little territories. I’ve never heard that from anyone in Ottawa. I think my view is that it would still be a central government, but full respect for each of the aboriginal governments and their settlements.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. I have no other general comments. Does the committee agree that Minister’s Statement 70-15(3) is concluded?

Agreed.

Does committee agree that consideration of Ministers' statements 48, 49 and 54 are concluded? Mr. Zoe.

To Minister’s Statement 48-15(3) I’d like to make a few comments, if I may.

Does committee agree that we consider Minister’s Statement 48-15(3)?

Agreed.

Okay. General comments to Minister’s Statement 48-15(3). Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I’d like to say that I believe this Cabinet has done a good job to date in advancing our agenda during their first year of office. However, I’d like to comment on the use of special warrants by this government. I have a problem with the spending of the public purse without any kind of oversight. There are circumstances, Mr. Chairman, where the government will need to commit money in advance of the Legislature sitting, but I do believe that as much as there has to be an FMB/Cabinet meeting to approve a special warrant, there could be an AOC committee meeting to be briefed by the government on the need for the special warrant. Even if the debate on the special warrant is held during an in camera committee meeting, at least there has been some debate and the government has gotten feedback.

Mr. Chairman, I really think it’s time to revisit the Financial Administration Act and change the provisions guiding the use of special warrants. Now I know the Ministers will say they need this tool to be able to do their job. I would like to say that I and my colleagues on this side of the House deserve the same consideration if we are to do our jobs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I’ll be supporting amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

My second issue, Mr. Chairman, is with the quality of answers some Ministers are giving in this House. There are Ministers who can talk for three minutes and not address the actual question. This is a waste of everybody’s time and causes resentment on this side of the House as we waste our precious questions asking the same one four times over.

Mr. Chairman, those are my two issues I wanted to bring forward in regards to Minister's Statement 48-15(3), Sessional Statement, made by the Premier. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. There wasn’t a specific question there. Mr. Premier, would you care to comment?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to supps and special warrants, we do deal with them very seriously and there are criteria we want to follow. I don’t think any of us would have any difficulty with taking a look at the Financial Administration Act and seeing how we can make the whole system work better. I want to say though on special warrants, if we put something in that bound the hands of the government too much then we might find ourselves at some point in the future where we just didn’t have the money to spend, because of having to go through some process. You could have a school burn down, you could have a water pump building burn down in a small community and we would have to put some extraordinary effort into getting something there, but we can’t do it because we have to wait two weeks to meet with the committee. That wouldn’t work. We have to have the ability as a government to be able to spend money where there is an emergency where something has to be spent right away.

If we are getting too far away from those kinds of purposes, then that is where we should sit down and figure out how we work together better on that. I would like to offer that the Minister of Finance would be ready to sit down and talk about how we can do this in a way that isn’t going to create frustration for everyone either. I don’t think anybody wants to be surprised by big special warrants or whatever it may be. So, Mr. Chairman, we are prepared, I think I can speak on behalf of the Finance Minister, he is prepared to sit down with the committee and say okay, let’s work out something here that is more workable but still retains the purpose of having special warrants to meet these kinds of situations. Thank you.