Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, things are going to start moving. I should say that the draft terms of reference on the Cabinet Standing Committee, was sent to SCOPP. We are waiting for feedback. As I said, there are three partners at the negotiating table. We have to make sure that… I could have made offers a long time ago, but there's no sense making an offer if they're just going to turn around and refuse it, or turn it down. We've had to work to make sure that we involved the federal government. We also involved the Aboriginal governments. As a matter of fact, I met with the Grand Chief of the Dehcho First Nations a number of times. We met this morning. We are working things out. The regular reporting, the report will be out, and so we expect things to move forward and come together very soon, within the next few weeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the response from the Minister, but I guess I'm starting to sense a lot of frustration from this side of the House in the lack of progress on this part of our mandate. This side of the House is willing to work. We want to work on this and help the Cabinet start to move these things forward, but progress has been extremely slow, and I really look forward to a lot more progress on these files. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. More of a comment. Would the Premier like to respond?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. We've been elected for four years, and we're now six months into our term. One of my former colleagues would have translated that into days. Three and a half months, I'm not sure how many days, but I think we're going to get there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Any more comments or questions on page 41? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of more in light of the two pages 40 and 41 just being in this department here relative to negotiations, I want to raise a point that most Canadians are aware of in recent months, and that is the landmark decision, of course, of Judge Daniels’s ruling with regard to Metis and non-status Indians. I'm just wondering if the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs is aware of anything or identified any aspects that this government is going to have to be responsible for, or new responsibilities that this government may have with regard to that ruling? Maybe I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that all of the Metis in Canada and in the Northwest Territories were very happy to see the Daniels court ruling. Our expectation would be that we are doing all of those things. If anything, we would expect the federal government to reimburse our government for expenditures on Metis health benefits, but that remains to be seen. The federal government, our understanding from Justice and our Aboriginal Affairs people is the Government of Canada will review it. They have no avenue to appeal, but they would look at how they would incorporate it. On the land claim side, we think that certainly for those Metis who have land claims tabled, that this will allow their land claim to be incorporated into the Constitution as opposed to it only being done by contract, as what was being proposed. Through you, Mr. Chair, I'll ask Deputy Goldney to go into more of the legal technicalities of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the Member's question, we don't anticipate the Daniels decision resulting in more program responsibility for this government, but it does help clarify that there is legislative jurisdiction for Metis and non-status in Canada that is the responsibility of Parliament. How that shakes out and what that means in practice will take some time to determine, so it does leave open the question, as the Minister stated, what does this mean for jurisdictions that have stepped in to fill that gap and provide programs and services specific to Metis when now a strong argument can be made that Canada might be the more appropriate government for that responsibility to fall to, and there are things like education funding and health funding that will have to be considered and that might lead to different results. Not necessarily a sure thing but it will be something that we will have to consider and engage with our federal partner moving forward. On the claim side, the Daniels decision really dealt with one constitutional question, and that was legislative responsibility for Metis. Are they within Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act or not? The court there made it clear that they were in Section 91(24). They shouldn't be treated any differently than Indians or Inuit who are clearly within Section 91(24). On the Aboriginal rights side, though that really deals with a different section of the Constitution, Section 35. Under that, the court was clear; that really isn't a live controversy. It's well recognized and well understood that Metis have Aboriginal rights under Section 35. Not much changes in that regard for the Northwest Territories as a result of that decision. As the Minister noted, though, we do anticipate Daniels reinforcing calls for equal treatment for Metis, and that includes equal treatment for how their Aboriginal rights agreements, as they are negotiated, are treated as well. Canada has historically taken the position that, in the case of the NWTMN agreements, that that could somehow be treated outside Section 35 and not be a constitutionally recognized agreement, but just be entered into as a contract. It's long been the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories that that would be unfair and highly challenging, and that agreement should be a constitutionally recognized agreement. We do look forward to continuing that discussion with Canada with the support of the Daniels decision. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Vanthuyne, is there anything further?
I'm very appreciative of the response, and it certainly is clear that the deputy minister has done some negotiating on rights and claims in the past. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. I'll give the witnesses a chance to respond if they would like to. Thank you. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a question on the case that the deputy minister's referring to. Something about earlier, the Minister indicated that not sure if the federal government would reimburse the GNWT for any benefits that would be now be afforded to the Metis people. Has there been some discussion on that as far as the health benefits that we provide as a government to the Metis? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that when the government, I believe it was the 16th Assembly, looked at changing seniors' health benefits, it was determined at that time…There was quite a hard look at Metis health benefits and non-insured health benefits for status and treaty Indians. This is something that we've been cognizant of for some time. I believe the Department of Health keeps a running record of every cent that's spent on Metis health benefits. The Department of Justice watches all of these cases very closely. At the appropriate time we will put forward our case, as we have done in other instances, like on the non-insured health benefits where we weren't getting reimbursed 100 per cent. We had to go to court, I believe, if I go back far enough, to get the federal government to pay. I think we're waiting for the federal government to respond to the court ruling. Maybe Minister Sebert has more information on how government usually responds to Supreme Court cases that affect I guess every province and territory. Maybe through you, Mr. Chair, you could…
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Would Minister Sebert like to respond?
Mr. Goldney would probably be the expert in this area, so I might defer to his expertise. Clearly, it's not a question of ignoring the decision, they would have to follow it. I understand they're analyzing it. But, again, perhaps Mr. Goldney can flesh out my response.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Throwing it back to Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Both Ministers are right, the federal government has stated that they're going to take the time to analyze the implications of the decision. We do expect that will lead to discussions among all of the jurisdictions, particularly those like the Northwest Territories who have stepped in and have programs specific to Metis that might now be successfully argued should be the responsibility of the federal government. It would be unfair, though, to press Canada until they've had time to do that analysis and respond more fully. We do anticipate that Canada will be prepared in the coming weeks, and perhaps months, but hopefully weeks to engage on that subject.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, to be clear, I'm not advocating anything like what happened with the seniors' extended health benefits. I was just indicating that I don't think there's a whole lot of jurisdictions that are extending benefits that are harmonized to the NIHB, as we are in the GNWT. As far as I'm concerned, you know, we would continue to apply the Metis health benefits and pay the Metis health benefits until the federal government sorts out what the overall cost of that decision would be just in the area of health benefits. I'm not seeing a whole bunch of other areas where we're treating a particular group or funding a particular group that would need to be reviewed as a result of this decision. I see that just being that one area, health. I believe we have, when we get to the health portion of this review we would see that it's above $1.9 million being paid out to Metis health benefits, and that would be something that would remain in the GNWT if the federal government was to now step in and be the provider for the Metis and non-status Indians as well. I was just inquiring to see if there was any discussions at this point with the federal government on that decision. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't expect there will be any change at this time. Through you, I'll ask the Minister of Health to say a few words on this matter. Thank you.
Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Member is correct. We provide benefits for Metis people as a last resort, we're the last funder. We do encourage Metis people to pursue other insurance, if they have employer's insurance and whatnot. On average, it costs us about $2 million, as the Member has indicated, and we are ready to have discussions with the federal government. We know what we've paid over the past years. We mirror NIHB exactly for our Metis residents. We know what our numbers are. We're prepared to have that discussion once the time is right. In the meantime, given the ruling, but also given that it was a decision of this House, there's no plans at this point in time to stop funding or proving that services to our Metis residents until such a time is we have worked out a deal with the federal government where they can take over the costs.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Any more comments or questions on page 41? Seeing none. Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, negotiations, operations expenditure summary, activity total, $2.398 million.
Agreed.
Moving on to page 42, negotiations, active positions, information item only. Are there any questions, comments? None. We'll move on to page 43, lease commitments and other information items. Are there any questions? Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if I could get some information about why we're leasing office space in Ottawa. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. At one time we had a deputy minister of Intergovernmental Affairs based out of Ottawa and we had government offices. We found it was very helpful and useful to have a government office in Ottawa, so we've continued to maintain a government office. It keeps getting smaller and cheaper all the time just because of what's happening in Ottawa. The office space we had in the Delta building, because of renovations, we were able to get out of our lease and get a significantly better deal in or new office, which everybody should visit when they're in Ottawa, which has a view of Parliament. It’s very beneficial for us when we go to Ottawa to have meetings, to have negotiations. Also people from the Northwest Territories that go to Ottawa, they have a place to go and they're welcome to use our offices while they're there. We have one staff that helps us make arrangements when we go to Ottawa and when we have to go to meet with federal Ministers and so on. They coordinate all of those. We have to go through heavy security and so on. For us, we still see it as money well spent. I think we have a lease that's for about five years, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. McNeely.
Just want to add to the comments about Ottawa. Twenty years ago, I was a visitor in Ottawa and I did find on the website the office in question here, and found very convenient. It did provide me with a lot of support while I was there; where to go, who to see. It probably provides other residents of the NWT with the same level of services.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Premier McLeod.
Yes. The Women Warriors of the Sahtu have certainly found it very helpful.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Are there any further questions on page 43? Seeing none, we can move ahead to page 44, another information item, work performed on behalf of others. Are there any questions? Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. When I read this, it seems like the federal government is providing implementation funding for the GNWT Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Sahtu, and Tlicho agreements. Then when I turn back to page 34, the amounts in this work performed on behalf of others, seems to correspond roughly what to what is shown in the implementation part of the departmental budget back on page 34. Is that the case here? What is the relationship between these two tables? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thanks Mr. O’Reilly. Mr. Robertson.
The table that you see on page 34 corresponds to the money that we refer to as fund one, what the Members are voting on today for GNWT resources. The information that is provided is third party. The money is what was agreed on to cover the costs of the GNWT implementing those agreements. Not just our department, there is money that goes across all departments. They have agreed to fund the GNWT for those incremental costs. Thinking collectively. That’s the money that is used to coordinate the government-wide implementation of the federal agreement plus the negotiation of the ongoing agreements. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Robertson, Mr. O’Reilly.
I’m just trying to understand the fluctuation of these numbers as well. Can I have some explanation of the fluctuation?
The opening numbers of 2015-16 are part of the tenure that we have for Canada under those four settled agreements the government is allowed to retain. Given the year-end closure, you’ll see the carry-over for the prior year. The money from 2016-17 is the money that we have coming in that is guaranteed from Canada. We are accountable in the sense to carry out our money. The agreements do allow for the carry-over and we’re allowed to use that for future work. The money that you see here is primarily for salaries and travel-related costs, so those types of monies do fluctuate a lot from year to year, which is why we carry over a small surplus of about $100,000 per year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Seeing no one else on my list, would the committee please turn back to page 27. The departmental summary of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. $8.754 million.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that the review of Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations is completed?
Agreed.
Committee agrees. I have decided to report progress.
---Carried
I will now rise and report progress
