Merci, Monsieur le President. Three for three. Let's go for four for four. Again, I want to thank the Premier for that. That's really great news. This is something people in this community worked long and hard for, so I really appreciate the response from the Premier.
GNWT is a co-proponent under the Giant Mine Environmental Agreement, and it's also a partner in the remediation of the site, not a financial partner, we will be clear on that, through the 2005 Cooperation Agreement. Our staff have a lot of knowledge and information about Giant Mine and its impacts. Can the Premier tell us whether our staff will be supporting the work on an apology and compensation, and whether they have begun to be engaged on this issue? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not aware that our staff have been directly engaged as of yet, but we have a very good working relationship with the federal Department of Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. We will endeavour to engage with them, so that we continue to stay on top of this issue and help facilitate a resolution that we are able to do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Oral questions. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in my Member's statement I talked about the amnesty for people who have been charged with marijuana offenses in the Northwest Territories. I recognize that this is a federal government initiative at this point. At some point, the GNWT will be engaged. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if the department has statistically reviewed the situation or the numbers of people who have been charged with criminal offenses due to marijuana. Thank you.
Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can advise that the department does not keep statistics on the number of Northwest Territories residents with convictions for simple possession or otherwise, and it may be that some of them will have convictions arising from other jurisdictions. I was looking at an article, however, on Andre Picard, which seemed to indicate there was still a large number of people across Canada being charged. He indicated in that article that, as I read it, there were more than 40,000 convictions, or charges, rather, cannabis-related charges laid in 2016. So there are a large number of people who are still being charged. I'm assuming that some of them are Northwest Territories residents, but we don't have those statistics. Thank you.
Even without statistics, I would like to ask the Minister if there has been any discussion with his department on how to handle I guess it's going to be a huge number of individuals who have been charged, in the case I spoke up in my Member's statement about, with possession as the Minister indicates. I was wondering if there were any discussions at all at the departmental level pertaining to that.
As I have mentioned previously, this matter is primarily a federal one. I do know that, some time ago, the Departments of Justice and ECE established a program whereby clients on social assistance could receive financial assistance to obtain a record suspension, which is the modern term for a probation.
As I say, there may be a lot of applications for record suspensions, or a pardon, rather, coming ahead. Unfortunately, it does seem that there are still a large number of charges being laid. As I mentioned previously, tens of thousands of charges are still being laid. I don't think the federal government is contemplating any change in their policy with respect to pardons for marijuana charges until after the current legislation, regarding the legalization of recreational cannabis comes into effect.
I do realize that we are talking about the legal stuff here, but had there been any discussions, like at some point, we must begin to talk about what's going to be coming in July. I would like to know if there have been any discussions between the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet.
Of course, I cannot discuss the details of what is discussed in Cabinet. However, we do realize this is a live issue, and it is a live issue for the federal government also. I do know that, as recently as earlier this year, and I'm reading a story in the press that the Federal Safety Minister, Ralph Goodale, said the government is examining the implication of possible pardons or record suspensions. This is an issue mainly at the federal level, and I think we could all say we are expecting some movement by them with respect to the issue of passed convictions, but time will tell.
Thank you. Final question. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm asking these questions because it does certainly have an impact on individuals for jobs, employment, travel, and many other things. When an individual who has a criminal record is appearing at the border, for example, whether or not they are able to across the border could depend upon the type of criminal offense they have on their record. I would like to ask the Minister if he could commit to starting to have discussions with the other Ministers who have some involvement in creating employment and having the growth of our economy in the territory so that they have that discussion, so that when July 1 comes and the legislation is passed that this government would be more prepared than not prepared. Thank you.
Yes, it has been a challenge for this government to prepare for the upcoming legalization of recreational cannabis. Certainly, I am willing to discuss these matters with my colleagues in Cabinet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Oral questions. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a follow-up to my Member's statement. A little background is, in the past, the ice roads opened at a weight limit of 25 millimetres and today, the changes that were made were, you now have to have 35 millimetres to open roads. I would like to ask the Minister: will the Minister be more flexible as we tend to have colder weather in the Mackenzie Delta compared to the southern part of our territory? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. The Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Member is not talking about this winter. I think the Mackenzie Delta has been warmer than years. I will have to check into the significant change from 25 millimetre to the 35 millimetre for operation of the ice roads, but I do know, and I have said it in this House a number of times, safety is our number one priority for residents of the Northwest Territories.
We have guidelines for safe construction of ice roads in the Northwest Territories and I will endeavour to have a look into why the change took place from 25 to 35 millimetres. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last spring, as we are all aware, the ice road closed quicker on the ice road to Aklavik. It was due to a little open section of water. Mr. Speaker, all we had to do at the time was block off a section of that road to ensure that vehicles didn't go near that open water, which was just alongside the road. Will the Minister block off any open sections along the ice road this spring, rather than closing the road all together?
Well, first of all, I'll say no to that, just to protect myself. There are a number of circumstances that have to be taken into consideration on the closure of these ice roads. One of the things is, as I said, we have a guideline around how we operate the ice roads in the Northwest Territories. Climate change is impacting how the Government of the Northwest Territories operates and how we build and maintain these ice crossings in the NWT, and it's become a significant challenge. Even this year, we're having some challenges right now with a number of overflow issues on a number of the roads. They're going to actually bring the cost up of operating these things continually as we go forward. I think the Member from Yellowknife mentioned that in his comments about climate change, how it's affecting us. We have warmer water that is flowing under the ice, and it can degrade the ice surface, the thickness of it, and it's not visible to the naked eye, and people assume that the road is -- just because the ice conditions look on the surface as they can be operated and it's cool out, warmer waters and river currents and stuff are having an effect on these things, and we have to continue to monitor them, and we will continue to do that, but safety is our number one priority.
The Minister talked about increased costs. Maybe if the Minister would listen to some of the things that we're trying to let them know of to bring the costs down, maybe those costs would be half of what they are today. Like heat trace, for example. The other question I had was: our contractors up in the area have years of experience with these conditions, and even your colleague next to you knows of this area that we're talking about, and over the years, it's been the same conditions in that area, and the people have a lot of traditional knowledge in that area. This spring, I'm sure, we may have to do it again, but will the Minister ensure that the department tests the ice in that area to ensure it's safe? If we have to block off a little section of the road, maybe a quarter or half, then, especially for light transfer, because it is safe for light traffic? To let residents, give them time to stock up for the spring. They don't have access to that road until next fall.
I agree, the contractors have a lot of experience in that region building these ice roads. It's been the same contractors off and on for a number of years, but at the end of the day, I'm the Minister whose head is on the line here if something happens. Safety is our number one priority. We will continue to monitor the situation going forward. I can talk to the department if there are any issues arising right now on that section of highway in the Northwest Territories. As I've said, I know that a number of our ice roads have challenges right now, and as you can see by the weather outside, it's going to increase. When it's plus six in Hay River right now, there are challenges right across the board, but safety is our number one priority. I will talk to our department. We'll have our superintendent have a look at the road and make sure it's safe to operate for everybody.
Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to follow up with questions to the Minister of Lands. Can the Minister explain to this House how the Yellowknives Dene First Nations were consulted in regards to the land at Cassidy Point? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister of Lands.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do know that there was consultation, and I just want to make sure I get my dates right. In December, formal consultation, December 2014, that is, the department sent formal consultation letters regarding the possible fee simple transfer to the Akaitcho Territory Dene First Nations, ADFN, Northwest Territories Metis Nation, North Slave Metis Alliance, and Tlicho government. Copies of the letters were also sent to the Yellowknives Dene First Nation chiefs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm a little bit concerned. This started in 1992, and if I heard the Minister say it correctly, it was 2014 when we consulted with the First Nations, so maybe he'll have to clarify that a little bit later. I guess my concern is, my understanding is that the Yellowknives Dene did not support the sale of this area to lease holders. So how was the government able to move forward with this commitment?
My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that when the letters were sent out on December 14, 2014, to the groups that I have already mentioned, the consultation period with respect to those letters ended on February 3, 2015, which would have been about 60 days later; and by that time, no Aboriginal governments responded to either support or object to the proposal.
I find it hard to believe that the First Nations would not object to this, but I guess I'll go on to my next question. Has the government of the GNWT compensated the Yellowknives Dene First Nations for taking these pieces of land and for that happening?
As I mentioned, letters were sent out to the groups I mentioned, and no responses, negatively or positively, were received by February 3, 2015, which, as I said, was approximately 60 days later. No compensation has been paid, as I understand it, to this point.
Thank you. Final question. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that answer. So on October 20, 2016, the Minister spoke about the importance of the Government of the Northwest Territories honouring its commitments no matter how old they are. It comes with the honour of the Crown. In speaking with a number of residents, we're not too sure what the Minister meant by this. Can the Minister please explain to the House what he meant by this statement? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As all the Members of this House know, a commitment was made many years ago to the people at Cassidy Point, allowing them to obtain fee simple. Period. That was the end of it, we thought, but it is a little more complicated than that, simply because the people out at Cassidy Point doubtless relied on this assurance from the government. So there are two reasons why the government must follow up on its commitment, honour of the Crown, as I call it: one, we made the commitment, as I said; and, doubtless, people affected relied on that promise. So there are two reasons why we must follow through on this promise, and that is in keeping with the honour of the Crown. Thank you.
Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I'd like to ask some questions of the Minister of Finance about the renewal of our territory formula funding arrangement. Buried on page 317 of the federal budget, there is this set of curious numbers and so on. It says, "Proposed renewal of equalization and territorial formula funding for a five-year period, with technical changes to improve accuracy and efficiency of calculation of entitlements," and so on. So this seems to indicate that our territory formula funding arrangement is going to be renewed for another five years, as is. I'm just wondering if the Minister of Finance can shed any light on what this commitment from the federal government is all about? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in this year's federal budget, they announced that we were going to get an additional $1.7 million toward our formula financing as a result of the negative impacts of the review of the territorial formula financing that they just completed. The current deal expires on April 9th. The Member is correct. We are getting renewed for the next five years, and my understanding is for the next five years we should get incremental increases, actually, to our budget, to offset the negative impacts of the review. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to thank the Minister for that. I'm just worried about the renewal of the agreement for another five years. There are issues here in terms of the carbon pricing. There is a commitment from the federal government to ensure that any impacts on the TFF with respect to carbon pricing are going to be dealt with. We know that we don't get to keep enough of our own source revenues under the TFF, so I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if there is still going to be an opportunity to make further changes for the funding arrangement with regard to carbon pricing and own source revenues:
In my response to the questions to Members previous, I had talked about the carbon pricing and the effect it might have on the territorial formula of financing. Part of the discussions that we will have with Ottawa is on how that may affect our territorial formula of financing. I know we have had commitment from the federal government that they were going to recognize the uniqueness of the North, so we are hoping they take that into consideration. As we proceed into those discussions, again, I will commit to keeping Members updated on the discussions that we have. On the own source revenue, we keep all our own source revenue except for the resource royalties, which we just started receiving a few years ago. A part of that goes back to Canada. We get a portion of that, but all the other own source revenue, we keep within the territorial government.
I would like to thank the Minister for that. My understanding was, and look, I'm not an expert on the territorial formula funding arrangement, but my understanding was that, if we introduce a new tax, we get to keep the revenues from that for the first three years and then it gets rolled into our base and sort of clawed back through the arrangement. Is there going to be the ability to change that sort of provision of the arrangement, so that we get to keep more of our own source revenues in the future?
Again, I'm positive that we get to keep all of the revenue that we generate, but I will confirm that and have a conversation with the Member. I have raised in the last Finance Ministers' meeting that our concern about the impact on some of the technical changes that they have, and so I have started those discussions with the federal Finance Minister. I'm sure that we get to keep all of the revenue that we generate. Again, I will confirm that and if I was wrong, then I will let the Member know.
Thank you. Final question. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I would like to get a briefing. I think the standing committee should probably get a briefing on the formula funding arrangement pretty soon so we better understand this, but even with regard to, say, the resource revenues that we get to keep under the devolution agreement, there was an independently commissioned study by the Department of ITI that said that that arrangement wasn't the greatest and that we should be able to keep more of those sorts of revenues as a result of changes that could be made to the territorial formula funding arrangement and maybe the devolution agreement. Is the Minister aware of opportunities there are going to be to renegotiate other provisions of the territorial formula arrangement if it's renewed for five years? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
On the resource royalty revenues, I mean, we started receiving those revenues at devolution before that were a number of years before that; I don't believe we got any revenue at all from the resources that were extracted from the Northwest Territories. It was a long time coming, and it's a start. I hope we will continue to see that pile of money increase in the future, which would mean that there would be more jobs in the Northwest Territories.
Again, the Member makes a good point, though. The territorial formula financing that we have with the federal government is quite complex. There are a number of different components to it. If it's a wish of committee, I would be glad to provide them with a briefing, be it a written briefing or an in-person brief, a technical briefing, and then we can all understand the territorial formula financing. My understanding, again, is that we get to keep all of our own source revenue that we generate. Otherwise, why would be raise taxes or anything like that if we are not able to keep it? Again, I will have that discussion with committee and we will see as we go forward that we are all better informed on the territorial formula financing agreement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Infrastructure, as Infrastructure is the department that handles our energy policy for this government. Earlier today the honourable Member for Yellowknife North spoke about nuclear energy as a potential solution to remote industrial operations in the high Arctic and as a solution for off-grid mines. I know that many industry actors who are operating in the Northwest Territories have been looking into the potential of nuclear technology. I haven't heard a lot from this government on its position on nuclear. Do we have one, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
