Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask questions of the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. Since devolution seems to be the lynchpin of this government’s thinking, I’ll start by asking about the process and effects of federal environmental actions on our future ability to manage our resources.
While critical final negotiations are underway, the federal government is changing the apparatus used to evaluate and regulate development. The one-board proposal, imposition of unsubstantiated deadlines and so on. How are we being treated by the federal government? Are they working with us on this or are they treating us as regular stakeholders? Or are they recognizing that we are governments with pending authority for responsibility on land and resource management?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are at the table with the federal government negotiating devolution. This issue has been on the table, the regulatory reform issue has been on the table for some time. The federal government has made it clear they intend to make some dramatic changes. They’ve laid those out, as the Member has indicated. We have our own position that we have laid out that was public, it was on the website, that was dissimilar to the one put forward by the federal government. However, the federal government has indicated their intention to proceed.
Thanks for the Minister’s remarks there. I guess, how about the money as well? There are now dedicated budgets for a regional board structure. They may be minimal but they are still providing support for limited regional board operations. Devolution negotiations started on the basis of those amounts. Will that money remain in place? The amount? Is this government insisting that the budgets in place before the AIP or at the time of the AIP being signed will be protected for full transfer under the Devolution Agreement?
The numbers agreed to for the A-based funding, which the Member is referring to, which is to compensate and offset the cost of taking over all the positions and programs, is in the neighbourhood of I think $63 million. That is the figure that is enshrined in the agreement-in-principle and that is the figure that we are negotiating for that is part of that, as is the other part of that financial equation, which is the resource royalty sharing, which will be about $60,000 this year, which was up to 5 percent of our gross expenditure base, up to 5 percent of their gross expenditure base. Those figures are set and, as far as I’m aware, there is no change to that. What’s being negotiated is all the other detail related to devolution. Thank you.
I think the Minister meant to say $60 million rather than $60,000 there, but I appreciate those comments. At the time of the AIP we apparently accepted to take over mirror legislation, federal legislation. Obviously, this government has had a lot of problems with the federal legislation or we wouldn’t be after it to change it; we’d be happily going along our way. We do want to make changes that recognize the unique northern perspective. We have been told at the Premier level many times that we can and will be able to modify the mirrored legislation once it’s adopted and the final agreement is complete. But others in authority at the federal level have indicated that we will not have that option and we will be stuck with that mirror legislation. I wonder if the Minister can assure me and bring some clarity to this that we will indeed be able to modify this legislation. Mahsi.
My understanding is if there’s an agreement for mirror legislation, that once we take it over it becomes territorial legislation. If we, in fact, end up with a process where the federal legislation stays in place and we accept the role of delegated authority from the federal legislation, then clearly the federal government would have the final say since it’s their legislation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could just get the Minister to repeat the last part of that. It sounded like the federal government retains the ability to require that that legislation be unchanged. Maybe I could get some clarity on that one.
My last and final question would be: Given the announcement that we’re going to do a public consultation on a land use and sustainability framework, what funds are available to carry out that consultation and how will it be done? Thank you.
In regard to the initial question that the Member asked me to repeat, there are basically two tracks when it comes to the regulatory reform. What’s happened in the Yukon is they just accepted delegated authority from the federal government, keeping the federal legislation in place and they just administer that legislation which, of course, makes any type of amendments very difficult.
The other track is one where there’s mirrored legislation where there’s an agreement to develop northern legislation that would mirror the current federal legislation, a similar process that was used when division between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories happened, and then it becomes territorial legislation but mirroring the federal legislation. That way there would be, over time, if there was a decision in the North by Northerners that amendments were needed to that mirror legislation or other mirror legislation, it would be a process that Northerners would engage in.
In terms of the money that’s available for the consultation, I don’t have that information. I haven’t yet even seen the consultation schedule, but I will commit that that information will be provided to Members when we have it available. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
