Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the Premier makes it pretty clear that the Aboriginal groups should come into the tent and we’ll all be one big happy family, but right now we’re not too much of a happy family. If anything, we’ve divided ourselves by regions, lands claims groups, and more importantly, the Dene and the Inuvialuit. I think that this government has an obligation, like I said in my statement, that it’s clearly stated the government shall involve the Gwich’in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord, no questions asked. It’s in the land claim agreement. So yet you’re saying, well, you have the right under the land claim agreement, but you have to sign on to this agreement before we’ll invite you into the tent.
So I’d like to ask the Premier what is the condition of signing onto this agreement, knowing that a lot of Aboriginal groups find this agreement to be flawed, and how can they commit themselves to sign a flawed agreement where they’ve done research on their situations and that basically the cap, the net fiscal benefit, and more importantly, Norman Wells. What is the arrangement for bringing the groups to the table? Do they have to sign or can they sign subject to those agreements being discussed?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite clearly, it depends on what cap is being discussed. The AIP does not include a cap that ties territorial formula financing to the AIP. That cap that some spoke about is, in fact, a national program. Provinces and territories, the three territories, we hit a cap that’s designed to meet the implementation of an equalization program across Canada. So that is not hinged on the agreement-in-principle. That is a financial issue that’s been dealt with by every province and territory dealing with Canada. So, number one, there is no negotiation on that in the sense of the AIP. Secondly, the resource revenue sharing that would be a net fiscal benefit to the North, the AIP sets out a process where we will have bilateral discussions with Aboriginal groups in that sharing of that net fiscal benefit.
More importantly, the reference to the Northern Accord, the Northern Accord is appended to a number of the agreements, but let’s be frank about that in the sense that it was initialled but was never voted on and endorsed. So we respect that and, in fact, the groups have been involved. They have received resources to be a part of that process and will continue if they sign on. The issue is, going forward, if they’re to tap into the resources available, they’ll need to sign on and work out an agreement with the federal government to have that money start to flow to them. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, again, the Aboriginal groups clearly and specifically stated that being involved is one thing, but fully participating is another. I think that is the issue that’s at hand here.
In regard to the Gwich’in Tribal Council who submitted a letter to the Premier in April last year on six items, which basically they had a problem with the devolution process, to date they have not even had a response to that letter that was sent to the Premier. Yet he asked for Aboriginal people to have input into the process.
I’d like to ask the Premier exactly what extent of involvement will the Aboriginal groups have in exactly re-looking at this arrangement, seeing exactly does it meet the criteria. I think the other issue they have is in regard to the whole area of the base transfer. What are they going to do in the future if they decide to decentralize these positions from Yellowknife to other regions? Has that been taken into consideration? Also, in regard to the potential indexing and also are these fixed funds? Also, I think that we have to be realistic. The numbers, we were looking at a number years ago, it was $83 million. Now we’re basically agreeing to $63 million. What I’d like to know is how they are going to be involved in those decision-making processes.
Earlier as well, the Member mentioned Norman Wells as the one-third ownership the federal government has, and they call it equity as their ownership piece. The two-thirds that are there do provide royalties to the Aboriginal groups and to the Government of Canada. So two-thirds of that asset is already paying royalties. The issue is on the one-third ownership of the federal government.
Let’s do some history here. The Sahtu and the Gwich’in took the federal government to court based on that being a royalty. In fact, we, as the GNWT of the day, we’re quite supportive of that initiative. The unfortunate reality that happened in the case, and was considered as a good fortune at the time, was the signing of settlement between the Aboriginal groups and Canada. And that has then closed that door. We have consistently, as the GNWT through previous governments and even at the start of this process in this government, looked to having that brought forward if not purely on a royalty basis.
I spoke to the Prime Minister, who was looking at the revenues that come from that and reinvesting in the North in key projects. So we continue to put those forward, and the best way of coming to the table is sign the agreement, be a part of that team that helps influence the future decisions and direction. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other area of concern was the impact of devolution from the GNWT taking on these powers, and more importantly, the affect on Aboriginal government and Aboriginal authorities, regardless if it’s land claims or unsettled or settled areas. I know that I heard comments on the radio from a legal counsel for the government, that this agreement will not affect the land claim agreements. This agreement is all about the land claim agreements, so I prefer to differ on that one. I’d like to know from the Premier exactly have we looked at the impacts on this agreement on Aboriginal governments and the land claim agreements.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement-in-principle has the fingerprints and handprints of the Aboriginal organizations and governments across the Northwest Territories. From the earliest days up until we picked this up and concluded a number of the bilateral issues, even to the point when this document was signed and sent to them, they started to look at what was presented. As the negotiators said, they reached their mandate. They’ve got their handprints and that’s why there’s language in here that talks about protection of Aboriginal rights and interest in the Northwest Territories. We’ve incorporated that language. Again I say, by going forward, as they participate and join on, we can include that language and continue that involvement in helping us frame the right language as we go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Premier if he would refer this question to the Minister of Justice and have the Department of Justice look at the constitutional viability of this agreement and the affect it has on Aboriginal treaty rights in the Northwest Territories.
As the Member knows, when Cabinet and government looks at taking a position on things, we involve many departments from the earliest days to make sure the language we have in before signing any document meets the criteria that’s set before us as the Government of the Northwest Territories in honouring our commitments that are made. That’s why the language, as it’s put in, is quite clear. Now, it’s written in here, the ink is dried in the sense of those commitments to protect the Aboriginal rights and the recognition of Section 35, but if that isn’t good enough for some, nothing will be good enough for some in the sense, because it is there. We get to set the mandates, and if they come in the tent and sign on, they get to help us with some of that work as we go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
