Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To govern this Territory properly the GNWT and Aboriginal governments need to work together. Devolution is not about transferring controls, it’s just not about transferring controls over land and resources, it’s nation building.
Devolution will play a critical role in the GNWT’s ability to provide citizens with adequate and sustainable programs and services. Devolution will play a major role in determining how the Government of the Northwest Territories shall share powers with the land claim and self-governments that represent the treaty and Aboriginal rights of 50 percent of NWT citizens.
We must recognize that any final devolution agreement will affect the Aboriginal and treaty rights due to the devolution deals with jurisdictions and management over the lands and resources. Along with the devolution AIP final agreement there is a proposed deal on resource revenue sharing. That deal will also affect how the Government of the Northwest Territories will certainly affect how self-government will be governed.
Like I mentioned earlier, devolution is not just about transferring control over lands and resources from Canada to the GNWT. Many questions have been raised about how this transfer of power will be funded. The funding will come from two sources: the money from Canada that will be spent on the transfer of responsibilities from the resource revenues flowing to the GNWT as a result of the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement.
In 2007 the GNWT walked away from the settlement offer of $65 million a year to support the staffing programs that will be transferred from Canada to the GNWT. At that time the GNWT said the $65 million was not enough to run the programs. Yet here we are in 2011 and the GNWT has changed its mind. This is in spite of the fact that Canada has offered $65 million in 2005 dollars. This means that the funding will not account for the inflation that has occurred since 2005. So the GNWT now has settled for less than what was originally refused.
In 2007 the GNWT argued that a fair level of yearly funding would be around $85 million. This is puzzling. Where will the additional $20 million come from each year?
This leads to the issue of net fiscal benefit. The GNWT has signed on to proposed resource revenue sharing agreements with Canada. That deal says that the GNWT can have 50 percent of the Northwest Territories resource royalties up to an amount that equals up to 5 percent of the GNWT’s gross expenditure base. The gross expenditure base is in the amount that the GNWT would have to spend to ensure that everyone in the Northwest Territories can access the same quality of public service no matter where they live. Right now the gross expenditure base equals about $1.2 billion per year. In this scenario the GNWT would at most get an extra $60 million per year from the resource revenue sharing agreement. Considering the GNWT will likely have an annual shortfall of $20 million we need to take on its new land and resource responsibilities, it makes sense that the shortfall will come from the $60 million provided by the net fiscal benefit. But we must remember that it is optimistic to assume that the GNWT will receive $60 million in resource revenues each year.
As a result of the $20 million fund shortfall, the GNWT will really be left with $40 million, and the $15 million that will go to the Aboriginal governments to share, so really under this resource revenue sharing deal the GNWT at best-case scenario will benefit to the tune of $25 million. The situation will not be good either for the GNWT or the Aboriginal governments.
The Gwich’in Tribal Council did a comprehensive review of the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement and a net fiscal benefit. The Premier quoted that report as supporting the proposed resource revenue sharing deal. The Premier’s reading misconstrued the report’s finding. The GNWT reported simply, note that it stands, it would be better for the Gwich’in Tribal Council to get at least some resource royalties rather than none at all. Specifically, that getting some of the resource royalties would be beneficial but not optimal. That observation does not constitute support for the proposed resource revenue sharing deal.
The same report goes on to take a closer look at how the formula was arrived at for this revenue sharing deal. Canada says that this revenue sharing deal is consistent with the principles of governed equalization formula for the provinces. The Gwich’in analysis shows that this is not the case. The GTC analysis shows that this revenue sharing deal bears no relationship at all to the approach taken to the rest of Canada.
When we look at this agreement closely it seems that a more reasonable arrangement, one consistent with equalization principles and convention, would see a cap of about 15 percent of the gross expenditure base. That would see the GNWT cap of resource revenue sharing amount to about $180 million per year. The report notes that neither Canada nor the GNWT have provided calculations to justify how the proposed resource revenue sharing formula was determined. My view is that the GNWT is selling itself too cheaply to the federal government that’s looking to offload programs and services and the costs and risks that go along with resource development and still retain far more from a fair share of the profits of the resource revenues.
Canada set the royalty rates for the Northwest Territories resources and these are too low to support sustainable and effective government and environmental stewardship that is essential to our well-being. The Gwich’in Tribal Council notes that the monies that the GNWT gains from any net fiscal benefits will not adequately address the social costs or sustain the public expenditure requirements that resource development will bring boom and bust population and other economic scenarios and increased demands for the range of programs and services that this government provides. Some of these programs and services will be provided not only by the GNWT, they will be provided by the self-governments across the Territory.
The resource revenue sharing deal that is currently proposed would see the Aboriginal governments divide at least seven regions sharing at most $15 million each year. In my own region of the Sahtu, once the Sahtu receives its share, which would then be divided amongst the five communities, some of them self-government. In three districts the net fiscal benefit for them is as would be maybe in the range of a few hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. In my region, communities such as Deline are close to reaching a self-government deal and are concerned about devolution. Deline negotiators do not yet know whether Canada and the GNWT will claw back those resource revenues under the self-government financing arrangements. The question for them to whether such funds were reviewed by Canada and the GNWT as own-source revenues, in which case a self-government would see little or no benefit. Because this question is unanswered, Deline is facing a situation they may be straddled with the growing cost of government, will have additional responsibilities related to post-devolution resource management systems, and they do not know how they will be resourced for that work or whether the community will actually be better off as a result of signing on to the devolution deal.
These kinds of questions require a person to take into account so many factors all at once that without having solid answers or facts about important variables are mindboggling. There are many such questions and the GNWT is asking the Aboriginal governments to sign on the devolution AIP without having the answers to these questions. The fact that we have clearly shown that in some important respects this deal is not a good one for the GNWT, it is not a good one for the Aboriginal governments, and this is before the Aboriginal governments even considered the potential impacts on the treaty and Aboriginal rights which are required, considering the whole other set of factors.
It is easy to understand why the Aboriginal governments had asked for more time to consider this AIP and why they’re so concerned about whether there is any potential for changing the AIP and the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement.
This brings me to the issue of treaty and Aboriginal rights in relation to the devolution. At this time none of the Dene leaders have signed on to the devolution AIP. Dene leaders have told Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories they have outstanding issues with the agreement-in-principle. Chapter 4 of the AIP is proposing changing land claim implementation agreements to accommodate the transfer of authority from Canada to the GNWT. It is my understanding the land claims implementation requires the consent of all the parties to this agreement. To implement the land claim, the Aboriginal parties’ government and Canada will meet together to determine what actions need to be taken to ensure the land claims are effectively and meaningfully implemented. Clearly, Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories will need the cooperation of the Dene leaders for a devolution agreement to work.
In addition, the Dene land claims contain provisions that say the Dene must be involved in the development and implementation of a Northern Accord or the devolution agreement. The Dene leaders say that between 2007 and 2010 they were not meaningfully involved in the development of the devolution AIP. They say that when they raised concerns, these concerns were not considered and no real effort was made by the GNWT or Canada to accommodate these concerns.
The Premier has insisted in this House that the devolution AIP does not affect Aboriginal and treaty rights. It is true that the AIP says it is not a legal, binding document, but the GNWT and Canada have, by signing the agreement, made the fulfillment of their land claim obligations to embroil the Dene in the devolution negotiations contingent on the Dene first signing the AIP.
Specifically, the AIP says that in order to be funded, to be part of the final devolution agreement negotiations, Aboriginal governments must sign the AIP. That applies to the Dene governments such as the Tlicho, Sahtu and Gwich’in, who have provisions in their land claims saying that they will be involved in the development and implementation of the devolution agreement.
Why is GNWT taking such a strong-arm approach? Why is the GNWT insisting that the land claim governments have to sign an agreement that they don’t agree with before the GNWT will fulfil its land claim obligations and provide the land claim governments with funding to participate? This amounts to the GNWT and Canada requiring Dene leaders to breach their own land claims and surrender their land claim rights. How is such an action supposed to inspire confidence in the Dene leaders that the GNWT will respect these land claim obligations in the future?
Aboriginal leaders have clearly stated that they are not against the devolution. What they object to is their involvement was not, over the last three years, meaningful. They object to the fact that their concerns were not taken into account when dealing with the deal being developed by Canada and the GNWT.
Similarly, in putting this deal together, the GNWT did not take it to our citizens and ask the people for their input. When the AIP was released to the public with only access through a leaked copy of it through the CBC website, after signing the deal, the GNWT decided to make the deal public. Only then did they begin to take steps to inform the citizens of its details.
The vision needs to stand on basic principles. By signing the devolution agreement, this government indicated that it’s not willing to put any effort into ensuring northern governments moving forward together. The devolution AIP is no longer an agreement about the transfer of power between governments. The devolution AIP has become a symbol of what results when fairness and democratic processes are not valued. It has become a symbol reminding us that this government is willing to use strong-arm tactics instead of using other tools such as collaboration and democracy.
Actions have consequences. Relationships with the Aboriginal governments are not damaged by just this AIP being signed. The damage continues and is felt within our other processes. It has eroded trust and confidence in this government. To ask Aboriginal leaders to sign on this AIP should not be...(inaudible)...in terms of collaboration. Even if leaders sign onto this AIP, it is not because of the spirit of cooperation or collaboration with this government. The reality is that leaders may choose to sign on, but in doing so to have the responsibility of safeguarding their interests against the possible actions of the government. They have yet to gain trust.
Division for the Northwest Territories must be based on the principles that include justice, fairness, democracy, and respect the rule of law in the form of government observed in the contractual and fiduciary obligations to indigenous people. The actions of a government must convey that vision without exception. With respect to devolution, the actions of the GNWT do not embody these principles. I encourage the Cabinet to consider revisiting the issues I have raised today, not just to address the concerns of the Aboriginal leaders but to take a good, hard look at what we’re dealing with and what we should be aspiring to instead. Imagine a principle of what this government and Territory can become.
The people of the Northwest Territories do not deserve a devolution agreement that, as the Premier has called it, is not the best deal. The people of the Northwest Territories deserve better. Our children deserve better. This is the conviction and vision of the Aboriginal leaders that have had the courage to stand up to defend. They have demonstrated commitment and consistency in the pursuit of something better for their own people and all people who live here. The Government of the Northwest Territories should strongly consider following their lead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
