Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are directed to the Deputy Premier. With regard to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, apparently there’s been a list of prescribed amendments that the federal government would like to meet which has been shared with this government. I’d like to ask the Deputy Premier what the government’s position is when it comes to the amendments, the possibility of having a centralized board and having regional boards which presently are part of the land claims agreements. I’d like to ask the Deputy Premier what position this government is taking when it talks about restructuring the boards in the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Deputy Premier, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very fundamental political issue. The reality is that Northerners should be making those decisions, that if we had the authority over land, water, and resource development, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
This is a federal initiative and it’s one where what has been portrayed is that there is a need to reform the processes in the Northwest Territories.
It’s our opinion that the system we have is fundamentally sound, that the gaps and delays that happen occur when decisions have been made in the North and go to Ottawa. We do not even have, at this late date of our political evolution, the authority to appoint our own board members. That’s why we signed the agreement-in-principle and are moving on devolution. We fundamentally believe that the system is sound, that our position has been clear since 2009. It’s on our website that the system that’s here should be properly funded, that the structure that’s there should be maintained. That they should look at doing things to clarify, where there are policy issues that are grey, sort those out, properly fund the boards, and delegate simple authorities like making our own board appointments.
Again I’ll try to get back to my question. Hopefully I can get an answer. I’d like to ask the Minister if there was a list of amendments being proposed to the Government of the Northwest Territories. My understanding is there is a working group that was established between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. I’d like to know what those items are on that list of amendments that they’d like to be made, and can we see that since the Government of the Northwest Territories is part of that working group.
I want to restate, as well, my answer. This is a federal government INAC process. It’s their work. For the most part, they’ve treated the territorial governments and the other groups as stakeholders. The only thing that has now changed is the fact that we’ve signed an agreement-in-principle that indicates that within the next couple of years we’re going to be taking over, as Northerners, jurisdiction and authority over land, water, and resource development and that we don’t want any major surprises. We have our position clear on the website. I can commit to the Member that we can pull together a package of the work that’s been done, the correspondence that’s been shared back and forth, but we have to be very clear that this is not our process. We’ve laid out very clearly our position and the federal government has not fully engaged us on what they intend to do.
There was a letter submitted May 9th to the Premier of the Northwest Territories that recommended some 40 suggestions on the amendment process and things that need to be considered in light of the land claim agreements, the Tlicho land claim, and the whole element of independency of regulatory boards from the political arms of the Government of the Northwest Territories or the federal government. I’d like to know the government’s positions on those amendment areas and have we responded to the letter from Alternatives North, who was working with the Gwich’in Tribal Council, Tlicho Government, and the Aboriginal governments, to recommend these suggestions prior to tomorrow’s deadline.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has a position that is clear. We support the current structures. We have recommended against any changes. We are of the opinion that we are better served by the structure that is here, properly funded with proper policy clarity and adequate funding to represent our interests. The biggest point being we don’t want any major upheaval since we are now in the process of taking over those authorities. If there are changes that need to be made, then Northerners will make those changes collectively after we take over those responsibilities. It’s not appropriate at this point to have the federal government still insisting that they’re going to reshape our world, because in Ottawa they think that there are problems here, when we haven’t really been fully engaged.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister if he’s willing to share the information that his department has, especially the list of items that were recommended for amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Act. Also to share that with Members of this House and the Standing Committee on Economic Development so that we can also have input and get a better understanding of what’s been suggested and what is being suggested for amendments.
I believe in my first question I already made that commitment.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
