Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say I am pleased to hear that and I hope the work can be finished off. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, in saying that the conclusion of the northern accord is an essential element to certain provisions in the Gwich'in land claim agreement? Perhaps, as well, parallel provisions in the Sahtu agreement if it is ratified. Is honouring the commitments in the Gwich'in agreement another reason for the federal government to conclude the northern accord now? Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes. The report on benefits agreements were tied to a northern accord and the Gwich'in are very concerned that that element of their agreement would not be met if we do not get the northern accord signed. As well, with the settlement of the Sahtu claim it would be very important to them to have the northern accord in place so the benefits agreements can be established.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, I know the Government Leader has had meetings with her new counterpart in the Yukon. Am I correct in stating that the Yukon government is supportive of concluding the accord and will stand alongside our government in concluding this matter? Do we have a good working with the new Yukon government on this matter? Thank you.

Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we have a good working relationship with the Yukon government. Certainly, they have no objection in terms of our deal, but it has come to our attention that they are willing to accept a deal which is less significant than ours. They are willing to accept the federal government's offer which we are not accepting ourselves because of three elements which I noted earlier in my reply to the Member.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

If I may pursue one final matter, Mr. Chairman, could I get an idea from the Minister what kind of wealth is being generated by the Norman Wells project, and what that project alone could mean to our government if we could negotiate a satisfactory share?

Madam Minister.

The total which is being generated at Norman Wells is a gross royalty of $7 million and the Crown share is $50 million. We are advocating that we should get a share if we are not going to get all of it. This was not available to the federal government up until this past year. So far, they feel reluctant to share it with us, although the Gwich'in claim does get a proportion of that, so will the Sahtu claim and the relative regional claims in the Mackenzie Valley. However, there is money left in there and at this point in time when we talk about a share of Norman Wells in the development fund for us so we could support some activity, so far this is one of the outstanding issues we have with the federal government.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Koe.

Just to follow up on Mr. Patterson's comments on the negotiations of a northern accord, I think we all realize how crucial some kind of accord is in terms of potential development in the north. We have been hearing for the past month and a half of the potential developments that our economy is going to be based on in the future. If we do not have any guidelines or some kind of agreement with the federal government on the sharing of the resources and the profits from these developments, we can end up on the short end of the money which is generated from these projects.

On the other hand, in negotiating these accords we cannot be held ransom. We are also, on the other hand, discussing being short funded and the off-loading of the federal government. My understanding of what has happened to date is this could be another case where they are looking to off-load or not give us our full share. I support, up to a point, what is going on, and then with this transfer. I also wish we could accelerate it because, as you mentioned, the Gwich'in claim has components in there which are closely linked with the settlement of some kind of northern accord and the communities are very concerned that they need some protection and they were looking in court to provide the protection they were trying to negotiate. I just wish to add to the comments and say that we should try to get to some agreement on these issues with the feds, but with the caution that we cannot sell out. I support the stance that has been taken.

One thing I wish to raise is with the potential of all these developments happening, the mineral developments, some oil and gas, that we have to ensure that the processes for environmental impact reviews that we have our system and processes in place which ensure maximum and quick reviews. I think the days of long drawn out two or three year reviews for a project are history and I do not think our economy can stand that. I know it is good for some people, it is good for the consultants especially, to have long drawn out processes. For a community that wants to get on with development and areas that have potential, this area makes sure we have proper processes in place to cover everyone and ensure everyone gets a proper say and are properly consulted, and that we also get the maximum social and economic benefit for the communities and for the north. Those are just comments I wish to make. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say publicly my concern with the northern accord. I did not realize,

until I listened to the debate, that this northern accord is somehow closely tied to claims which have been negotiated with the Gwich'in, and are presently being negotiated with Sahtu. I did not realize there was a strong tie there, so I do not really understand fully if there is a strong connection. This way, the Gwich'in and Sahtu people would probably like to accelerate this, but at the same time there are other groups in our area who say we own this land and the resources on it belong to aboriginal groups, and until that is dealt with the resources are still in question. So, the certainty of that still has to be dealt with. I do not know how this northern accord would affect the people who have interest in the land, people who have not negotiated some of their lands away. We still maintain the position that all of it still belongs to the Dene in this treaty. In that respect I do not fully understand this accord.

On one hand, it is tied to a group of people who negotiate it, then if it does not go through certain parts of the claim they will not benefit from it, but at the same time there is another group saying they are still in the position of getting ready to try to deal with the government on our lands and what effect will this accord have on us in the long run? If this accord goes are we going to be put in another position again such as the devolution which has been going on with transfers of certain responsibilities from the federal government to the territorial government, and certain groups being left on the side, being ignored and not being dealt with. That seems to be the practice of this government. If this accord is going to do that again, then I have to understand it and the people who are going to be affected by it have to understand it. I do not want to come back here after this accord goes through and argue that it is detrimental to certain groups. So, you have to take that into consideration.

This is a public government, it services everyone and takes everyone's view into consideration. Then, there is a certain group of people you have to consider as well. I understand the situation with these two claimant groups, I did not realize they were so closely tied for this accord to go through. It puts the people I represent in my constituency, in a very tenuous situation, so I find myself very cautious in this accord. Somehow this has to be dealt with and at the present time to try to fully understand what the northern accord is. I know the tribal council in my area has been dealing with it and trying to understand it. I really hope their views are taken seriously by the government and dealt with. We do not want to be pushed on the side again having to battle for our rights in the future. It has been going on for too long. I support this government in being very cautious in their approach in dealing with it. We have to be careful about this off-loading which is going on. The whole attitude of the federal government towards the north and the residents in the north, I find very appalling. I do not trust them at all and I would deal with them the same way the government has been dealing with them up to this point. Mahsi, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the reasons why we are taking longer in settling this outstanding issue, because I think once you have one experience you are much more cautious. The northern accord, I think, is something which would enhance some of the issues where it was not possible to get certain benefits in the land claims settlements. So, this was an area where the total Dene/Metis claim had advocated that the northern accord would allow for some provisions which they could not get in a land claim deal.

We do not intend to move ahead without full consultation. If we are able to come through some of the impasses right now which seem to be the areas which would allow us to do something, rather than taking over a responsibility that you cannot deliver to the very people who have had some input into it already and have said that there are certain things they expect us to do, there could be a signing of this accord. We do not intend to move ahead and jeopardize what our agreements were before on how far and what issues would be contained in the final document. So, there will certainly be consultation before we do anything.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Line by line. Is that agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Page 14-8. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, total O and M, $4.787 million. Mr. Arvaluk.

Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman. I have a small question. I am looking at the total PYs in the 1992-93 revised forecast and the figure is 30.7 PYs, reduced to 29.9 PYs. However, looking at the increase in the salaries and wages, there is an increase of $3,100. How is that increase justified?

Secondly, looking at the 29.9 PYs with salaries and wages of $1.985 million, that is a $66,000 average, which includes secretaries, clerk, bookkeepers, et cetera. That makes me think many of these people who are not in those categories, are in the neighbourhood of $80,000 to $100,000 for salaries, and maybe more. Why is it so different from other civil servants?

Thank you. Madam Premier.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources salaries show an increase of approximately seven per cent for 1993-94, as compared to 1992-93 mainly because of the accounting of the transfer of funds from the Department responsible for Government Services and Public Works. We have had people come into the department. The total transfer was $280,000, which included $120,000 for salaries. The salary figures were not based on the actual estimated cost of staffing the two positions transferred, but was on an arbitrary figure of $60,000 per person year. The actual salary requirement for the two PYs, a director and officer, is $144,000. Both departments anticipate there would be additional salary costs and this was considered in arriving at the operation and maintenance amount to be transferred. These are the transferred funds as salary increases. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would be redirected from contract funding to this responsibility.

In summary, the department's salary requirement is increasing by $93,000, in 1994-95 to $1.985 million. Of this amount $36,000 is a base target adjustment, $24,000 is part of the energy program transfer and the balance of $33,000 is to be funded internally.

As well, we have a number of people who are professionals and, as a result, are paid at a higher category than some of the other departments. We have many geologists, but I can assure you, there is no one receiving $200,000 a year.

Thank you. Total O and M, $4.787 million. Agreed?