Second reading of bills. Ms. Thompson.

Thank you. Your motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Question is being called. All those in favour. All those opposed. Motion is carried. Bill 7 has had second reading.

-- Carried

Bills 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have had second reading and accordingly stand ordered to a standing committee. Consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters. Minister's Statements 1, 5, and 6, Tabled Documents 4, 5, 13 with Mr. Steen in the chair.

Agreed.

Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. I believe yesterday, when we concluded, that a number of Members spoke on the division issue, and that we would hold our comments, both myself as chair of the division committee, and Mr. Antoine as chair of the Western Constitution process, until now. Mr. Chairman, we listened very carefully, not only yesterday, but in caucus earlier this week. Let me start by saying that it is our belief that division should be seen as an opportunity, not a problem. I think that is an important way in which to view it.

I would also like to start out by saying that our position as a cabinet on Footprints 2 has not been finalized. It is important for ordinary members or the public at large to recognize and to understand we have a clear process in place that will provide all members with an opportunity to comment on Footprints in the Snow 2, either through the ordinary members caucus, through the Government Ops Committee, and especially the Division Committee, and of course, as individual members. So there is a considerable amount of opportunity, to filter, if you want, your participation in the final response to the report. Once we finalize that response, hopefully by the end of December, if not before, then the Premier will advise both Mr. Kusagak and Mr. Irwin of the government's position on it, and the NIC.

I think it would be fair to say that, as a government and a division secretariat, we are pleased with their report, at least in our initial review. I think that the strong working relationship, at the staff level, has provided us with a more enhanced relationship as the process of this second report unfolded. I think that is an important point to make, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday I believe a number of the members indicated that this report contradicts, to some extent, what the GNWT is doing. I would suggest to you that this government will probably take the position, subject to your approval and, of course, the Premier's, that most of the report we will agree with. But, in any situation, there are a number of areas of disagreement. That is exactly what they are, disagreements, not contradictions.

Other members indicated that we must prepare for division, and we need to ensure that our plans reflect it. I think what is important in this report that we have, and what was not in the previous report, is the clarity as it relates to how the structure of the government would come in to being. Clearly that was needed and clearly we now have that. We will be able to move reasonably quickly to incorporate some of the recommendations that the report implies.

It is important again, if I may, to repeat to everyone the position of the government, and that is we have to establish the implementation of two new governments, and it must be done sooner, rather than later. A number of members talked about their concern for staff, which is a legitimate concern. I think it is important to point out, again, the position of this government. We need to conclude a comprehensive staff transition plan that will lessen the economic impact of division. We need to encourage our people to relocate, allow for on-site training and the preparation that needs to occur.

We are very much aware, as are ordinary members, of our obligations and responsibilities to our staff, but the reality is, that on April 1, 1999, that there will be two governments in this part of the country. There will be two new bureaucracies in this part of the country. The transition of these two new governments, is absolutely essential if it is going to be done in an orderly and timely manner. Staff will be treated with respect, and appropriate steps will be taken to find alternative employment, perhaps, early retirement if it is required, and certainly, my understanding is, and our position is, the option to participate for those staff in the west that are not related to the new Nunavut government. We have made that clear on a number of occasions.

So, if I may, because it was a major concern to certain members of the House, I want to say again, it is our position to conclude a comprehensive staff transitional plan that will ensure two new governments are up and running, and it will require staff to move from west to the east. We must deal now, not just with the theory of division, but with the hard reality of establishing two governments. We all know how many days are left. We cannot deal with the theory of it. We have to get it on paper and, at some point, we have to reach some compromise, or some decision, to implement it. To say otherwise, is foolish. Costs are a critical factor, and in my role as the Finance Minister and as chair of the Division Committee, nobody recognizes it more than I do.

Many members have raised, both in caucus and in the House, their concern with respect to transitional, incremental and the two new gross expenditure bases. There is a process in place now, to ensure an east/west participation, and we are working towards, particularly the western participation, and I would encourage all of us to come to a quick conclusion to whom should represent the west as we move towards the negotiating table with Mr. Martin. I have said numerous times that I will be discussing this matter with Mr. Martin, hopefully, sometime this month, where we will be able to determine, hopefully, timing, terms of reference, the participation and the process to move forward to conclude two new formula financing agreements. Also, to try to identify, as it states in the Nunavut Act, reasonable incremental costs. We must move quickly on the issue of costs, because at the end of the day, no matter what structures do unfold there will be a requirement for incremental costs both, and let me say it now, clear, east and west and it will be my job, and my role, to impart that to Mr. Martin in my future meetings.

Some members have expressed concern, I believe, Mr. Erasmus, about the CCON table, that is the co-ordinating committee of officials, and I agree with him. Mr. Antoine and myself have met on this issue, and we intend to correct that to move some other officials who are directly involved in the western constitutional process to the table with respect to the east and vice versa.

I will use these words deliberately, because I think it is important. It is an issue that I have been raising on a consistent basis, some member, I believe used the term, and I do not use this to dramatize, but just to demonstrate, there could be a bloodbath. I think what is essential as we move forward in the division of the territories, that we find some third party dispute mechanism that we are all comfortable with for division and the divorce, if you wish to put it that way, is an amicable one. I am a strong advocate of third party dispute mechanisms because, no matter what our best intentions are, there undoubtedly will be areas in which gridlock occurs.

I think as we look at division, and we have discussed at some length, as I hear everybody talking about it in the responses we have, and that is, I believe Mr, Roland stated yesterday, it is vitally important we remember why we are doing this and that is for the betterment of territorial residents. I would hope, at the end of the day, that we would all remind ourselves of that on a consistent basis, so that we avoid getting into public or private squabbles as it relates to the assets and liabilities. This should be, in my opinion, a technical exercise which requires some political direction.

So, Mr. Chairman, if I may, our initial response, if I could summarize, to the Footprints in the Snow is a positive one. There will be the ability for each and every one of you to provide us with, through the different mechanisms I earlier outlined, your contribution to and response to the report. it is the desire of this government and the Premier to respond in a timely manner, and that time is the end of December, that is what we have committed to, and, hopefully, our response will be reflective of many of your concerns.

I would like to end it by reminding everybody of Mr. Morin's comments, he has said on a number of occasions and must take full credit for it, that April 1, 1999 should be a reason to celebrate for both territories, with your support and, more importantly, cooperation, we will. Thank you.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on a debate that is going on in regards to Footprints 2, and particularly in regards to Partners in a New Beginning document, a draft constitutional package that was recommended by the constitutional working group of the western caucus of this Legislative Assembly and the aboriginal summit, the comments that I heard yesterday on the constitution itself, were that there are some areas where we need to work and concentrate and to give direction here. In the motion that was unanimously passed today, it gives further direction to myself and my colleague, the Minister of National Constitutional Affairs to present this document to the federal minister and to permit formal discussions with the federal minister on the constitutional development in the western NWT.

These discussions will lead to clear response on the part of the federal government in regards to looking at the principals of this document and then design elements that are in the documents as well. We received good direction today, for that I would like to thank the members of the Legislative Assembly for their support, unanimous support, to continue on this process.

Since we began this process formally in the Spring or June, we have undertaken a big task here to try to develop something new and innovative here in the west. There is commitment from this Legislative Assembly. There is commitment from Aboriginal leaders in the communities. I think there is a lot of support out in the communities although they are not as vocal as some of those I have heard expressed. That is what we expected Mr. Chairman, that the debate that has already begun over this document. We knew that there was going to be some strong opinions on all sides. We were hoping, and expecting that with the criticisms and negative responses we heard from those who are making those kind of responses, we are hoping as Northerners, we will all work together to try and come up with something that will be acceptable to all of us.

We have heard many times from mainly Aboriginal communities in the North in which there are a large majority of people that have lived here for many years that this present system is not really acceptable to them. Similar to what the people in Nunavut had said before division. And that was one of their main reasons for division is that this system is not really reflecting the way they want to govern themselves. And that was one of the reasons for division.

We in the West supported that and continue to support that process. So, in that regard, I have been an optimist that we are all living in the North here together and that is the reality, and we have a lot of common areas where we can work together. There are differences of opinion in some of the areas, however, we should continue to work together to try come up with something that is acceptable to the majority of the people. I am still quite hopeful and optimistic that this will happen.

For those people who have taken a very negative and strong approach against this process, I would only say that along with the criticism, they should also offer their own opinions on how it could work. Rather than being totally against this process. That is the intention of this process here.

So, along with the continuing of the consultation process, we continue to work with the federal officials to try to determine the adequate approach to the funding question for this process. And that looks like more promising as we deal with them, at the time, the motion today directs us to engage the federal government to engage the principles of this document rather than the specific elements that are contained in some of the models that were discussed in these documents.

So based on this approach, we feel that we could get the federal government to take a position on what they would accept and what they would not be able to accept in such a document. In this way then we will have a better understanding of what the possibilities are as we develop this package. For that to happen, we need to approach the federal government as soon as we can to begin discussions on this area here.

So in that, this process here, in the communities, people are beginning to talk about this document and we need to have adequate funding from this government, and the federal government to undertake the work to go into the communities to see what the people are saying about this document here. Perhaps, after a few months of that process, we would have a good indication of what is acceptable to the majority of the people in the communities in the new document for the Northwest Territories.

And all along, since this debate happened publicly, people that I have been talking to are saying that the majority that I have talked to are saying that this is a necessary, this is a good process. I am fortunate enough to be in different meetings in the north. I went to the Beaufort/Delta meeting. I heard there that there is support for such a process and that the process should continue on. That gives really positive type of indication to me that there is support out in the communities and in the regions for following through with this process.

Some of the comments that I heard yesterday during the debate was the majority of it was focused on the Footprints 2. And the comments that I have heard is that there is a relationship between what we are doing and the development of the constitution. And at the same time looking at the contents of the recommendations from Footprints 2 that was just released here by the Nunavut Implementation Commission. And there is a real need now for us here in this Legislative Assembly to look at how we in the west could be more involved in the division of the Northwest Territories. And the creation of two territories.

We have to be involved in the whole area of looking at the assets and the liabilities. We have to look at the incremental costs and be fully involved in the development of the financing formula agreements that will be in place here prior to this division. So there is a commitment by this government here to work with the western caucus and perhaps other organizations in the west to come up with some sort of mechanism here to work on this area here.

My colleague, the Chairman of the Division Secretariat, Mr. Todd was just mentioned that we in the west we have to determine for ourselves whom would be involved in this whole process. And I guess it is up to us in the west here in the western caucus and with the people in the west to determine what this forum is going take and how we are going to get involved in this process towards division. I think it is a positive move. I think up to this point in time, we have been in government here for one year now and with our portfolios we have been here for a year and a lot of things have happened within a year and perhaps we should have got into this one here as soon as we got into our portfolios and picked up our duties as MLAs.

However, we are getting involved now and we have to try to work together both east and west for the next number of months that are remaining before division to try and make sure all these three key areas are dealt with in a very positive way so that we will not have confrontation type of approach between the east and the west and once we discuss these things. And I think the main point I want to make is that I have worked with my colleague, Mr. John Todd here to discuss these areas here and the CCON table where the bureaucrats are dealing with the division question. There are going to be people working in the Aboriginal Affairs that are going to be getting involved in this whole process. So that we are more aware of what is going on in this whole process that has been in place here for looking at the division of assets and liabilities and the whole look at the manpower issue in the east and west.

Just to say that this perhaps might have been an oversight, it is an oversight, during the presenting of this Partners and new beginning document, Mr. Chairman, 120, when there was no content in the presentation of the Inuvialuit. You made a comment yesterday that there was no reflection at all of the Inuvialuit culture in the presentation last fall. I would like to apologize for that oversight, and want to make sure that sort of thing does not happen again here in the west as we work on this together.

Furthermore, I ask for the translation into Inuktitut of this document, I think that is a very good suggestion and I think we should do that. With that, I would just like to thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to keep the answer short, because I know time is of the essence and we are concluding today at 6. We fully understand the concerns that have been addressed on a consistent basis by Mr. Ootes, Mr. Henry and others. We are very appreciative of their position. But I think it is important to say, out loud and clear, division is a reality. It means there will be, unfortunately, some job loss. I think it is important to say that. Their constituency should hear and they have some obligation to try and send that back.

However, as I said earlier in my opening comments yesterday, we are trying to develop and recognize a transitional document that will provide our staff that may be Nunavut-bound, if you want staff that who be responsible for the new phase in Nunavut hopefully with first opportunity. Our position has been consistent. In fact, I believe the NIC -- I cannot speak for them but what I have read -- is also of a similar position, that is, existing staff in Nunavut have to get first option at the jobs. Secondly, that those that are in the west or headquarters, if you want, that are Nunavut related. It is the same position. We fundamentally believe not only morally but legally that there is some obligation to the Nunavut government to give these people the opportunities. Also, I mean, just on the pure grounds of ensuring that the machinery of government runs, there is no question, we require that level of knowledge and understanding. It is our intent to advance that position on a consistent basis over the coming months.

I would answer the question with respect of the interim commissioner, once the interim commissioner is appointed, and we have seen what letters of direction and instruction he gets, I would be prepared to commit today to institute discussions with him, to see if he or she would agree to what Mr. Ootes has suggested. I want to say again, the position of this government is to try to ensure that our civil service is protected. Those that do not get jobs, we will deal with them in a fair and consistent way, the same as we have on the lay-off issues, that is, earlier retirement, severance packages, new job creation, training, et cetera. Thank you.