Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Minister and his deputy for that. Some of the projects right now, as the Minister stated, are ongoing projects. The hospital was a negotiated contract, the Aurora Campus is a negotiated contract. So taking it as it's stated, the money identified for this fiscal year coming up in this budget that we have before us, would be a factor in coming up with that 50 percent. Just for the record to be clear, it's my understanding, having seen the MOU, that in Inuvik that 50 percent is further split 25 Inuvialuit, 25 Gwich'in. Right?
Debates of March 5th, 2003
This is page numbers 505 - 540 of the Hansard for the 14th Assembly, 6th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was chairman.
Topics
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bob McLeod
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The MOU states that we still have to finalize those guidelines. What we were envisaging was that if you apply the 50 percent, then because Inuvik and Aklavik are communities that are both designated as either Inuvialuit or Gwich'in, depending on which land claim you look at, we were looking at possibly doing it on a population percentage basis. I guess when we go to the communities to discuss it, at that time we are hoping to finalize it. But generally, I think if you look at the percentages, Inuvik and Aklavik, if we go by those percentages that's how we would work it. Thank you.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Floyd Roland Inuvik Boot Lake
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The deputy did state in the claimant agreements that Inuvik is included in both agreements, the Inuvialuit agreement as well as the Gwich'in agreement. But just for the record, they are named because of Gwich'in and Inuvialuit peoples living in those communities. Are they in fact claim territory, or is the municipality still a municipality under the GNWT law? Thank you.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bob McLeod
I'm not sure of what the member is asking. All I can tell you is for the purposes of the MOU, we have included Inuvik, and Aklavik. In developing the guidelines, we're leaning towards using population figures in terms of that breakout. Thank you.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Floyd Roland Inuvik Boot Lake
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aside from the figuring and the formula that might be worked out -- and it's my understanding that that still has to be worked out between the groups -- my question is more in the actual legal claim area. Because Inuvik is both named Inuvialuit and Gwich'in -- and the same as Aklavik, and there will be other ones down the valley as things are going on, as we realize from some of the claims that are going on in the overlap issues -- for the purposes of the claim itself, when the claims are settled, was Inuvik proper claimed by either land claim group, or does the land claim go up to the existing boundaries of the community? Thank you.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 528
Bob McLeod
Thank you. I can give him what my understanding is, but I guess in order to answer that question I'd have to get a copy of the land claim and get a legal opinion on that. Thank you.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Some Hon. Members
Detail.
Detail
Corporate Management
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
The Chair Paul Delorey
Detail. On page 11-9, corporate management, operations expense, total operations expense, $17,227 million.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Some Hon. Members
Agreed.
---Agreed
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
The Chair Paul Delorey
Page 11-10, corporate management, grants and contributions, contributions. Continued on page 11-11, total contributions, $1.410 million. Mr. Dent.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Charles Dent Frame Lake
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was just noticing that one of the contributions on page 11-10, Diavik Monitoring Agency, is shown for last year and this year. It doesn't show anything for the budget year 2003-2004. Why is that?
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bob McLeod
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason for that is when the negotiations were going on for an environmental agreement among Diavik, the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the aboriginal governments from the impacted communities, it was recognized that there were some initial set-up costs that were over and above what the federal government and Diavik were willing to contribute. So the Government of the Northwest Territories and Diavik agreed to cost share start-up costs for the first year. It was a one-time, one-year cost. So that's why it's falling off this year, because it was for two years. After that, it was no longer a requirement because the expectation is the participants would be fully trained and the start-up costs would no longer be required.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Charles Dent Frame Lake
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that explanation. The next item on the page -- the Diavik socio-economic agreement -- we show contributions of $250,000 to support the board. I'm just wondering how is the Diavik socio-economic agreement different from the BHP one, and why do we not see anything in here for monitoring the BHP socio-economic agreement?
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bob McLeod
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it reflects the differences in the periods when the mines were established and built. When the BHP mine was built, at that time the government of the day felt that with the socio-economic agreement it was sufficient to have the reporting done through the Legislative Assembly. For the Diavik socio-economic agreement it was felt that more of a community-based approach was required. So there is a board that has been negotiated with representatives from each of the impacted communities, including the Government of the Northwest Territories and Diavik. The cost of the board and the agreement is cost shared between Diavik and the Government of the Northwest Territories on a 50/50 basis. Thank you.
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Bill 3: Appropriation Act, 2003-2004
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 529
Charles Dent Frame Lake
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can we find out is there any difference in the definition of a Northerner in terms of employment between the two agreements, whether it's the one with BHP or the one with Diavik? Is there any difference in the way in we measure whether or not targets are being met for northern employment? Are they dealt with differently through the two agreements? For instance, does this board have something to say if Diavik doesn't meet targets? Can they bring some pressure to bear? Is there something similar to that in the BHP agreement?