Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I have to commend the Premier with securing over $100 million over the next few years with the federal government in our territorial formula financing and equalization. I have to express my scepticism in promises that are made and agreements made with our federal counterparts with regard to equalization and territorial funding just due to the fact that these programs are highly unpredictable and they are volatile depending on economic fluctuations in various parts of the country. Then our equalization gets off balance and new formula financing agreements come into play. So I guess we're just going to have to ride it out and see what happens on that initiative.

With regard to the development with a work plan on how to move forward to develop a strategy on devolution and resource revenue sharing, just to get back to a point the Premier made with regard to a joint working relationship with the federal government on developing this strategy, I know I've been getting and seeing some correspondence coming from a lot of the First Nations claim groups and negotiation tables that this whole approach and the whole initiative of government-to-government work plan on devolution and resource revenue sharing is undermining and may threaten to derail some of the First Nations negotiations that are going on right now between like the Akaitcho government, for instance, and the federal government.

I'm just wondering how the Premier is planning on integrating these First Nations. Not all of them really put all their trust and their confidence into the Aboriginal Summit or the Intergovernmental Forum. So I want to ask what other direction or options could be available to work with this resource revenue sharing and devolution because I know that everybody is in agreement. That is the common goal that we all want, but as far as the federal government devolving powers over land or water and resources to the territorial government and then the territorial government saying we're going to start devolving some of that powers to the First Nations group, once you get it, you are not going to let go as provinces have done in other jurisdictions with First Nations land claim negotiation groups. What can the Premier tell these First Nations negotiations that they are trying to coincide with what they are doing at their main table negotiations and how their input is going to be taken into consideration; how they can have some meaningful role in developing this devolution strategy?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, I can assure the Members that we are not at all going to try to negotiate devolution between the federal government and the territorial government. We will not go there. What we have done in going back to the last government is worked very closely with the Aboriginal Summit as the representative body or the body that represents the aboriginal leadership and try to work with the Aboriginal Summit and our government to negotiate a plan for how devolution would work. That has cost us a lot of time and money and the same with the aboriginal leadership.

Those who don't have settled claims have told me that they don't want to put priority on devolution. So rather than trying to just run over them with this exercise of devolution, I have proposed to this Assembly and to the aboriginal leaders that we carry on with devolution as it moves along slowly, but in the meantime lets work an interim resource revenue sharing arrangement that would enable resource revenues to be shared between the federal government, territorial government and aboriginal governments. This kind of arrangement would be without prejudice to what aboriginal people may negotiate in the future because I don't know what those look like five or 10 years from now, but we would want to negotiate something that makes sure that some of the resource revenues today stay in the North rather than flow to the South for another 10 years or whatever it will take for everybody to have their aboriginal processes completed and then start negotiating.

Otherwise, if we do that, I believe we stand the risk of being here for 15 years and resource revenues just leaking out of here like crazy. So I have focused on an interim resource revenue sharing arrangement as a way of getting some of those resource revenues into the hands of our people quickly, but there is no intention if anyone believing that we are going to try to negotiate devolution without aboriginal governments or just even have devolution negotiated only to our government and then we would negotiate with aboriginal governments, that's wrong. We're not looking at it at all that way. This is clearly a three-party or tripartite form of negotiations; aboriginal governments, our government and the federal government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you are probably well aware, the First Nations negotiating groups right now are, I guess, in a bilateral negotiation process right now. So how are we going to integrate this trilateral strategy into their arena? I just want to find out how you plan on coordinating that with the First Nations right off the get go because I know they're kind of, like I said, the First Nations groups are right now sceptical about this whole devolution approach. How can we regain their confidence in the government saying we are going to go on a three-way tri-party system to get devolution, but your bilateral negotiations aren't going to be compromised? I'm just lost on that. I don't know how.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Premier.

Some aboriginal groups are frustrated with talk on devolution because they are not focused on devolution, they are focused on settling their aboriginal claim or process. Some aboriginal groups, on the other hand, are frustrated because they already have claims and we're not moving the next step. They feel they're losing economic opportunities and so on. So my view is that we need to continue to negotiate devolution, but do it in a way that it's not going to interfere or prejudice negatively anything with those groups who don't yet have settled their aboriginal rights; so the Akaitcho people, Deh Cho, for example. I want to be very careful that we're not somehow going to pre-empt them or trump something that they're doing. I've remained very open with them. I met with the Akaitcho chiefs in Ottawa while I was there and we talked about their process and about some of their frustration in trying to keep their negotiations moving. I saw some of the documentation they have on devolution and I have told them I will not do anything that's going to jeopardize what they are doing. If we ever cross that line, then I hope they will tell us that we have crossed it, but so far it seems to be working in way that they can't say we've done anything yet that's going to compromise their position. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it's good that we're definitely taking a strong stance on that issue with respect to the ongoing negotiations. I still am just having a problem trying to figure out what the big picture is going to look like at the end of the day when we have devolution negotiations in place. I guess there are going to be a lot of contingency scenarios with respect to ongoing negotiations when the land claims do get settled. Say they have a settled claim ratified after the GNWT and the aboriginal governments come together and sign a resource revenue devolution interim measures agreement. Is putting these First Nations negotiations processes in that, as in having a significant role in this whole devolution, resource revenue plan -- just getting back to what my colleague was talking about time frames -- is that going to make this whole strategy on devolution and interim measures resource revenue sharing a very long-term process? To me it's going to be a very big compilation of many different agreements with different governments up and down the valley, land claim settlement areas like the Tli Cho and unsettled areas. I just want to get what the Premier's view is on the big picture. Are we looking at a whole mirage of just small bilateral agreements, some large trilateral agreements and sub-agreements and in-sub-agreements? What's your take on it?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Premier.

Mr. Chairman, my view would be that we would have one final devolution, final resource revenue sharing arrangement for the whole Northwest Territories that all aboriginal governments would sign on to along with us and the federal government. Then depending on the specific nature of their land claim or aboriginal rights claim, then there would be different arrangements, particularly on the resource revenue sharing side. Because we have to respect each of the claims and if they're not identical, then we need to have a different one for the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and someday the Akaitcho, Deh Cho and Tlicho and so on. So

I see it as one agreement on devolution for the whole territory, one agreement on resource revenue for the whole territory and then sub-agreements that suit each land claim area. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is very close to how the federal government sees it as well. I don't think they want to create a whole bunch of little territories. I've never heard that from anyone in Ottawa. I think my view is that it would still be a central government, but full respect for each of the aboriginal governments and their settlements.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. I have no other general comments. Does the committee agree that Minister's Statement 70-15(3) is concluded?

Does committee agree that consideration of Ministers' statements 48, 49 and 54 are concluded? Mr. Zoe.

To Minister's Statement 48-15(3) I'd like to make a few comments, if I may.

Does committee agree that we consider Minister's Statement 48-15(3)?

Okay. General comments to Minister's Statement 48-15(3). Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to say that I believe this Cabinet has done a good job to date in advancing our agenda during their first year of office. However, I'd like to comment on the use of special warrants by this government. I have a problem with the spending of the public purse without any kind of oversight. There are circumstances, Mr. Chairman, where the government will need to commit money in advance of the Legislature sitting, but I do believe that as much as there has to be an FMB/Cabinet meeting to approve a special warrant, there could be an AOC committee meeting to be briefed by the government on the need for the special warrant. Even if the debate on the special warrant is held during an in camera committee meeting, at least there has been some debate and the government has gotten feedback.

Mr. Chairman, I really think it's time to revisit the Financial Administration Act and change the provisions guiding the use of special warrants. Now I know the Ministers will say they need this tool to be able to do their job. I would like to say that I and my colleagues on this side of the House deserve the same consideration if we are to do our jobs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I'll be supporting amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

My second issue, Mr. Chairman, is with the quality of answers some Ministers are giving in this House. There are Ministers who can talk for three minutes and not address the actual question. This is a waste of everybody's time and causes resentment on this side of the House as we waste our precious questions asking the same one four times over.

Mr. Chairman, those are my two issues I wanted to bring forward in regards to Minister's Statement 48-15(3), Sessional Statement, made by the Premier. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. There wasn't a specific question there. Mr. Premier, would you care to comment?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to supps and special warrants, we do deal with them very seriously and there are criteria we want to follow. I don't think any of us would have any difficulty with taking a look at the Financial Administration Act and seeing how we can make the whole system work better. I want to say though on special warrants, if we put something in that bound the hands of the government too much then we might find ourselves at some point in the future where we just didn't have the money to spend, because of having to go through some process. You could have a school burn down, you could have a water pump building burn down in a small community and we would have to put some extraordinary effort into getting something there, but we can't do it because we have to wait two weeks to meet with the committee. That wouldn't work. We have to have the ability as a government to be able to spend money where there is an emergency where something has to be spent right away.

If we are getting too far away from those kinds of purposes, then that is where we should sit down and figure out how we work together better on that. I would like to offer that the Minister of Finance would be ready to sit down and talk about how we can do this in a way that isn't going to create frustration for everyone either. I don't think anybody wants to be surprised by big special warrants or whatever it may be. So, Mr. Chairman, we are prepared, I think I can speak on behalf of the Finance Minister, he is prepared to sit down with the committee and say okay, let's work out something here that is more workable but still retains the purpose of having special warrants to meet these kinds of situations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Does the committee agree that consideration of Minister's Statement 48-15(3) is concluded?

Does the committee agree that consideration of Minister's Statement 49-15(3) is concluded?