Thank you, Mr. Handley. Short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with the $114 million leaving the Northwest Territories in terms of return on investment to the federal government in 2004-2005, the time we finish negotiations we're going to have nothing left. So I'm saying, what is it we need to do that gets an ally such as industry, those allies such as the aboriginal governments? We need to put something in place that shows us that we're getting a return. Members talk about a trust, a heritage trust fund. We have to get something. Again, it's a matter of life or death. This is our land. These are our people. Let's stop being beggars in our own land.

I didn't hear a question there, Mr. Yakeleya. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. My questions this morning are for the Premier and it relates to the negotiations underway with Ottawa for the devolution of resource management from Ottawa to the NWT. Mr.

Speaker, there are, of course, many jobs involved; we understand about 170. These people need to be dealt with, of course, professionally and ethically and, naturally, in accordance to the collective agreements that are in place. But the bottom line is we need to see those positions transferred.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask, are the jobs now under discussion strictly connected with the resource management and resource devolution file, or are we also looking at the broader scope of the whole northern programs side of Indian and Northern Affairs, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While it is primarily land and resources, it does consider all of the positions within the Northern Affairs program that deliver services in the Northwest Territories or for the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, what is our readiness in terms of policy, budget and implementation plan to actually see these jobs located in the Northwest Territories and put to work for our future?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of the jobs are already located in the Northwest Territories, and they are jobs where people are working for Indian Affairs in the land resources northern program side. So most of them are here already. The biggest issue we have is with salary and benefits, where there is a difference, and that is a subject of negotiation right now. Mr. Speaker, there are some that will be moving from Ottawa, but not a big, large number of employees. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the ones who are in Ottawa or in other southern locations right now, I guess I'd just like to get a better idea of just how many are we talking about, Mr. Speaker, and have we had the chance to talk directly with them about the opportunities and the things that they want to know about in terms of moving North, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have not had the opportunity to sit down with a group of employees whose positions would be considered for moving North. We have been working through a negotiator. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are still negotiating the exact positions. Which ones? Because again, Ottawa says, well, a lot of positions provide services right across the North, so those would have to stay in Ottawa. These ones provide services specifically for the North. If I remember correctly, the number that we are looking at is somewhere between 15 and 50 people, roughly in that range that would be people who are designated as providing services directly to the North. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

I appreciate the information, Mr. Speaker. Finally I would like to ask if the end of March, which is the deadline that the Premier said was his target and our target, is not going to happen now for devolution. We do need some points in time that we have to work toward. What is the new deadline for achieving this negotiation, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, I never did say we would complete all our negotiations and resource revenue sharing agreement by the end of March. I think the media may have taken it that way, but what I said is I want to achieve an agreement-in-principle by the end of March, recognizing that the final details would have to be worked out probably over a year or so. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that we're down now with the federal government, first time in history of negotiations, we're down to negotiating some very specific items between ourselves and the federal government. We're not going to leave a lot of these loose ends hanging out there to be dealt with somewhere in the future. We want to know that this deal is going to be a good deal. We can't just accept it for nothing. Mr. Speaker, but on principles we're still on target. We've got agreement with the aboriginal governments, the majority of them on that and I hope we can conclude that with aboriginal governments. I hope to see the same thing with the federal government. I don't know that we'll have employees moved very quickly, but I hope to agree on how many and how we might deal with the issues like salaries. I see that the federal negotiator in an article said that he wants to make sure that those people are treated fairly, that they don't make a financial sacrifice. I hope the federal government keeps that in mind as well when they negotiate or when we negotiate self-government. We have to keep the same principle in place. There are some principles we can agree on, though, and I haven't given up on the end of March for an agreement-in-principle. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes, I can confirm that there was a special arrangement made with Hay River that no other community got that we're not longer willing to fund. We have now calculated a deal for all the communities that is simple, that's fair, it can be calculated and understood by all parties. We have worked very hard in the last while through the New Deal process to review all the funding streams and I'm very proud to say that all communities have received an increase. As a result of that, some communities have taken monies that are allocated and they've been able to reduce some of their fees, been able to reduce some of their water rates. Now some communities have seen a decrease in the water and sewer program. Other communities have seen a decrease in the operations and maintenance. However, Mr. Speaker, what we tried to do here is remove the stovepipe approach for funding. Every community has seen, overall, an increase. In the case of Hay River, we compared the last year of the 14th Assembly to the funding that's being provided now. There's been a 91 percent increase and I don't understand why the $200,000 is still being considered as a cutback when there's been such an extreme increase in our funding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let's narrow the conversation down here. I don't want to talk about other communities; I want to talk about Hay River. I want to talk about the money that was given to Hay River to support the corridor when we took it over and the justification for that additional funding is still there. You can't not take a cookie-cutter approach to this. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the...and we don't want to spend our capital on water/sewer subsidy. Yes, we got more capital. Thank you. And yes, we got more money for O and M. Thank you for that. But we're given that for a reason, and we don't want to spend our capital on water/sewer subsidy. So I would like to ask the Minister, what kind of fairness is there in not giving a municipal corporation forewarning of such a drastic cut that would allow them to prepare for it? Could there not have been a phase-in of this reduction? Thank you.