We are very concerned. In fact, we’ve raised this level to the regional aboriginal leadership table. We’ve prepared a presentation and, in fact, at our last regional leadership meeting, provided information and are sitting down at all the negotiations tables to inform them of our concerns and that we will need to develop a comprehensive approach to dealing with the federal government from Northerners’ viewpoint, aboriginal governments and the GNWT. Thank you.

Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Chair, I just couldn’t hold myself back from not responding to this section after hearing Mr. Yakeleya talk, who is a former negotiator with the Sahtu claim and also myself being involved with Dene-Metis process and the Gwich’in claim. I think that the most contentious part was the implementation of the agreement and I think today we still have a lot of contentious issues that we still feel that this government is obligated to enact, especially the ones that fall within the domain of this government. We talked about the wildlife section. I mean, that thing’s been there since claims began and that’s the thickest part of any land claim agreement, is dealing with the wildlife provisions of those agreements. Again, for the claim to come into force and into effect, you have to implement those sections by legislatively giving them the legislative authority to implement. Implementation is not just the section where you get money from the feds and the feds basically say, well, you know, this is what we think.

The other areas are dealing with those components of the agreements where this government is responsible, such as developing the land use plans for those different regions. The Sahtu, for instance, hasn’t concluded their land use plan but in regard to the Gwich’in, it is the only group in the Territories that have completed land use plans, which the Government of the Northwest Territories are party to. I think it’s important to note that the economic measures, and for the record clarify my understanding of the economic measures, is that when we’re negotiating the Dene-Metis claim, the government-of-the-day would not allow us to negotiate what’s in the Inuvialuit agreement, which is participation agreements which clearly identify how you would basically work within the Inuvialuit area when it comes to job opportunities, businesses and whatnot. But because of that, the federal government insisted that we will negotiate an economic measures section which will be strengthened by the Northern Accord or devolution section to build into those benefit agreements through devolution and also through the Northern Accord. Because we haven’t come to that state yet, that is why one of the important elements of the Dene-Metis claim has never been enacted. That’s why the government does not insist on agreeing to the economic measures section, because it was supposed to be something similar to what’s in the Inuvialuit agreement and also the NTI agreement in Nunavut which talks about the participation agreements. Again, because of not being able to do that, and not concluding the devolution or Northern Accord negotiations, and again in those agreements it clearly stipulates, especially in the Gwich’in and the Sahtu agreements, it says the government shall negotiate with the Gwich’in and the Sahtu when it comes to the Northern Accord or devolution. It’s an obligation spelled out in black and white which says you shall do this.

I think, for me, I think that you either have to live up to the fact that as a government you are responsible for programs and services, yes, but you’re also responsible for ensuring that those agreements are adhered to by way of implementing those sections of those agreements that this government has responsibility for. Mr. Yakeleya touched on protected areas. I raised it in the House last week in regard to the Gwich’in Territorial Park — the Sahtu Dodo Canyon Park that was established under the Sahtu agreement. Again, there are also other provisions that talk about the forestry section of the agreements. This government is responsible for forestry in the Northwest Territories but they totally do not see that those forestry sections of those land claim agreements really fall within the domain of the Government of the Northwest Territories. It does because you have those powers which have devolved to you from the federal government.

Again, we can sit here and argue all day about whose perception is right and who’s wrong, but at the end of the day the government has to change its mindset on exactly what you’re obligated to and what you’re not obligated to, but simply implement those sections of those agreements that you presently have the authority under territorial legal authority which was devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories. Like I mentioned, forestry, I’ve mentioned wildlife, I’ve mentioned in regard to establishing territorial parks which are protected areas in the sense of the Territorial Park Act. I think that those are the sections that we have to look at.

Again, I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs if there’s a way that you can ensure that from the aboriginal perspective that those obligations are really territorial government obligations.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.

Mr. Chairman, the process of implementation is one where we have the duty to implement and it falls squarely on our shoulders. We’re working to do that. For example, Species at Risk and the Wildlife Act, as the Member has highlighted, have been a challenge for previous governments to try to do that. In fact, previous governments had provided funds to the aboriginal organizations and governments so that they could take part in an activity in trying to bring those around to completion. Thankfully, in October the Minister of ENR brought forward his legislation, received first and second reading for the Species at Risk Act and that is now in the hands of the Assembly and committee. For the Wildlife Act a similar working group was structured to get the Species at Risk Act to its place so it could move forward. They’ve used the same model now, and in January they held their first meetings with the parties at the table. Hopefully, as was identified by the Minister of ENR, he would have at least a document for tabling for this Assembly through that process.

The area of forestry is another one where the Member is right. There is a working group and agreements in place that deal with Forest Management Plan that apply on Crown lands and in Gwich’in settlement lands and through the Gwich’in Tribal Council is part of that advisory committee that looks after that section of how that goes and the work that’s being done.

Overall, the GNWT, yes, across the North has had difficulties with the whole forest management issue for quite a number of years, but the committees are in place and working within a specific area. The Gwich’in Territorial Park is another one where, yes,

there are issues there. A memorandum of agreement was signed back in 1991 so that any work done on that park was going to be done with the Gwich’in forces and if that’s not being done, we’re going to have to remind the appropriate departments that there’s an agreement in place and that those contracts should fall to the parties or the own forces of the Gwich’in when it comes to that piece of the work that needs to be done.

There are a number of areas that are outstanding, that work is continuing and at times it’s out of our hands in the sense the federal government has a big part to play. But we continue to work on those, and the ones we have an agreement on within the implementation committees are moving ahead. I would say because where there are no outstanding processes at the implementation committee doesn’t mean there are other issues that still need to be ironed out between the parties. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that because I think it’s those types of efforts that will eventually see the land claim agreement fully implemented and, more importantly, see the benefits that can flow from those agreements. If we really take the time to realize the important segments of those different agreements regardless if it is forestry, park management or looking at wildlife management or even looking at the whole area of land management. At the end of the day, those agreements basically, if anything, should be enhanced in the Northwest Territories and make it a better place for everyone, but, more importantly, to let people know exactly what is out there, what the opportunities are and how we can work together.

I think that one thing that I very much have to state is that the aboriginal groups that have negotiated the land claim agreements had to pay for their own negotiators to negotiate that claim. They had to pay back whatever money that they borrowed to negotiate those land claims out of the claim settlement. I think it was somewhere in the range of $50 million that was expended on claims negotiations over 30 years. Those improvements, I know for a fact in the case of the Gwich’in, they agreed to pay one-fifth of whatever the Dene/Metis total was when they negotiated their claim. They paid it back over the implementation of their claim, which I think was almost $9 million. I think it is in those types of understandings...People don’t realize that land claim organizations and the aboriginal organizations had to pay for these negotiations. It wasn’t a freebee. I think a lot of people in the public presume that these negotiations are paid by the federal government. Well, the federal government paid their costs. The aboriginal groups paid their costs. The GNWT pays for their costs. That is negotiations. I think, at the end of the day, in regards of what the outcome is, that the negotiations, there is a question of give and take.

Everybody didn’t get what they wanted. Everybody didn’t walk away at the end of it all knowing that there were no winners or losers. If anything, everybody was a winner regardless of what the outcome was.

Again, I am just wondering if there is a possibility if…I know that you have these different aboriginal committees in place but also have a system in place that Aboriginal Affairs works with the different government agencies and educate them on exactly what is in the different agreements. I know I raised a question about the Gwich’in Territorial Park. There was some miscommunication. Somebody thought I was talking about the Gwich’in MOU. I was talking about a Park Management Plan that was established for that park. There was part of the Park Management Plan that included an implementation plan that would identify what phases of construction was going to take place and what the cost was to implement that. I would like to ask the Minister exactly what is the role that the Aboriginal Affairs plays in educating the different government departments in regards to the rights and obligations that are under the claim and the government’s responsibility to implement those sections or understand those sections. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations plays a number of roles here as well as other departments. For example, we are one party at the table. The Department of Justice is another party at the table and then each specific department. For example, we will use the Gwich’in Territorial Park. We would have ITI at the table on that matter as well. So there would be three parties at the table. Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations would work informing the appropriate departments of their responsibility under the claim that they would follow the claim process.

Further to that, one of the things we have done and we have put on the leadership table as well is the consultation framework document where all departments are now, through Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Affairs and through this budget as well, expanding the role of one of our positions to deal with the consultation framework and working with the organizations and the Government of the Northwest Territories when it comes to fulfilling its obligation of consultation with aboriginal governments and groups on the work that is being done, on the legislation that is on the ground, on the agreements that haven’t been signed. For example, any court case across the country that has further defied aboriginal rights in Canada is stuff we work on and prepare for information when we talk about matters in the Northwest Territories and we work with departments on making sure that that is recognized. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. We are on page 4-19, activity summary, implementation, operations expenditure summary, $606,000.

Information item on page 4-20, implementation, active positions.

Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chairman, if we can go to page 4-20, I just have a couple of questions. Mr. Chairman, on the active positions, our negotiators and the amount of resources we have, I know you have some of the negotiators working on several files. Are we confident enough because of the amount of work that goes on in negotiations with the staff, with the complexity of the issues, are we comfortable with the dollars that we have assigned to these people with the experience? Also you go into self-government with the aboriginal people learning about the culture, values and the way of life and where they are coming from to start seeing how they want to implement in their own terms and ways. Sometimes that requires our negotiators to be sensitive, because not everything that is going to be implemented in our communities is going to go in this existing system. That is where we have some of the issues here. Can we have with the active numbers of negotiators comfortable enough to…Are they going to press hard on the lines or are they open enough to say, okay, from the aboriginal world view, this is how we will give you the benefit of the doubt to look at programs this way in terms of implementation? Or they will say, no, this is my mandate. This is what I am going to go home with. I will be darned if I am going to change in terms of signing off on this agreement. I just want to get a sense from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Premier Roland.

Mr. Chairman, this section of implementation follows the negotiation phase in signing of agreements. Although the Member talks about the intent of the negotiations and then implementing those agreements, our goal within Aboriginal Affairs, as I spoke to it the last time it was sitting at the table here, when it comes to training programs in the opening comments, we are trying to recruit aboriginal people to become involved in our negotiation process so that they are familiar with what they are dealing with and as much as even in the implementation side. Implementation side becomes one of the languages itself that were there. Not everybody in the future years will have experience at the table as the

Member does. It will rely on what words are put in those agreements that give clarity to how things would be implemented. I think that is going to be really important.

On this section, we feel that the implementation side is fairly straightforward. When it comes to the negotiation side, that is one of the reasons we have applied or come back to the table for more revenues through this process, because we feel, with the additional tables, we need more human resources in a sense of dealing with the actual negotiation tables that are coming up. As I informed Members, there are times that we have negotiators hold two different tables, sometimes three in a couple of cases. The workload is there. We know we have to put a bit more resources at the table and this budget, if approved, permits that. Thank you.

I am just looking from the perspective of my own region, Mr. Chairman. The land claim negotiation is the first to have been settled. Now you are looking at the self-government negotiations in Deline, Tulita, Norman Wells, and Fort Good Hope. I know they are in exploratory. Fort Good Hope may be in exploratory negotiations and Colville Lake is certainly entertaining the idea of self-government. The different issues of the different communities with the amount of negotiations going on I certainly look at and that is just only one region. I am not talking about the Mackenzie Delta, Beaufort region or any other tables that are presently being entertained by this government right now.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I am looking at the number of negotiators at the head of the table of this government here. I certainly am advocating or pushing for more negotiators for our region here, regions that need to be having more attention paid to the issues because of the number of negotiating tables going on.

Mr. Chairman, these four active negotiators I guess I need to ask. Are they from the Northwest Territories? Are these negotiators from outside the Northwest Territories? Do these negotiators have experience with negotiating with aboriginal governments? Are there any senior negotiators that are within this four here that are from the Northwest Territories aboriginal?

Mr. Chairman, the four positions identified here are for implementation. They are not in the negotiation process but, as I had highlighted in my opening comments on the negotiator positions, it has been very difficult to fill the negotiator positions. That is why we have gone to this training process of taking people within the department who are familiar with the processes already that don’t quite meet the qualifications. We

bring them in to the negotiator position. We give them a year of training. In fact, we have had one of our positions then move up a further step up to chief negotiator position within one of the files or within a couple of files. It is starting to show that that is working. We will continue to work along those lines to fill those positions with aboriginal people in the North. Hopefully we can continue to do that, but also recognizing the additional tables that we have. We have requested additional funds through this budgeting process to ensure that we have representation at all the tables. Right now we do have representation at all the tables, but we fully recognize once those tables kick up the full negotiation mandates, the workload will increase and that is why we have asked for additional resources. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister for the correction here. I guess I was looking at implementation. I got into chief negotiator so I do want to thank the Minister for the correction. I would stay on the implementation as we hear. I guess I am looking at this in terms of these active positions within the government on the Aboriginal Affairs. I am looking forward to seeing an active number of aboriginal people to fill these positions. Certainly the Minister has given me some explanation as to the process of where they are looking at but, so far, we are not seeing too much in terms of these senior levels of negotiators that come in either negotiators or implementation negotiators from the aboriginal senior management personnel. I just had comments there to the Minister. Thank you.

Mr. Roland, do you want to respond to the comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, for the record, I will highlight a couple of things here on this page. The four positions identified under implementation are ones that we’re directly involved in. There are, as I talked about earlier, about four or five where the federal government funds the other positions so they are outside of that. Out of the four identified here, two are P1 designations. We have that. We have one at a P3 position. There are another three positions, again, part of about four or five so there are seven in total and three of those are indigenous and aboriginal peoples as well within this whole group. Thank you.

We are on page 4-20, information item, implementation, active positions.

We are moving on to intergovernmental relations, 4-22 and 23. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up on the cost of individually negotiating self-government agreements with communities that was brought up earlier on another category. I am wondering whether we can take a proactive approach. I think I have heard that we have been thinking about that by drawing on a record of the higher costs apparently that go with an individual community negotiations and apparently little gains and additional difficulties with implementation. I am wondering, are we recording those sorts of relatively higher costs in a way that we can take two regions that start dealing with self-government negotiations? Obviously we have several to go yet. Are we documenting these costs, inefficiencies and sufficiently highlighting the advantage of our GNWT’s experience at delivering community services in a way that can prevent us from going into those individual community negotiations and stick with a regional approach? Thank you.