Thank you, Mr. Bisaro. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. How functional would negotiations be if the negotiators, new negotiators, were to be located at the regional levels?

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the support for negotiations, because we share a number of tables, we don’t just have one chief negotiator, assistant negotiator just

for one table. It would be fairly difficult in keeping them supported around the different discussions and as to locations of actual negotiations, they do happen. Some groups decide to do negotiations in their communities and regions. Some travel, whether it is to the capital or to Ottawa or other places that they choose. Each, for example, the aboriginal government that is negotiating and the GNWT all have a selection that they can put on the table for where they’d like to hold their meeting and that does bounce around substantially between regions. So it would be difficult.

We have no support structure right now in regional centres that would support the role of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. That’s not to say that at some point that couldn’t be looked at. The difficulty would be right now because we are such a small department and taking it apart that way, the support structure would be diminished somewhat. Thank you.

As for the reconciling in my mind how many tables there are, in your opening comments, Minister, you indicated the additional four tables were expected that would bring the number to 15 which represents a 50 percent increase. I am just trying to…If four is a 50 percent increase, does that mean we had eight? Could I get the numbers instead, because this doesn’t really help.

Mr. Chairman, the compression is done from January 2008. At that point we had 10 tables that we were having some discussions on that were actual tables and active. There were a number of exploratory discussions going on. From January we had 10 tables active. So 50 percent of that number, so we add an additional five tables now to go active. So we are from 10 in January 2008, to now we are going to be at 15 tables. A 50 percent increase from January 2008, and that goes all the way from the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Deline, Tulita, Norman Wells, Deh Cho, Akaitcho, Northwest Territories Metis, Manitoba Denesuline, Saskatchewan Denesuline, Acho Dene Koe First Nations, Katlodeeche First Nation, First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun of Fort Good Hope, I believe, and Dene Tha’. Thank you.

Okay. Having heard that, you lead me to believe that you are expecting four tables to be created by the federal government, bringing the total to 15. Does that mean that you actually have only one additional table now from 10 to 11 and then the new four expected brings it up to 15?

Mr. Chairman, the way the process works, active negotiation tables or they become active when the natural framework agreement has been reached. There are some

exploratory discussions going on so we are at those tables or those meetings and then, when the federal government does establish them with the framework agreement with the organization or group, then it kicks up to the active negotiation table. We’ve got Katlodeeche and the Na-Cho Nyak Dun have additional frameworks put in place now and we are expecting the Fort Good Hope and Dene Tha’ will have frameworks established with them next year. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Chairman, my questions are to the Minister in regards to aboriginal affairs in the area of negotiations. There has been some time since a lot of land claims were settled, especially the ones in my riding from 1992 and 17 years later, but there are still a lot of provisions of those agreements that still haven’t been negotiated or implemented through territorial legislation.

I will use the Wildlife Act for instance. That has been outstanding for some time. We have an economic section that government doesn’t seem to want to touch because it might do something good for the Gwich’in and also dealing with forestry, which the government has the responsibility in the forestry provisions of the Gwich’in agreement, the same as the Sahtu. And also in other areas in regards to protected areas with the establishment of territorial parks in our settlement areas, whether it is the Gwich’in Territorial Park or the CANOL Trail. Those were negotiated in those agreements. Again, they are still not fully implemented.

I think the same thing also applies to lands in municipalities. We have municipal lands in all of our communities and also in Inuvik which is in the Gwich’in Settlement Area. I’d like to know why is it that this government is not moving on fully legislating those sections, those land claim agreements into territorial legislation when this government has legislative authority which has been devolved to this government from the federal government in such areas as wildlife, forestry and other areas in regards to protected areas which was the establishment of territorial parks. I would just like to ask the Minister exactly why is it taking so long and what is this government doing to implement those sections of those agreements.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.

Mr. Chairman, the Member has highlighted that under the implementation side there are a number of areas at the actual implementation tables. The groups all have their committee representatives from each group. For example, the Gwich’in have their person

they have named at the table. The federal government has their person named and we would have a person named. At the actual implementation side of those tables, I have been informed there are no outstanding issues. Now there are issues that are being discussed at the political level about the level of implementation or what is expected or the interpretation of those and that is the area we find ourselves more challenged in.

The Member has used a number of things, for example, the Wildlife Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canol Trail, and the Gwich’in Territorial Park. To a certain level or another, other departments have devolved. For example, Environment and Natural Resources are dealing with the Species at Risk Act that is out there now. They are involved in the development of the Wildlife Act that is being co-developed now with the aboriginal groups. The challenge is because there are so many tables being negotiated from right up and down the valley from Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Sahtu, who have signed land claim agreements and other groups that are negotiating and some are doing a comprehensive approach, both land and self-government is the challenge that we face as to what kind of legislation can be brought in to implement some of the claims groups and not affect the negotiations of other groups. Because when legislation comes in, that’s the concern that it starts to take away from the negotiation approaches of some of the groups. That’s been a concern.

Where we can find the agreement amongst groups, like the Wildlife Act, like the species at Risk Act, come up with an approach that is beginning to bear fruit, I guess is the term, that is showing some results there...

One of the concerns the Member has raised talked about municipal lands within communities. The Member is aware, because of his own past experience as a negotiator, that those lands within a community are selected and operated within the jurisdiction of the municipality. For example, if there are exchanges of land between the self-government body and the federal government, they can select some land within a community but those lands would still be operated under the operation that is in place. So taxes and so on would still be due unless the federal government sets up how they would pay the tax piece of it to the community that the exchange has occurred in.

So that is the process that is there in place. We use existing processes that are in place and understood and follow on those processes.

As for your continued interpretation of some of those things, that can come up from time to time and be challenging in trying to come up with the understanding and have parties agree that that

interpretation or an older interpretation still applies. So that is something that continues to be worked on. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the point I was trying to make is that you can negotiate everything into a nice, fancy binder. At the end of the day, that’s all it is; a nice, fancy binder. Until you take that binder and you take the sections out of it and put it into legislation and put the legislation into force, then it enacts that legislation. Right now there are certain provisions or sections of these land claim agreements that have not legislatively been given that authority.

So in order for this government to bring life to that agreement, you have to legislate those sections of the agreement into territorial/federal legislation. That was the question I was asking. Like the Wildlife Act, you have to enact those sections so the agreement to give the power and intent of the agreement through legislative authority. So I would like to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs again, why is it that this government is not moving and acting on those sections of legislation which will bring it into force by way of legislative enforcement which will have to be passed in this Legislature or even in the House of Commons by way of legislative effect?

I would like to ask again. Why is it that those sections of those agreements have not been legislatively entrenched such as the Wildlife Act? The Gwich’in claims have been signed some 17 years ago. In regards to the Inuvialuit, we are looking at over 20 years ago. I think that is why those agreements aren’t working. In order for those agreements to work, you have to legislate those agreements into force and give them the legislative tools that they need to really have the force and intent of those agreements. When can we see the legislative enforcement legislation brought forward to enforce those sections of the agreements which need those pieces of legislation passed or amended to allow for those sections, those agreements to be enacted under territorial legislation?

Mr. Chairman, for the record, we have been working with the groups to bring that legislation forward. The Member is aware, from our past experience, even myself and other governments, where we have worked jointly to try to come up with that. We have provided funds to the organizations and aboriginal governments to work on initiatives within the lands claim and the Species at Risk. The Species at Risk is before committee I understand. The Minister of Environment and Natural Resources is committed to putting the Wildlife Act on the table in this House for movement. He has established a renewed

process with the aboriginal organizations and governments and the GNWT and the co-management approach to developing that piece of legislation and that work is ongoing. We are hoping that we would have that brought and delivered to this House at the end of this Assembly. It is work that is ongoing. It is stuff that we are trying to do. Our goal is to have it done before the end of this government. Thank you.

Again, I am glad to see the Wildlife Act moving forward and hope to have it passed in this legislation. As long as I have been here, that has always been my priority getting that section of legislation, but there are other sections of the land claim agreements that still need to be enacted.

I mentioned forestry. There is a forestry provision in the land claim agreements that basically talks about commercial harvesting. It talks about forest management plans. It talks about how the forest is going to be managed in those settlement areas. In order for them to be able to have that authority, they have to get it by way of legislative authority.

Again, that is another section I feel this government has to deal with. I know the economic measures have been controversial over the time. That is why we went with the MOU thing. Again, at some point, we have to make a decision of moving on the economic measures. I think, for ourselves, it is pretty clear.

I will use the Gwich’in agreement. It basically states section 10.1.4 that where government carries out public activities in the settlement area which gives rise to employment and other economic opportunities, the government elects to enter into a contract with respect to those activities. The Government of the Northwest Territories preferential contracting policies, procedures and approaches intended to maximize regional and northern employment and business opportunities should be followed respectively by Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, and then again it goes on to talk about the Government of the Northwest Territories consult the Gwich’in Tribal Council in developing and modifying its preferential contracting policies and procedures.

Again, that section flows from the Gwich’in economic measures. But for some reason this government totally does not want to touch it, but it clearly says the Government of the Northwest Territories. I would like to know, when is this part of the legislation going to be implemented to bring it into force and effect? That legislation is just like what they have in the Inuvialuit agreement which talk about protected measures agreement in that agreement. There is a section in Nunavut’s agreement that talks about protected measures. That is why you don’t have to put out contracts in

the Inuvialuit settlement region. Basically, the preferential policies are exactly what is in the economic policies in the Gwich’in agreement, the Sahtu agreement and the Tlicho agreement. When can we see that legislation get enacted as it was negotiated in the land claim agreements?

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the claim itself, there are spaces and spots in it, as the Member for Mackenzie Delta has highlighted, that require action on government, not necessarily legislative action but whether it is, for example, he used 10.1.5 about the Government of the Northwest Territories shall consult with the Gwich’in Tribal Council on developing modifications to preferential contracting policies, procedures and approaches. We, for example, on the preferential treatment, have negotiated contracts. When we were looking at making any changes, we set that out for their input as to the potential changes we are looking at. We did it to every organization. So we have done that. On 10.1.6, for example, when it talks about the Government of the Northwest Territories intends, when we intend to carry out activities on settlement lands, and that is important on settlement lands, which give rise to employment or other economic opportunities. When the Government of the Northwest Territories elects to enter into contracts with respect to those activities without going to public tender, that is a critical area. Participants shall be given first opportunity to negotiate such contracts. We follow that practice.

The problem comes in when we look at the other areas and again when we talk about settlement lands and other self-government bodies or negotiations, that is when we have problems about who gets the first opportunity and the MOUs was a process where we established outside of the claims process to try and come up with a management process that would allow the groups to have opportunity to look at what was happening. For example, the government’s infrastructure plan would be shared with the groups to say, here it is in that region and that settlement area. What areas would you like to see and have interest in and work back and forth with that? The Minister of ITI is the lead on those MOUs. The Gwich’in was the first one signed. The Sahtu recently signed one. There are other negotiations happening right now in those areas to do that.

The section of 10.1.4 about when government carries out public activities in areas that give rise to employment, economic opportunities, the government elects to enter into contracts with respect to those activities. Section B is the Government of the Northwest Territories preferential contracting policies, procedures and approaches intended to maximize regional and northern employment and business opportunities

should be followed respectively by Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Again, when we established preferential treatment, policies and processes, that is when that would apply. There are a number of occasions across the government that we use that provision in trying to access that. I believe, again, the MOU would show good results in that area of bringing more dollars to those organizations when it comes to opportunities for employment and contracting. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Next on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that the Premier, in his discussions with the different self-government land claims organization areas where they are not settled yet in terms of land claim and his discussions with leaders who are in self-government negotiations and other communities that wish to enter into negotiations, as an intergovernmental affairs issue, has the Premier and staff worked with the other communities to say that we need to get together, provided that we find some time, money and strategies, and say this is what we need to really sit down and talk to Ottawa about? These are some of the big ticket items that need to be negotiated in the Tlicho Self-Government Agreement. There are some provisions in there that really need to get Ottawa’s attention. There is no clarity in terms of my understanding with the Inuvialuit agreement, the Sahtu agreement, some of the agreements that we’re not quite sure where we sit as a territorial government in terms of legislative authority. Even in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the wildlife committees are given the authority to create bylaws under the wildlife, bylaws to hunt for the communities. We have to enforce these laws that are created by the Inuvialuit communities that have these bylaws. Under the bylaws, because self-government agreements are constitutionally protected under section 35, we need to get issues like that...Maybe I’m going a little too far but I think that’s something that we should be looking at even within the aboriginal public governments.

The big question is under the land claim agreements, the self-government agreements, these agreements are constitutionally protected. Do we have a public government that falls under section 35 that’s constitutionally protected? I guess my question to the Premier in terms of some of these big ticket items going forward on some of these agreements that put us in a very difficult position, have there been discussions with the aboriginal leaders, people in the Northwest Territories saying there are some significant changes coming down since 1995, even the ‘70s to ‘95. Aboriginal people have not had this type of opportunity to assert what could be their rights.

Never. Only 1960, the first time that people had a right to vote in the Confederation of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, what I’m trying to say is because there’s going to be some significant changes in the Northwest Territories, how it’s going to be carved out, status quo is not going to remain the same. I’m trying to find a way where we could look at these issues that are going to have an impact. There are some really good questions around the table that I’ve heard this afternoon in terms of things we would be looking at. Are these issues here not yet magnified to a level that we want them to be or is it just my view here? Are we dealing with other avenues that will continue on operating as the best we can until we know there’s enough people holding up the sign saying we should be looking at some of these issues here?

Mr. Chair, I would ask the Premier for his comments to my statement. There may be some questions in there.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Premier Roland.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if the Member was hoping I would have questions for him as a response...

---Laughter

As he raised the issues here there are, in fact, a number of things happening that address these larger items that are I guess we’d say pan-regional to all the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories.

One of the things, as I had highlighted before, that we’ve put in place during this government is to formalize our relationship with aboriginal governments with the establishment of the regional leaders meetings. Since November 2007 we’ve had five regional leaders meetings. The first one was here in Yellowknife in November 2007. We had one in Inuvik in February 2008 and again in July 2008. In October 2008 we had one in Norman Wells, and this winter -- 2009 -- we had one in Fort Simpson. Along with those there’s also a commitment to deal with the regional leaders and bilateral, so all of their chiefs or leaders, for example, in October 2008 we met with the Sahtu leadership. In November we met with the ADFN group. In January the Deh Cho group. For example, with the Gwich’in and the Inuvialuit, we’ve met with them on a number of occasions since November.

These are the meetings, especially at the regional level, where we deal with, for example, the self-government financing piece. The self-government financing piece, as we’re starting to hear now from the federal government, is their stance is changing

when it comes to incremental costs and how they’ll support self-governments after they’re signed. We are very concerned with that approach so we brought it to the table. We did a presentation to the regional leadership at the Fort Simpson meeting, and there was agreement that we need to take a common approach and develop a strategy of how we’re going to engage the federal government so that they, in fact, honour their commitment when it comes to self-government, implementation and funding of those pieces. That’s an example of how it’s starting to work and it will deal with those big picture items that we need to focus on as a group of leaders in the Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. We’re on page 4-15, activity summary, negotiations, operations expenditure summary. Mr. Yakeleya.

I guess the point I was looking and hoping that maybe...I appreciate the Premier going out to the regional leadership and initiating some regional meetings in our communities. I want to commend him on that for making these meetings happen in our regions with the leadership. I guess what I’m looking at is hoping that throughout these meetings that there will be a point in time when we get consensus strong enough from our leadership and our Cabinet, the Premier, to go down to Ottawa and say enough is enough in terms of the issues that we need to deal with.

Right now, Mr. Chairman, we are put in the situation like this whole next couple of weeks here. We are put in the situation where we, as Members, come from various communities that have to deal with a budget that, you know, everybody wants something very desperately in their communities and the federal government puts an amount of $1.3 million, I believe, $1.2 billion, into the Northwest Territories. Yet it’s so slow in terms of having us be a real partner in Canada and with these negotiations within our region here because of the amount of billions and billions of dollars they stand to lose if we are to alter any type of authority or jurisdiction in terms of our negotiations.

I think that’s what I was looking for. Maybe that will require another table at another time, Mr. Chair. Something has to be done to shake things and not have the status quo. I’m not too sure if we’re at that point yet where we’re going to have a real radical change in terms of...Otherwise, if we don’t do it, these self-governments and these land claim agreements are going to do it for us.

Believe me, people in the communities are not happy with how they are being serviced by the federal government. We are sometimes, even with the existing Assembly here, we have to manage $1.2 billion in the vast amount of needs in our

communities. That’s what I’m looking for. Again, I’m going to ask the Premier is that something that’s been somewhat discussed and if that is, is it seeking a lukewarm reaction or is it something that we should really consider in the Northwest Territories, maybe in the next Assembly? I’m just trying to get some signals from the Premier in terms of his meetings with the aboriginal and the people in the North in terms of what I’ve spoke on.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Premier Roland.

Mr. Chairman, let me try this approach to the Member’s questions and concerns. The regional level leaders’ table does and is starting to deal with these picture items and how we would approach the federal government and our position. This is sort of based around the work that has been done in the past around devolution and resource revenue sharing where the government-of-the-day worked with the leadership, a majority of the group signed off on an approach, sent it into the federal government. That side of it, a response was not given as elections were called on that piece. That is one of those issues we’ve brought to the regional leaders’ table to say, okay, we have an offer that was on the table that hasn’t been responded to. How do we progress?

Some of the stuff needs to be done. We need to come up with an agreement in the North before we can get to Ottawa because we have a number of groups who have said, well, devolution and resource revenue sharing, we’re negotiating, we don’t want to deal with that right now, so leave it alone. We’ve got others who say we’re ready to go. We’re trying to find some common ground where we can come up with a package that’s acceptable to the large group of leaders in the North that we feel we can present to the federal government.

Self-government financing, the example I gave already, we are working together on an approach to the federal government. Some of the other issues that we established and brought to the table and have a joint working group now is, for example, on the Water Strategy. That was developed and brought to the table at the regional leaders’ table. The Land Use Framework is another initiative that we’ve brought to that table and we will continue coming up with a common approach that I believe will help us in settling some of those other areas when it comes to legislation that we come up with that common approach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.