Mr. Chairman, I also understand that the territorial government is probably the only government that I know of so far that has made a contribution to the Metis locals in the communities. Are there some other avenues that the Metis organizations and the Metis governments receive through other funding arrangements through settled land claim agreements? Are there other areas where the Metis locals have yet to settle? They are still in negotiations. Is it something that this government here sees going forward in some type of strategy to ask the federal government?

I know the special provisions in the section under the Indian Act where aboriginal Dene First Nations receive funding. That has been a long-standing issue. In terms of giving some support to the political government of the Metis, is this government here going to see how they could increase funding by asking the federal government? I know we are pretty well living on what we can provide. There is $13,235 per organization for the Metis government. I think this is something that the federal government should have a good splash of water in the face to wake them up in terms of the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I guess what I am asking is, have we gone to bat for the Metis in terms of funding that we are giving to our people to run their own affairs? When you look at this amount compared to other amounts that we give to other organizations in the Northwest Territories, it is not quite the same. I want to ask the Premier here, in spite of what we may hear from the federal government I think that we should really take a serious look as to how we fund our own people, especially the Metis people who have similar rights under treaties, what they call their Metis script. Is this something that the Premier could maybe enlighten me in terms of some of the challenges he made and this Cabinet made or this government, or we just don’t want to go in there because it opens up other issues that we have not yet prepared ourselves to do?

Mr. Chairman, the Metis locals funding issue is one that has been brought forward to the regional office for an increase or even to recognize the support. We haven’t had success from the federal government moving on that because it is an issue that, at least from their side, they say on the national front it grows too much. We continue to support that and support that there should be some recognition. As the Member is aware and Members of the Assembly are aware, as the GNWT, we recognize the Metis through a number of avenues, whether it is the health program or, in this case, the Metis local core funding. No, it is not a lot, but it helps to offset their annual costs. Thank you.

Certainly the people I know that deal with the south describe themselves as Metis in the communities. I certainly appreciate the efforts by this government here to look at issues around the health benefits for them. We are certainly grateful for that because they are certainly not getting it from the federal government. Metis people have always said that they are a very distinct culture of people with their own language and culture. With the territorial government providing them with some funding to offset some of their political ambition, their economic ambition, even their cultural ambition, that I haven’t yet to date seen in the Aboriginal Affairs as to what steps can be taken to have the federal government acknowledge that there are 17 Metis governments in the Northwest Territories that need to be recognized. There are some settled in the land claims that distinctly says Metis along with Dene in settled land claims. I need to update some of the information myself. I am thinking about some of the ones that do not have opportunities to really see where they could benefit.

Again, I would ask a question and a comment from the Premier in terms of what things can this Assembly do to work with the Cabinet, with the message to the federal government that this is long overdue. It is no wonder that they call the Metis people the forgotten people. There are lots of things that could be said but hopefully I could see, an increase in the funding for this specific item on the budget here for the land owners, people who were born in the North who come from two different distinct cultures to call themselves the Metis. They fought long and hard. I think there should be some efforts to see if this could be an issue that could support them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we have been supportive of the Metis and establishing the processes or funding sources, programs, and will continue to be supportive in that area. As for this line item, to look at an increase we would have to,

again, go through the next business plan cycle. We could look at that. We have to recognize, as well, the tight fiscal framework we are in. But if the Assembly agrees that we should increase this allotment, then we would be prepared to work with Members. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along the same lines, I would support the increase to core funding for the Metis local but I have a question for the Minister on that item. Are the Metis supported by the other organizations aside from this funding that comes from the GNWT?

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Premier Roland.

Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of other organizations and the level of support they may have for the Metis. I know that in some regions, and maybe this is not the comparison, whether it be the Sahtu or the Gwich’in, there is a combined role and involvement that they support the Metis through their initiatives. There are examples of that throughout the valley of that type of joint partnership approach. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. We are on page 4-11, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $2.129 million.

We are moving along to page 4-12, activity summary, corporate management, grants and contributions, grants, $300,000, total grants and contributions, $300,000.

We are moving along to page 4-13 which is just an information item, corporate management, active positions.

On page 4-15, activity summary, negotiations, operations expenditure summary. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions related to this section. The first one goes to sort of the overall business plan as it was presented and is a general comment, but most of the additional expenses related to this section of the department are identified as strategic initiatives. There is a small amount that is identified as forced growth. But if I look at the definitions of the expenses that are strategic initiatives, it seems to

be that they are related to additional persons to deal with more negotiations tables, adding positions back in that were cut last year but now need to be put back in. Very few of them seem to be funding or positions or new approaches. So I’d like an explanation from the Minister as to why we are funding sort of ongoing increases to the costs of the operations of the department as a strategic initiative when it seems to be a continuation of work that was already started a year or two years ago. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess when we look at it, the old way of coming forward and building a budget, we would say that would be a forced growth or there would…Although there wasn’t a category identified and there wasn’t language used in the description, it did fall under new initiatives to add an additional program. Although we have a negotiation mandate and tables, when we add new tables that is the form it would fall under.

So in this sense of trying to look at the initiatives across government Managing This Land has an area that involves this program and again the way we are initially looking at this, those initiative committees would probably fall more into the policy side and less the budget allocation inside. This is the manner it came forward in because we are trying to categorize different areas right now as to what areas they would fall in within our strategic initiatives and the goals of the Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you and thanks for the explanation. I guess I would choose to disagree with this particular approach and I would just ask that the department reconsider that for next year’s budget and business plans.

I have another question related to negotiations and it has to do with the concern that was expressed by the committee when business plans were reviewed relative to community-based negotiations tables. I realize communities have the right to start their own negotiations with the Government of Canada, but I would like to know from the Minister what the position is of the department relative to the costs that are involved with these extra tables. If we end up with 33 communities each having their own agreement negotiated, it’s going to be a huge increase in costs. My position is the federal government ought to be bearing these additional costs, but I would like to know what the department is saying to the federal government at these negotiation tables where we are dealing with community governments. Thank you.

We did share our concerns with the federal government about establishing a level of tables. The more tables we have, the more it costs. We also discussed with the federal government our concerns about the capacity of negotiations at these tables and what would end up being the capacity of self-government signed with the community government in trying to build up their abilities to actually implement. So that’s a concern that we’ve shared. When it comes right down to it, when the federal government accepts these tables we end up being party to them because of our program delivery side of the equation and being at the table.

So we’ve shared our concerns about that, but the reality is as the federal government accepts these tables, we end up party to them and that’s why, for example, we’ve got chief negotiators that serve more than one table, sometimes up to three different tables. Thank you.

I appreciate the response from the Minister. I guess my concern is if push comes to shove and the federal government determines that they are going to negotiate with a community, what recourse does the territorial government have to say no thank you, we’re not going to accept the additional costs? If the federal government simply says that’s fine, here is another agreement, go ahead and implement it and oh, by the way, the costs are up to you, do we have any recourse as a government to basically tell the federal government no, thank you, not until you give us the money? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on a couple of fronts, one, when it comes down to the actual mandates we are involved in, right now as the table is established we end up taking part at that table. We’ve raised the concern about the funding situation, the workload on our existing staff. In fact, as this budget shows, we are coming in for additional resources. The decision would come down in the existing framework. If we don’t want to bear the additional cost, then we have to make a choice. Do we go to the table or do we stay away from the table? That’s the decision we have right now. As it comes to trying to have the federal government provide more funds for it, they haven’t been very receptive. We’ve made our arguments. We continue to make our arguments and even on a larger front, when it comes to all the self-government tables now, the federal government’s tone on incremental costs, as we term it, they’ve turned their stance to a rather negative one where they are saying that the aboriginal government and the GNWT will have to deal with those additional costs from existing resources or from own-source revenues. So that’s a concern.

We are working jointly now through the regional aboriginal tables through raising the concern of this self-government piece and working to come up with a comprehensive approach in the North to approach the federal government to put before them our business case as to why that needs to be reconsidered. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate where the Minister is coming from. Unfortunately for me, expressing concern is not actually going to deal with the financial pressures that may be the result of some of these excess negotiated agreements.

I didn’t hear the Minister say that we have any recourse, except I thought I heard him say that if we stay away from the table, then we are as much as saying no, we aren’t going to take part in this and no, we won’t be responsible for any costs. Could I get a clarification on my interpretation? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, right now in the existing framework we have in place, if we don’t want to incur additional costs at the negotiation phase, we can choose not to be at the tables. All that does is leave us outside the discussions that are happening and what the federal government may put in place or not and doesn’t prepare us for what might come through in the implementation phase, because there could be agreements that totally don’t align themselves with the level of programs that are now in place to what impact they will have in the delivery and communities. So the avenue right now is if we don’t want to incur the cost at the negotiation phase, we would have to choose not to be there. The choice has always been, as this budget highlights, to be at those tables and come forward for additional dollars to do that. Thank you.