Does committee agree?

Page 4-18, 4-19, implementation, operations expenditure summary, activity summary, $606,000.

Agreed. Mr. Yakeleya, page 4-19.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, a couple of questions for the Minister in terms of the implementation process. There are various views on implementing these land claim agreements and also some of the self-government agreements and the agreement that’s been settled with the Tlicho. I want more focus on the Sahtu land claim implementation process and the certain chapters in the agreement itself. I know there are some challenges with the federal government, however, I want to thank the Minister. Prior to Christmas, he instructed his staff to get in contact with me to have some discussions around implementation issues and I didn’t follow through and I wanted to thank him for making that offer to me. So I know that he’s a man of his word when he said he was going to work with me on this issue here.

So I wanted to ask the Minister in terms of the implementation and some of the concerns we recently have in terms of some of the other issues we don’t foresee in terms of the CANOL Trail Heritage Park implementation. It’s been a while, so I know there are other issues in terms of how do we start implementing this park here. There are progressions going towards it.

I’d like to ask the Minister in terms of the implementation on the overall Sahtu Land Claim Agreement. It’s a 15-year mark in terms of our agreement. Can the Minister provide to me an update in terms of the implementation process in the Sahtu on the chapters that we are responsible for as the Government of the Northwest Territories and if there are other areas that need to be looked at in terms of full implementation? Our obligation. I don’t want to hammer on the federal government because that has to be done through the Sahtu Secretariat. In terms of the GNWT’s obligations with the implementation.

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The implementation process is once the claimant is signed by all parties, the implementation process kicks in. Each group has representation at the party, so they nominate a representative. In this case there would be representation from the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Sahtu organization group as well. Each group has an opportunity to put items on the agenda. The minutes are kept of each meeting and signed off by all parties. I’m informed there are no outstanding issues that have been brought to the table. Other areas, as the Member has related to the CANOL Trail, those processes would either be in the works through departments’ budgeting exercises trying to get acceptance of certain plans. When it comes to actual implementation I’m informed there are no outstanding issues. We’ll have to have a look at the reference to the CANOL Trail and where that sits within the appropriate departments.

The information that the Minister has may be correct. I’ve wanted to ask him in terms of there’s no outstanding issues that he’s noted here solely about the CANOL Trail and in terms of implementation of the CANOL Heritage Trail, the park, the issues may be discussed right now. The government may think it’s not an outstanding issue, but it’s an ongoing issue that’s through an implementation process that the parties may have different views. The Sahtu may have a different view than the government, but it’s in the process of the full implementation to where we’d like to see it. I’m working closely with the Minister of ITI to look at these issues. They are quite complex. That’s where we have a different view of what’s outstanding and what’s not settled yet. I guess generally the Minister may be correct in terms of within that frame of the CANOL Heritage Trail there are outstanding issues here for us. That’s where I guess I’m digging a little more in. That’s kind of what I want to look into. I know there’s lots of work. The federal government certainly does play a big part in this specific issue here. The territorial government certainly has a role in it. I’m asking the Minister in terms of the implementation and maybe I’ll ask a little bit more in terms of where he deems that there’s no outstanding issues. There are other issues that still need to be concluded by the Sahtu Secretariat and he is correct that parties are named, issues are put on the table for discussion and they signed off on issues. The Minister is totally correct on that and certainly that requires three heads working together to see what the true meaning is of this certain part of the land claim agreement.

That’s the type of information I’m hoping the Minister can provide. I’m not too sure if he can, but some information on that would be appreciated to see where we can conclude some of these

agreements where we feel in the Sahtu are concluded. The government may then also sign off on them as concluded deals. That’s what I’m looking for.

Chapter 12 in our agreement on economic measures is being implemented. Again, the Minister of ITI and myself have been looking at this with the Sahtu Settlement Secretariat in terms of the memorandum of understanding on economic measures. Certainly there are issues there. We feel that because we signed an MOU last year with Mr. Handley and I think the Minister at that time was Mr. Brendan Bell, we thought the MOU was an issue that was outstanding that maybe had been concluded. But we haven’t finished baking the cake yet in terms of the ingredients of this MOU. That’s what I’m looking for. Where we can work with this department and this Minister on some of the implementation. We may have started, but we haven’t done it yet. We’ve just started the journey on implementation. I want to ask the Minister regarding these big ticket items that are possibly holding up some of the programs and services in our communities.

The implementation process is one that will always continue throughout the agreements until it is fully realized what was negotiated through the claims process. Right now, as I’m informed, there are no outstanding issues directly with the implementation table. There are, the Member is correct, outstanding issues with some of the parts of the claim that involve all the parties.

In reference to the CANOL Trail, Minister Bob McLeod has just given me information that we are awaiting the federal government to transfer the lands and there are environmental issues attached to that. That’s why those transfers haven’t occurred as of yet. That’s what’s holding up that process, is my understanding. So it is waiting for a transfer of the land. But our groups have to decide and agree on environmental issues that are outstanding along that CANOL Trail.

Along with the economic measures piece, the Member referenced chapter 12 of their agreement and the MOU. Just for the record, I have to state that the MOUs are something that were established originally with the Gwich’in and continue to be worked at that level. One that is worked on and initially an agreement is put in place with the Sahtu and others working down the valley as well. Those are not tied directly to the land claims. Those are agreements we’ve reached outside of that through a memorandum of understanding so that we can in fact, as a government, try to work with the aboriginal groups and governments to help with the capacity issues and business environment and so on. In a sense it’s a matter of working together and

creating better partnerships, but it is not directly tied to the claim itself.

We continue. We know it’s a work in progress around the MOUs; it continues to be up and down the valley. There’s renegotiation going to be happening with the Gwich’in. The one that was signed with the Sahtu and the Inuvialuit, we’ve engaged in discussions.

I notice that with the CANOL Trail, I know the Minister and I have had some discussions. Certainly there are millions and millions of potential damage to the heritage trail on CANOL left by the United States government and the United States army. There are contamination issues there that are too huge for this government or the federal government to even look at the possibility of cleanup and transfer of lands. Also, Mr. Chair, there are certain parts of the CANOL Trail that certainly should be developed and looked at. It’s not the whole trail; it’s certain parts that are a chemical hazard waste site. I’ve walked on that trail, on over 170 miles on that trail, and I’m still not glowing at night so I must be okay. I’d like to think that’s a real big issue here and I know that the territorial government is going to work hard on this issue with our people. That’s another issue that needs to be discussed at another time. I think that we need to look at the implementation, keep a close eye on this one here with the Minister and his department, with the government here with the Sahtu beneficiaries.

Mr. Chair, the issue that I’d like to get some...We agreed to disagree on the MOU. Certainly the Minister has stated the government’s position and their interpretation as to the memorandum of understanding. The chapter 12 that I’m making reference to is the economic measures. Mr. Chair, I was the chief negotiator on the Sahtu land claim, the last 14, 15 months of Sahtu land claim settlement, and certainly that wasn’t the spirit and intent of our agreement. In the current legislation or the current policy, maybe that’s what the territorial government is looking at in terms of this certain clause. This clause here we discussed many times over with our people, with the negotiators. The intent when we signed off, it was that we were going to speak directly to the benefits of this chapter 12 and we thought we had agreement that the MOUs would be the one that we wanted to go with our people there. I agree to disagree with the Minister’s view on this, this government’s position. That’s not the views of the Sahtu people when they signed off on chapter 12. That’s where we have some hiccups on the interpretation and implementation. However, we’re willing to work and see where we could get benefits as stated in our chapter 12 in our agreement. We did not fight to get to the table to only know this is what they think we’re talking about. I was there. Other negotiators

were there and we know what we we’re talking about when we wrote chapter 12. Some of these staff people weren’t even there. They only interpret what they think. I think that’s something that needs to be stated very clearly here. I don’t want to get into it. I’d just like you to know that’s where our differences are going to be held until we know exactly what they were intended to be. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Minister, do you want to agree to disagree? You can respond to that but it’s up to you.

Mr. Chairman, I guess you can say there are a couple of Members of this House who have past experience at the negotiation table themselves and they know very clearly in their minds what they were negotiating at the time. But for those of us and for the future generations who refer to those agreements and they read the words on the page, you will not find government will sign MOUs. There will be activities that the government is involved with that will, when it comes to preferential treatment, work with the land claim group or self-government, as agreements will in the future identify that the government will then give that group the preferential treatment when it comes to, for example, negotiated contracts, sole-source contracts and that nature. There is much work to be done.

In areas further to implementation, I think we all agree that as these agreements are in place, many of them have taken a long time to get certain pieces in place. Part of it is because as the Government of the Northwest Territories when we look at the whole of the Territory and try to come up with legislation that works for the Territory, it’s quite difficult when we have some groups that have signed, settled and are getting down to work, as they say, and for other groups, they’re in the negotiation process and they say, well, we don’t want to be a part of that just yet because they feel they’re in the negotiation phase and this may hinder them in certain aspects. We’ve always tried to put our language and our legislation and policies that with any agreement and legislation we put in place will not take away from the aboriginal rights of people in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Next on the list I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question with regard to the costs of implementation. I know we discussed it when we reviewed business plans. I think we touched on it earlier when the department started but...It’s my understanding that the GNWT may be responsible for some of the costs of implementation of some of the agreements

which are concluded. I would like to know whether or not I could get the Minister to clarify or answer that question. Is that correct? If that’s the case, how much are we on the hook for, so to speak, for an agreement which technically we’re not party to? Thank you.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Roland.

Mr. Chairman, the way the claims in the past have been settled, signed off, is the federal government agreed to the additional costs of implementation. This funding goes through what we call a vote 4/5 process that the federal government is actually forwarding the revenues to us so that we can carry on our portion of the implementation. Approximately, of the compensation and benefits, for example, of this category which identifies $550,000, I believe we’re looking in the neighbourhood of about $509,000 covered by the federal government. Then there are a few other smaller amounts that make up the amount; almost $525,000. Not right to the dollar -- I wouldn’t quote right to the dollar -- but approximately $525,000 is funded by the federal government in this area. Thank you.

I guess I would like to follow that up. If we are paying some money, even if it’s $25,000, that’s going to accumulate over time and I’m sure this doesn’t refer to all the self-government agreements that are out there and those that are to come as well. I’d like to know from the Minister whether or not there’s a concern on his part that we will end up funding the implementation of self-government agreements which are decided by another party or another two parties. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I better set the record straight. It’s not $525,000, it’s $525 million across all of government that the federal government has helped us in that area. Our portion, within that, I’ll have to get a proper breakdown of this specific area, but it is vote 4/5 funding which comes from the federal government.

The issue of the cost, additional cost of self-government, talks are going on right now and things that would be signed off falls into a different area. I’ll have to go to Ms. Sparling for more detail on that.

Ms. Sparling.

Thank you, Ms. Sparling. Ms. Bisaro.

Just to follow up then, I understand if the Minister can’t answer the question, but is that a concern on the part of the Minister and the department that we’re going to be having to put more and more dollars into implementing these agreements? Thank you.