The other thing that wasn’t highlighted was the regional Aboriginal leaderships meetings funding and processes held within the Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations and a number of our meetings that we had, especially leading up to the AIP, were funded directly through this shop. When it comes to having groups sign on, I mean, I think a number of them have highlighted their reluctance to sign on for a number of reasons. Some of them are more particular to the negotiations that would have to occur and wanting those dealt with up front, which would be difficult to do, especially when you don’t have an agreement framework to operate under. That’s basically what this AIP is, is the framework we get to operate under.

Our work on the consultation process is one that directly involved ourselves as a government and how we responded and reacted in the work we did day to day at our negotiation tables as well as, for example, on the Wildlife Act, issues if there’s any lands issues, transportation, airports, highways, that type of thing, or with health and social services or with housing. There are many times when we’ve been brought to the table on other parts to inform departments of the work that’s required and needed when it comes to some of our day-to-day activities.

I appreciate, again, those remarks on the role the department plays. I guess for now I’m looking at where in this budget it reflects the effort that it’s going to take to bring our Aboriginal partners to the table again in our devolution discussions.

Our role as Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations is support to departments in ensuring that we meet our obligations. The role that we have within Executive will be, or the advice that we provide to Executive, and that’s where the budget and the work that we’ll initiate. For example, under development and mandates, as we go forward we would be involved to ensure that as those mandates are developed, that we are honouring our commitments of existing agreements and protecting those discussions that are ongoing right now. For example, some of the discussions that are ongoing there are interim measures protections that would be incorporated. We would ensure that as those mandates are being looked at that those are incorporated.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be a lot of duplication between the Executive’s budget and this budget with regard to

funding sources. In the Executive budget there were funds allocated to the northern leaders meetings and now here we see the line item here. Also with regard to questions we were asking about that I’m wondering what exactly is the overlap and if the devolution portfolio falls under Executive and the land claims portfolio falls under Aboriginal Affairs, do you have your own legal counsel for when you meet on the basis of both with different legal obligations? One obligation is to the Executive with regard to transfer of powers. The Aboriginal Affairs obligation is under the land claims and Aboriginal rights components. I’m just wondering; it seems like it’s not really clear how those dollars have been allocated. I was just browsing through here and you can see a line item that says there’s some $350,000 for the regional Aboriginal forum and also below that there’s a line item that talks about the northern regional forum. It seems like these numbers are duplicated in Executive’s budget and this budget. What is it?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The area of the regional leaders is not purely about devolution. It is about a number of other matters where there are common issues of discussion ongoing. Devolution was one of those as we got closer to signing and will play a role as we go forward. Clearly that funding that’s identified within this budget is the process of the meetings to go out and do the work.

The Northern Leaders’ Forum piece is that work that’s aside to the Northern Leaders’ Forum as I spoke to earlier around Executive. That table is a side discussion on Creating Our Future Together. We have a shared role in that.

As it comes towards the justice and the legal opinions, we in our case, as we do with every other department when it comes to legal issues, go to our Department of Justice to get their input on the legal terms and conditions that are in place.

Again, even in the Minister’s opening remarks he made reference to the whole idea of Creating Our Future Together but it seemed like the Northern Leaders’ Forum, the only groups he seemed to go anywhere with is the same groups that signed the devolution agreement, which is the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the NWT Metis Nation and the NWT Association of Communities. I was at the last meeting and it was kind of quiet. There weren’t too many; a lot of empty seats. Just understand that the funding is for the Northern Leaders’ Forum yet there’s another pot of money there for the regional northern leaders to partake in that. I’d like to know what exactly the criteria is for the funding that’s in there to allow the Aboriginal regional forum to get. Is that divvied up between each region? Is that based on the regional

representation? Could you give me a breakdown of how that money is going to be allocated to the regional Aboriginal leaders? Could you give me a breakdown by group how that $50,000 is going to be divvied up?

The Northern Leaders’ Forum, we came to the Assembly, got the budget, and as I explained to Members when we went through that process initially, what we thought we would do is one large process and I came back and informed Members that the regional leaders said they knew best what was happening in their regions, so we divvied up the budget to provide regional leaders. For example, this is the way it worked out -- and we’ll get a written document together, a draft that will show. There’s a base amount where everybody got the equal base amount of $19,000. There was a cost of living differential. So if you’re in a more remote area and spread out, that factored into the equation. Cost of living added when you look at that differential made it up to $30,000 for the Inuvialuit, $29,000 for the Gwich’in, Sahtu was $30,000, Dehcho was $27,000, Tlicho was $26,000, Akaitcho was $28,000, and NWT Metis was $25,000. That took into account, as well, the number of communities they had in there. When you look at that and the community factors, the Inuvialuit had a total of $53,000, the Gwich’in had $50,000, Sahtu had $52,000, Dehcho had $51,000, Tlicho had $48,000, Akaitcho had $50,000, and Metis had $46,000. We’ll get that information. Then there was that part of the funding that in previous years we provided to Members on the Northern Leaders’ Forum piece.

Also the government, I know in the past they signed a political accord or protocol agreements between ourselves and Aboriginal governments to sort of form a working relationship. Out of those discussions came, in the case of the Gwich’in, the MOU. I know the Sahtu has the same thing. I’m wondering if there are protocol agreements with the different Aboriginal groups in their regions on how we have discussions with them. Is that over and above this, or is that these dollars we’re talking about used for that type of purpose?

Previous governments used to have in place political accords that were time sensitive, I guess one could say, and could be renewed or avenues selected. Our process has been the northern leaders. We don’t have any additional budgets for protocols. Departments themselves could look at internal resources. For example, the MOUs that are in place have one been decided by the Government of the Northwest Territories of the day and we continue to honour those going forward based on economic activity and that work.

Mr. Chairman, the Government of the Northwest Territories supported the signing of the UN Declaration as an aspirational document. In fact, I understand that the federal government is now considering signing that same document. For ourselves, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we are Aboriginal Affairs within the Government of the Northwest Territories and we ensure departments are following and fulfilling their obligations or informing them of those obligations and then we go to the appropriate department to hold them accountable to those agreements. As the Government of the Northwest Territories we get our legal advice from our Department of Justice.

Again, I was more talking of getting professional or constitutional advice from outside the government so it’s not tainted and you can’t be seen as being a government organization getting a legal opinion of the government department. I know that there was a push on in regard to the caribou issue where the Minister of Environment was trying to get the Minister of Justice to basically give them a legal review in regard to ministerial authority over the question about caribou, and I know that was basically requesting that type of a legal opinion. I’d just like to know if there are any legal documents or documentation that can show that we tried to get another opinion besides the one we got from the Department of Justice.

The caribou question was a reference question and, in fact, the Minister of Justice has that authority to apply and put before the courts a reference question. It was that question and discussions with northern leaders that agreed to pull that back so that we could work out our own solution. I believe I had a commitment that we would work it out at our next regional leaders meeting and, unfortunately, that did not occur. We did finally have a deal worked out in the southern part of the Territory, but there is much more work to

go in and I think as claims get settled that will help us in that area.

Again, for legal advice, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we have hired people who look at all the aspects of the Constitution of our commitments under signed claims of ongoing discussions and, in fact, Aboriginal Affairs plays a role there by providing additional information in what’s being discussed at these tables. So it is inclusive of that and it is a position of the Government of the Northwest Territories. I clearly accept that and I think we all have to do that. Has the Department of Justice had to hire out sometimes? I don’t know. Because of workloads I know on our existing files we’ve had consistent representation from our own folks. That’s my understanding. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. We’re out of time. Any more questions on page 4-11? We’re Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $2.411 million.

Moving along to 4-12, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, corporate management. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the $225,000 that’s given out to the Metis locals, how many Metis locals are there and do we have a list of the Metis locals? I understand there are 24 or 28.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ll provide a list of the Metis locals and the funding that’s been applied. One of the things we have is a condition on the funding that they need to be in good standing with the societies and we’re finding many of the groups have now started signing up and getting their paper back in order. There are 17 in total, but we’ll get the information out on paper.

Is that the 1921 group or the 1957 group?

Well, Mr. Chairman, we have Aklavik; we have Fort Good Hope; we have Fort Norman -- as they call themselves in the documents -- Land Corporation; Fort Providence Metis Council; Fort Resolution; Fort Smith; Hay River; Hay River Aboriginal Metis; Metis Nation Local No. 52; Norman Wells Land Corp.; Yellowknife Metis Council; and then we have the Fort Liard Metis Local that’s working on getting back up to speed; Inuvik Metis Local and the Tsiigehtchic Metis. Then there’s the three that were

last funded. They’re in the process now trying to get back up to speed, and that’s the Hay River and area Metis Nation and the Metis Nation Local No. 64, and that’s Behchoko and the Yellowknife Metis Local No. 66. Thank you.

I’m kidding about 1921 there, but that was the issue in regard to the whole area in regard to the supplementary health funding and everybody questioning the Metis Health Benefits Program. The program is pretty specific in regard to the criteria that we use for people to basically access that program in which there are certain types of criteria and one of them is that you had to show that you were part of the 1921 group in regard to your membership. Again, the Metis locals still have a role to play in the Northwest Territories especially when it comes to Metis health benefits and also in regard to different programs. Again, they will be involved in the land claims and self-government processes going forward so I’d just like to know if that criteria is still being used in regard to how that establishment of those organizations will be under the Societies Act that they will have to have some sort of a membership criteria or basically an enacted date such as 1921.