The funding we’re asking for incorporates all groups being involved. It’s their choice to come to the table. The invite is there to become part of the process we have built into the budget looking at all groups being part of this discussion.

Earlier the question was about a side table reprofiling dollars for a different process. We don’t have dollars identified for a different process. This budget amount has been built on the AIP in preparation for negotiations and getting ready for that, as well as incorporation of contributions that would go to Aboriginal governments for their role as we go forward. The sooner they come to the table and sign up, the sooner they are able to tap into the funds that help them do that work as we progress for this work. This amount does include every region and if they decide to come to the table, it’s there. If they don’t, we’ll have to look at year end how the government used those additional resources if groups did not sign up. That would be up to it. We built this on participation of all the groups in the Northwest Territories and we continue to do that and hope that they will come to the table. The funds will be there for them to be full participants and our invite is there.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Time is up. Committee? Detail?

Detail begins on page 3. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have similar concerns about how we are ensuring that opportunities continue to be explored and we’re active on working towards a collaborative relationship that will actually bring all our Aboriginal partners to the table. I’ve spoken out on this repeatedly through the lead-up to the signing of the AIP and during the signing. I appreciate the Premier’s comments that we perhaps have met the legal requirements, but there are moral and political responsibilities that demand that this government include a focus on continuing collaboration and a focused outreach to continue the discussion with those not at the table as partners yet to bring them into the fold. Be it this funding or additional, I think it needs to be more than here’s the deal, sign on whenever you want. We need a collaborative approach. We need to develop this relationship of trust, and that sort of stance will not advance us in that direction.

The second aspect that I’d like to ask the Minister about is does this amount include funding of a comprehensive public process to define a made-in-the-North land and resource management regime that we would like to negotiate or work towards in the negotiations towards a final agreement?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money that is laid out is to do two things: look on the implementation side, which is actual transferring of the infrastructure, the resources, human and otherwise. There’s going to be a significant amount of work in terms of the requirements to meet all policy and legal obligations in our legislation. The broader work, some of which has already started, I would suggest with things like the Water Strategy, in some areas has yet to be completed. The management regime is currently under review by the federal government. They’ve agreed not to have any major changes pending the outcome of the devolution talks. We’ve had a lot of discussion on that particular issue as well.

I’ll let the Premier respond further, but there is that work that is over and above what is being requested here today. I’ll ask the Premier if he would like to elaborate.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Mr. Bromley.

I have indeed brought this up a number of times. The Minister and Premier had indicated he would respond, and then retracted that. I would say I will not be able to support this unless that’s there. The Premier insists on putting the cart before the horse and calling it otherwise. We cannot negotiate for what we want unless we know what we want. The public needs to be a participant in defining what we’re negotiating for. I obviously feel very strongly about this, as do others. We need to have public participation, and again we have a record of going behind the scenes and

refusing public involvement in this sort of thing. I will not be supporting this on that basis.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. More of a comment. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the line item that says “to provide funding for Aboriginal participation in negotiations,” can we get a breakdown of what that funding is and what exactly it is used for?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger. Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We’ll go to Mr. Kalgutkar.

I also ask exactly what can those dollars be used for. Is it simply travel, preparation, legal costs, whatever?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The budget that’s being allocated for them is to help them in preparation for the negotiations and being involved in the direct negotiations that they would be included in. For example, the bilaterals or the overall preparation for main table discussions.

Can we get an idea of how many dollars have been allocated since the signing of the agreement-in-principle with these groups and what the terms of these dollars are? Is it up to December 31st or is it on an as needed basis?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money that’s before us is to carry us to March 31st . The additional information that the

Member has asked for, the more detailed information, we’ll commit to get that to the Member, to this committee.

Again I do have concerns with the words “implementation activities related to the devolution.” Usually you do the implementation after you have a final agreement so that you know what the final elements are of the agreement and then you do the implementation. I find it kind of odd that we’re funding an implementation of an agreement that isn’t final.

I’d like to know how much of these dollars are going to be expended for implementation. How much staff are we talking about to implement something that’s not final? Especially when we’re kind of tight in regard to the cash flow of this government and looking at the deficit situation we’re probably looking at in the 17th Assembly, I think there are

better ways to spend this money than having to set something up that doesn’t really have an opportunity to do deal with it. Can I get a breakdown of what the implementation portion of these costs are and how many people we are talking about here?

We’ll commit to get that for committee.

Again, if we’re not able to get that information immediately, I suggest that we postpone this section of this bill and deal with it once we get the information from the Minister. Because I think to make a decision on spending $2.2 million, we should know exactly how it’s going to be expended and if we’re spending money on something that’s not going to take effect until future years, I think we have a real problem. Spending money on implementation of an agreement that is not even close to being finalized. More importantly, if you implement agreements after you have an agreement. It’s kind of odd we’re spending money on people and resources for something that’s not going to see the life of this government and more importantly having to hire people and yet we’re going to be laying people off in the next while.