This is page numbers 6813 - 6848 of the Hansard for the 16th Assembly, 6th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was work.

Topics

Wendy Bisaro

Wendy Bisaro Frame Lake

No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

The Chair

The Chair David Krutko

Next I have Mrs. Groenewegen.

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I primarily want to speak to the issue of the shuffling of the funds between the health authorities. I’m sure there are explanations for why these things happen. Let me throw out a couple of examples.

Perhaps a community or health authority doesn’t have any doctors on staff, so maybe Stanton is sending out locums or physicians and that’s showing up on their budget and not on that other health authority’s budget. I’m sure there are some large ticket items which would explain some of this. I have a concern with it if we are not able to provide that kind of information in some level of detail. I’m not talking about every dollar that’s spent, but in large categories how we end up with such a large deficit in one health authority and such large surpluses in another.

Another thing that concerns me is, I mean, Hay River Health Authority ended up with a surplus and we can’t get, you know, $50,000, $60,000 to run a disabled person handy van in Hay River. There are really simple community-based issues and needs and services and programs that are needed that we can’t get any money for, I assume because it wasn’t budgeted for, and yet we end up handing off a surplus of multiple millions of dollars back to the Stanton Hospital and, I guess, to the Beau-Del as well. I’m sure there’s reasonable explanation, but I don’t find the government or the department going out of their way to try and explain that or rationalize that in any kind of way. These are large dollar amounts.

The other thing I’m concerned about is when a health authority operates with an unexplained surplus, it could be vacancies, it could be whatever contributes to that surplus, my concern then is in the next year’s budgeting process that that previous year’s budget becomes the benchmark for what they need to operate in the following fiscal year. That kind of worries me, too, because it could be something extraordinary that caused that surplus for that one year.

I think that the reporting needs to be, well, needs to rationalize the need for this kind of millions of dollars shuffling around between health authorities in the form of a supplementary appropriation. I’d like the Minister’s comments on that.

The Chair

The Chair Bob Bromley

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Next on the list is Mr. Krutko.

---Interjection

The Chair

The Chair Bob Bromley

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. We have been accumulating general comments, but do you want that answered right away by the Minister?

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Oh, okay. I don’t want to argue with the Chair. I would like him to answer it, yes.

The Chair

The Chair Bob Bromley

Very well. Mr. Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of the financing of the boards and the dealing with surpluses has been an issue for some time. In order to respond to that in a planned, rational way, there was a change made to how surpluses, defining what a surplus is and how it can be accumulated, so that the rules have been clarified and put in place so that the new Surplus Retention Policy is going to be 1 percent of the revenues up to a maximum of $250,000. As well, we will provide committee members with the information. The work that was done on the budgets of the boards are all based on the audits that are done yearly out of the health boards that document and lay out in some detail the expenditures and where there are cost overruns or not or where there are surpluses. We will share that information with the Members.

As well, I would point out, of course, that health and social services is and will continue to be the single biggest budget item in our budget and the single biggest user of supplementary appropriations all for good reasons, the majority of which is the money will flow to the communities to provide for costs like southern travel, southern placements, and other unexpected costs. I appreciate the concern from all the boards that they wanted some certainty and a clear policy, and we believe we’ve achieved that now. This is a one-time adjustment. From here on in, we should avoid those circumstances as over time there were deficits or surpluses accumulated as they have been in the past. Thank you.

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

I think I’ll just let it go at that. There’s probably a forum in which these kinds of issues can be raised. Another concern I have -- and the Minister doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to -- it seems like this is a bit of a strain here. The Minister is not looking up. He didn’t make eye contact with me once during this entire exchange, while I was speaking or while he was answering. So I’m not sure how meaningful this exchange is here today, but maybe I’ll save my comments for a different forum. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Bob Bromley

Thank you. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are with regard to the executive operations of $2.2 million and the devolution process. I’m not really clear how to read it. It says to support transition and

implementation. Usually implementation takes place after you have a final agreement. How can you be implementing something that you are still negotiating?

The other aspect of the resources is to provide Aboriginal participation in negotiations. Again, we are leaving out a large portion of our population on the Aboriginal participation in this process, as we all know. We have some 4,500 individuals being represented by two groups, yet that leaves out over 18,000 First Nations people, mostly the Dene people of the Mackenzie Valley, from this process.

What are you doing to include those groups or have side table negotiations to find a way to work around the problem we are facing regarding the bypass? We need to ensure we have a side table to ensure we resolve these outstanding issues and get all parties to the table through the negotiations for the Devolution Agreement, so we have an agreement that’s good to all people in the Northwest Territories and not just a minority of people being represented at this time. What are we doing? How is that $2.2 million going to be expended, and are there monies allocated for that purpose? Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make some brief comments with regard to the implementation piece and then I’ll turn the answers on the other issues over to the Premier, who has the file on this.

There was an extensive study done after the Yukon devolution process was completed and a debrief and review to see what lessons could be learned. One of the main lessons learned and documented extensively is there’s a need to have the negotiation process and implementation process start almost simultaneously because of the time and the complexity of the issues and the need to move those processes, so when there’s a negotiated agreement in place, following very shortly on that would be an implementation plan without another two- or three-year delay to negotiate the implementation after the negotiations. So it was a hard lesson learned through the Yukon process, Mr. Chair.

With your permission, I’d ask the Premier to answer further on the questions Mr. Krutko presented. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We’ll now go to Premier Roland.

Floyd Roland

Floyd Roland Inuvik Boot Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second part of the question is the approach we are using to stay engaged with all the Aboriginal groups throughout the territory. We’ve done a number of things. One, first and foremost, is the door remains open, and the funds we are requesting, these are prorated amounts for the

remainder of this fiscal year. The future year includes an amount that would incorporate a full year’s approach and contributions for Aboriginal groups. That we budgeted to have all Aboriginal groups take part if they decide to sign on to the AIP. That’s the first door and avenue of being at the table to begin and do the negotiations.

We are hopeful that as we continue to have discussions and as the new government comes back, they will continue to keep that door open to groups. I know they’ve had a number of discussions. I’ve seen the discussions that have happened at the assemblies as well as being at the assemblies myself, a number of them throughout the summer. We continue to urge them coming to the table and being participants.

So the budget has been built so they could be at the table. The federal budget, as well, has the resources that are attached to those who decide to sign and join the process. Further to that, we continue to engage all groups through our correspondence and, like the assemblies that I was able to attend, to inform them of all the progress that is happening and the plans for the work and, again, continue to invite them to the table. So those are there. The money I asked for through this process is to deal with the existing process we have in place. There are no funds for additional processes out there. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Premier Roland. Mr. Krutko.

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

That is my concern, is that we don’t seem to have the resources or the capacity to assist these people to get them to the table. We have money there to pay people that have signed on. I think it was $170,000, yet we are asking for $2.2 million. So there’s a small portion there for that consultative process, but what is there to find ways of working around the challenges we are facing? I thought we were going to be close in this process.

There was a bilateral arrangement back in December. Everybody met in Edmonton after Christmas. We came back to Yellowknife to get together and then basically the whole process collapsed around it. There were efforts being made to get parties together and get them to some sort of an arrangement, but we never allowed the process to see the light of day. I think we, as government, still have an obligation to ensure we hear people out on this process, good, bad or indifferent. We need to at least have the resources there to have that take place. This is a critical building block of the northern environment going forward. If you don’t have this, you are going to be on a rough road going forward with regard to relationships government to government to government.

It seems like the relationships we have is just with two interest groups. There are five groups still not there. I represent one of these groups and I feel

that we have been unjustly chucked out of the room simply because we don’t have an agreeing of the minds where people are coming from or taking the time to understand it.

So out of the $2.2 million, how much has been set aside to find an avenue to bring those people together with regard to the approval of the $2.2 million budget?

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Once again, I’ll offer one fact here and then I’ll turn it over to the Premier. I’d point out that in supp one there was a number of dollars put aside for Aboriginal government participation and engagement, which was $1,266,025 in addition to further money that’s in this particular supplementary appropriation request.

Once again I’ll ask the Premier if he wants to elaborate or respond further to Mr. Krutko’s questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Premier Roland.

Floyd Roland

Floyd Roland Inuvik Boot Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, for the record, I have to say this for the record -- and Mr. Miltenberger touched on it a bit -- supp one had some dollars identified for participation in preparation of the AIP. The Department of Executive also used internal funds to support the work leading up to the protocol that was discussed by the Member. We worked that right through until late January where we brought all the leadership in and provided meeting space and tried to come to a conclusion on that protocol. Unfortunately, the protocol was another negotiation tool, not a protocol on how we work together. It basically stated that we would not sign an agreement-in-principle on devolution unless we negotiated a government-to-government relationship and revenue sharing structure, which is included in the AIP which is to be negotiated. So, in a sense, it was don’t sign the AIP but sign this protocol which deals with the subject matters that were being discussed in that protocol.

That aside, we agreed and told all the organizations to come with their budgets and the money they’ve expended towards that protocol work and we would look at helping them offset those costs. That, as I said in this Assembly, remains open and we continue to look at that.

Aside from what’s being asked to deal with the negotiation process in preparation for implementation, as well, as stated earlier, over the years the majority of groups, aside from one group that did not take any funds in this and that was the Dehcho. All other regions tapped into over $8 million in preparations and actual AIP development, agreement-in-principle development, the devolution

package. The groups were involved and that helped build and strengthen the agreement-in-principle.

Secondly, the door remains open for the groups to come to the table and be full participants. It’s of their choice and we continue to urge that to happen, and that way they’ll be able to tap into the resources that are available to them. This amount, as I stated earlier, does not have a portion to have a side discussion. That would have to be dealt with through a different process and budget request. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Premier Roland. Any more general comments? Mr. Krutko.

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that’s the whole problem with these dollars that we’re being asked to approve here, because it does not really deal with the problem at hand, and more importantly, it does not basically justify spending this type of money on a process that, as you know, is flawed. When you have a flawed negotiated process, you’re going to have a flawed result.

I think that we have to realize that as important items such as devolution of the Northwest Territories that we as legislators, as government, have an obligation, regardless if it’s through a constitutional obligation or as a moral obligation, to ensure that all parties that are affected… We’re hearing in the Wildlife Act there are certain groups out there saying they weren’t consulted. We’re hearing it here again today. These groups have a legal obligation to be at that table. They have a moral obligation to be involved in the drafting of the Northern Accord.

I was involved in 1988 when we negotiated the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle, signed it off. The same day the federal Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, signed an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories that morning. That afternoon he signed the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle because the two agreements were combined to ensure that we’d have that ability to negotiate those agreements.

The Inuvialuit, they got it made. They got a participation agreement in their land claim agreements. The Dene groups do not have that in the process and we were told the only way you’re going to get that is through a devolution or Northern Accord agreement negotiating those elements into those agreements to make them basically have the same standing as the Inuvialuit have by way of participation agreements. The same with NTI. That is why it’s so critical that the Dene people be involved in this process and not be stepped on the sidelines and have a group who already have something that’s negotiated on their behalf on lands that they own and not be at the table.

I mean, for me this is a political hot potato that’s going to blow up not only with this government but

the next government, and this is the legacy that this government wants to leave. For me, this is definitely a legacy that’s going to be tarred to this 16th Assembly going forward.

I think it’s critical that you do re-profile these dollars to find a mechanism that you can either send it to a dispute system or have an arbitrator or have someone basically formulate a mechanism that you have side room discussions with these groups. But simply ignoring them and saying, well, you have one choice, you sign this bad agreement, you come to the table and we’ll give you $170,000. Sure, that sounds like a great idea, but I don’t think people are going to sell their rights for the sake of $170,000 where they know they have the legal right to basically have this thing overturned in future years either through the court process or by not having the final agreement that you’re trying to sign off and none of those parties at the table. There’s no damn way you’re going to sign a final agreement without having those parties at the table. It’s either you deal with it now or you basically forget about going forward.

I think by the approach that you’re taking, by the hardhat approach of trying to ram this thing through for the sake of two Aboriginal groups and forgetting that there’s seven and leaving the other five groups on the sidelines who have more rights by way of legal rights through Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, to basically do what you’re doing by way of taking or arbitrating a process that basically you know is flawed.

Again, I’d like to ask, out of the two-point-something million dollars, can any of those dollars be reallocated to allow for side table negotiations to take place during the duration of these expenditures being funded? You’re still dealing with the same aspect, but you’re looking at it by trying to get the parties to the table and also by saving face in this process. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Glen Abernethy

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. It seems that we’re talking about detail on a specific point. I will let it go and I will go to Premier Roland to answer Mr. Krutko’s question, but I will ask that we consider focusing in on detail after this. Mr. Roland.

Floyd Roland

Floyd Roland Inuvik Boot Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The process used incorporated Aboriginal groups across the Northwest Territories, all Aboriginal groups. We have fulfilled our obligations under claims. We have provided funds. They have been at the table. In fact, the agreement-in-principle, as it sits, has the handprint of Aboriginal groups on it, the majority of Aboriginal groups.

Now, Mr. Krutko has pointed out there are two Aboriginal groups that have signed this. One group has a settled claim and one group doesn’t have a settled claim. So there are differences there

between that, but they both saw fit to decide to move forward, because when you look at this agreement compared to anything else across this country, it is by far one of the best agreements and I think will be a landmark process for future discussions of Aboriginal groups across the country.

Aside from that, the door remains open. This funding, the budget that’s been developed here has looked very closely at the Yukon process of what was required and learning from them about their negotiations process, preparations for negotiations. Much of the dollars identified here also come out from the obligations of the AIP itself in preparation for negotiations. The only people being left on the sideline -- and I wish there would be none -- is made by a choice of their own. The door remains open, the invite is there, the dollars are waiting to be flowed and this would add to that as we go forward. The door remains open and we would rather have everybody in the tent working together on this just like we did through the majority of the process in development of the AIP.

This money identified here has been built on our preparation and obligations under the AIP for negotiations looking forward, and as I stated, the future years’ budget is built on that same principle. Thank you.