Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The one thing we’ve made clear in this process with the agreement-in-principle is that we have no interest in taking on the federal fiduciary responsibility in that relationship between the federal government and the Aboriginal governments and First Nations. That remains intact. In fact, with discussions, we know Canada has made the offers to groups that have not settled and that these will not be affected as we go forward.

So again, the language in this AIP is very direct in ensuring that it does not take away from the processes that are underway. As I stated, there is a clause in here that says if the federal government was to make an agreement with an Aboriginal government for a larger piece of ownership than has already been identified, they have the right to come back in and remove some of that Crown land or public land at that point. We have worked hard to try to ensure that the processes that are in place are protected.

I’d like to thank the Premier for that explanation. I believe that people in my riding have been asking me for more explanation for the AIP. I’m not government. I’m not there to explain what Cabinet has done in moving forward with the AIP. They’re asking for a communication strategy. I’ve heard it in the House here earlier on. What exactly is the communication strategy and will it include our government going to the communities and explaining this agreement-in-principle?

As I’d mentioned earlier, there’s a number of things we’re doing with communications. One, first and foremost today, is tabling the signed agreement-in-principle. Secondly, working on the householder, which will go into all homes across the Northwest Territories, a plain language version of the agreement-in-principle. And probably more importantly and sooner to that plain language document, is through the Aboriginal languages be able to speak to the key points of the agreement-in-principle. Also more importantly, I talked about letters to go out hopefully before the end of the day, or as we wrap up here I’ll be up in my office signing those letters to the leaders to look at which way they want to move forward. Is it at a regional basis with the chiefs, all the chiefs of the region, or is it pull all the groups together with their chiefs, or is it to go into communities? We’re open to a number of scenarios that may be available to us.

When I travel to my communities, people are happy to see me in their homes. They don’t like writing. They don’t like e-mails. They prefer sitting down with me eye to eye, discussing the issues that are important to them. This is the same approach they’re taking for something significant as the AIP and devolution for the Northwest Territories. They do want to see the Premier and/or someone from our government in the communities explaining and going through the agreement-in-principle so that they can understand it. Will the Premier commit to including visiting all the communities in that communication strategy?

As I said, we will work with the regional leaders and the chiefs to discuss how we would get through this, besides the householder, besides the radio, reaching out through the radio in Aboriginal languages, and

looking at whether it’s us going into regions or sending a team into the communities. If there are invites, we would be prepared to look at that as well.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. From my point of view and the point of view of my communities is that they do want to see the agreement-in-principle devolution team in the communities explaining it to them, sitting at the table. I would once again ask the Premier to include that in the communication strategy, even if they’re going to deal with the regional governments anyway. I believe they must also go to the communities. Can the Premier and his team do that?

As we correspond with the regional leaders and the chiefs in the communities, the elected leadership, we will have that as one of the options. Again, if the regional leaders bring their chiefs and they feel satisfied that’s the approach, we would work with them. If there’s a request to go in, we would take that into serious consideration of being able to go into the communities.

One of the things that we need to do as we prepare to do this, there’s the first version of this is what the AIP is and what it says. Secondly, is our process going forward, and we will need much more time on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite clearly, it depends on what cap is being discussed. The AIP does not include a cap that ties territorial formula financing to the AIP. That cap that some spoke about is, in fact, a national program. Provinces and territories, the three territories, we hit a cap that’s designed to meet the implementation of an equalization program across Canada. So that is not hinged on the agreement-in-principle. That is a financial issue that’s been dealt with by every province and territory dealing with Canada. So, number one, there is no negotiation on that in the sense of the AIP. Secondly, the resource revenue sharing that would be a net fiscal benefit to the North, the AIP sets out a process where we will have bilateral discussions with Aboriginal groups in that sharing of that net fiscal benefit.

More importantly, the reference to the Northern Accord, the Northern Accord is appended to a number of the agreements, but let’s be frank about that in the sense that it was initialled but was never voted on and endorsed. So we respect that and, in fact, the groups have been involved. They have received resources to be a part of that process and will continue if they sign on. The issue is, going forward, if they’re to tap into the resources available, they’ll need to sign on and work out an agreement with the federal government to have that money start to flow to them. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, again, the Aboriginal groups clearly and specifically stated that being involved is one thing, but fully participating is another. I think that is the issue that’s at hand here.

In regard to the Gwich’in Tribal Council who submitted a letter to the Premier in April last year on six items, which basically they had a problem with the devolution process, to date they have not even had a response to that letter that was sent to the Premier. Yet he asked for Aboriginal people to have input into the process.

I’d like to ask the Premier exactly what extent of involvement will the Aboriginal groups have in exactly re-looking at this arrangement, seeing exactly does it meet the criteria. I think the other issue they have is in regard to the whole area of the base transfer. What are they going to do in the future if they decide to decentralize these positions from Yellowknife to other regions? Has that been taken into consideration? Also, in regard to the potential indexing and also are these fixed funds? Also, I think that we have to be realistic. The

numbers, we were looking at a number years ago, it was $83 million. Now we’re basically agreeing to $63 million. What I’d like to know is how they are going to be involved in those decision-making processes.

Earlier as well, the Member mentioned Norman Wells as the one-third ownership the federal government has, and they call it equity as their ownership piece. The two-thirds that are there do provide royalties to the Aboriginal groups and to the Government of Canada. So two-thirds of that asset is already paying royalties. The issue is on the one-third ownership of the federal government.

Let’s do some history here. The Sahtu and the Gwich’in took the federal government to court based on that being a royalty. In fact, we, as the GNWT of the day, we’re quite supportive of that initiative. The unfortunate reality that happened in the case, and was considered as a good fortune at the time, was the signing of settlement between the Aboriginal groups and Canada. And that has then closed that door. We have consistently, as the GNWT through previous governments and even at the start of this process in this government, looked to having that brought forward if not purely on a royalty basis.

I spoke to the Prime Minister, who was looking at the revenues that come from that and reinvesting in the North in key projects. So we continue to put those forward, and the best way of coming to the table is sign the agreement, be a part of that team that helps influence the future decisions and direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other area of concern was the impact of devolution from the GNWT taking on these powers, and more importantly, the affect on Aboriginal government and Aboriginal authorities, regardless if it’s land claims or unsettled or settled areas. I know that I heard comments on the radio from a legal counsel for the government, that this agreement will not affect the land claim agreements. This agreement is all about the land claim agreements, so I prefer to differ on that one. I’d like to know from the Premier exactly have we looked at the impacts on this agreement on Aboriginal governments and the land claim agreements.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement-in-principle has the fingerprints and handprints of the Aboriginal organizations and governments across the Northwest Territories. From the earliest days up until we picked this up and concluded a number of the bilateral issues, even to the point when this document was signed and sent to them, they started to look at what was presented. As the negotiators said, they reached their mandate. They’ve got their handprints and that’s why there’s language in here that talks about

protection of Aboriginal rights and interest in the Northwest Territories. We’ve incorporated that language. Again I say, by going forward, as they participate and join on, we can include that language and continue that involvement in helping us frame the right language as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Premier if he would refer this question to the Minister of Justice and have the Department of Justice look at the constitutional viability of this agreement and the affect it has on Aboriginal treaty rights in the Northwest Territories.

As the Member knows, when Cabinet and government looks at taking a position on things, we involve many departments from the earliest days to make sure the language we have in before signing any document meets the criteria that’s set before us as the Government of the Northwest Territories in honouring our commitments that are made. That’s why the language, as it’s put in, is quite clear. Now, it’s written in here, the ink is dried in the sense of those commitments to protect the Aboriginal rights and the recognition of Section 35, but if that isn’t good enough for some, nothing will be good enough for some in the sense, because it is there. We get to set the mandates, and if they come in the tent and sign on, they get to help us with some of that work as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.

On February 11, 2010, the Minister announced the first increase to the NWT’s minimum wage since 2003. I was thrilled to hear that announcement and I’m sure many of our residents were as well. In the Minister’s statement that day he said that on April 1, 2010, the rate would increase to $9 an hour. So my question to the Minister: since then, since April 1, 2010, has the department done any evaluation of the impact of this increase in our minimum wage? How have businesses responded? How have workers and their unions responded? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Since we introduced the minimum wage increase we have had a deliberation with the

potential business partners and also the communities. As we legislated in the House, April 1, 2010, $9 and then April 1, 2011, to $10, those are discussions that we had. There were a lot of positive reactions on these initiatives. We haven’t heard much on the negative side of the minimum wage increase, but we heard some business sectors in Yellowknife and surrounding communities that had some nominal impacts where they had to hire certain individuals on those wages. But those are the areas that we continually monitor within my department. We will continue to work with the Members to inform them of what is happening with our minimum wage increase. Mahsi.