Thank you. We are moving along to 4-16, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, information item, negotiations, active positions.

Okay. We are moving along to page 4-18, 4-19. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It says under implementation that the GNWT also builds a foundation for mutually respectful government-to-

government relations. Similarly, under negotiations, lay the foundation for retaining political certainty, building mutually respectful intergovernmental relations realizing eventually the GNWT... I don’t see that happening. I refer to our devolution negotiations. I guess I am still wondering how this department is gathering the information as the Minister says on the advice. Obviously they failed, because we have lost our partners. I am still looking for some edification, if you will, something that assures me that this department is on it and going to get our partners to the table and I am going to know how and how much it will cost. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at the work that we have done on regional Aboriginal leadership meetings, when you look at the work done by previous governments around the Intergovernmental Forum, the Aboriginal Summit, those are the areas where we begin to build that foundation. In the life of this government, as I highlighted in my statement, there were 10 meetings we had. I would say that to judge the success of an initiative that is trying to undo decades of what some would say wrongdoing has been passed on from the federal government to past territorial governments in a matter of one stroke of the pen I think is quite a harsh point of view to be taking.

Aside from this issue of the devolution agreement, the AIP, I would say that we are having a much more successful process established and then again I would say the role of specifically Aboriginal Affairs at the tables and with departments to ensure that we are doing our work and ensuring are honouring our commitments. If you look at the language of the agreement-in-principle, incorporated in that throughout the document is the protection of Aboriginal rights, the Constitution and so on. I would say that the proof in the document in itself and that would guide negotiations going forward would be further proof that we have done our work and done it appropriately.

As for the specific issues of losing some of our partners at the table, it is disconcerting being the lead of this and trying to build that support over a number of issues, devolution being just one of those, leaves me to... I guess when you look at the big picture...leads me to wonder what are the actual specifics. Because earlier Mr. Krutko touched on the fact that it is a very complicated process and other Members talked about the fact that their self-government, there is self-government, Aboriginal self-government of the Northwest Territories. There are a number of land claim groups and there are a number of negotiations ongoing for comprehensive approaches that make it a very complex situation. I think it is almost in the areas where there is no over

the movement, there are still negotiations. The concern there is one of... It is a competition: the Government of the Northwest Territories and Aboriginal governments. I have said on quite a number of occasions at those meetings that, in fact, it shouldn’t be seen as a Government of the Northwest Territories competition, because if future discussions on self-government actually were to draw down authorities, we are drawing down now as the Government of the Northwest Territories and those are signed off in future self-governments, that authority would then be transferred again.

I think it has just been very difficult in the sense of decades of what someone say were wrongdoings and it all comes back towards this area. I am hoping that, as I have stated earlier under Executive, as we put a budget in place and hopefully have regional leadership in communities respond to that request, we can then be able to rebuild again. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering, I agree with the Premier’s remarks on the early days, especially the federal government’s role to perhaps realize and certainly fulfill their fiduciary obligations. But I am wondering how does moving forward with this AIP without these key partners being at the table represent any progress whatsoever. This takes me back to the question: how are we going to resurrect this thing? Now that we have taken that decision, which a number of us advised against because it is going to be more difficult after making that decision proving we are just like the federal government.

I think the reflection of this Legislative Assembly shows we’re not just like the federal government. I take a point with drawing that comparison. The fact that if you look at the document and you look at the history and you look at the work done on that document, it had the inclusion of Aboriginal governments. The offer is still on the table for them to be a part of the process going forward. We’ve made every offer and in fact continue to make the offer to try to come to an agreement on moving forward with those that have not signed on. The AIP itself allows for the groups to join on at any point. As I have encouraged that they join on sooner rather than later so they can influence some of the work that’s ongoing.

Clearly from the work and the history of the Northwest Territories, every region I’ve been to, the meetings I’ve been to, the talk has been at some point, aside from the housing issue, the health issue and the education issue, has been we need to get the authority from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories. We’ve made a decision now that begins the work to look at doing that. Ultimately the next Assembly I believe will have to make a final decision as is that work good enough to make a

decision on. We would never get there unless we made this decision.

I think we’re finally starting to get at what I’m interested in. How are we making the offer is what I’m interested in. I’m aware of the Premier’s regional tours. I think that’s a good way to start getting that back on the table. Those are the sorts of things that I’m looking for here. How are we proactively going after getting them to do the signing on and getting back to the table towards that as a step?

As I said, through Executive I would have to come back to this House requesting additional funds through Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations through the regional leaders’ approach continue to use that as one of the tools. The other area is to get as much information out to the public, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, so that as they become more familiar with this they will be able to ask the same questions that are being asked of us to a certain degree and be in a better position to respond in some cases when they’re asked what their position is if their leadership goes to the communities, for example. It is by the initial contact we’ve made, by the commitment following up to work with those who even though they have not signed, to continue to work with them around the AIP to get a better understanding so hopefully they feel that their rights are indeed protected and that this will not take away any of their authorities that are there and established. I mean, I recall one meeting we were at with one of the Aboriginal groups and questions were being made. I made some comments at the table and the question still came up about what is the Government of the Northwest Territories going to do. It was the Deputy Premier who pointed out that you’ve got the Premier of the Northwest Territories making a commitment to you here. I guess I’ve been at the table, I’ve said to the groups that as the Government of the Northwest Territories we are recognizing those rights, Constitution, Section 35, the land claims that are in place, the interim measures pieces that are in place. I think, as well, trying to point out where we are actually working together on things like the Wildlife Act, things like the Water Strategy, those things were there at the table with us. With a pen. It’s something that was never seen in the history of the Northwest Territories. This very discussion about going forward I would say is that not the essence of self-determination where the groups are at the table and they’re going to help design the next steps forward. It’s not one where on high from Ottawa a decision like Edehzhie comes out and says we’re going to change this. Or the regulatory reform work that’s going on right now by the federal government is one where they’re doing the work and, yes they’ll consult by having a couple of meetings and then

they’re going to issue a direction from on high. I say that’s different than the way we do business and the way we’ve proven to do business through the life of this Assembly. Hopefully that continues to be the approach as we go forward. Every Assembly would have to make a decision on that approach.

The one thing, I guess, that in the spirit of going forward and firming up that relationship between Aboriginal governments and the territorial government, was the concept I put on the table last spring in Dettah about the regional leaders’ table being, in a sense, a council of regional leadership and the Government of the Northwest Territories where we would sign an agreement like that of the Council of the Federation where we respect everybody at the table with their rights and authorities and it’s not there to negotiate one way or another. It’s not a negotiation. It’s just recognizing the people at the table. When there are joint initiatives, that’s a very successful approach. We’ve been from that even on our own. Unfortunately, it didn’t get taken up. Everybody got very busy.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on my list is Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to first of all echo the comments of Mr. Bromley. I also am somewhat concerned that we haven’t seen concrete evidence of how we’re going to get the parties back to the table and where the money is going to come from. The Minister has said that he’s coming back with a supp and I guess I would like to know what the funding in this supp is going to be used for. Is it intended only for devolution, which is what I thought I heard earlier, or is some of that money intended to provide for the Aboriginal governments to get back and get involved with us in terms of reaching some kind of consensus?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it would be through Executive that supplementary appropriation would be coming forward. The format and funding would need to be developed before that could come forward. Right now what we do have for concrete examples is the Sahtu, where they brought in leadership and youth from the communities around, we had three of the communities represented in Deline and we sponsored that meeting, in a sense, to bring them together. We’re looking at doing that again in Fort Good Hope with all of the communities and regions.

Part of the thing we need to look at is that format. Is it just going to be a meeting for a meeting’s sake or are we actually... My intent, and I hope the intent of the government, is by providing these funds it would be going through the AIP for better clarity and then a decision to either decide to move forward or not. At some point we’ll have to start our work on developing mandates and so on and the

groups will have to decide if it’s time for them to come in or not. It’s not going to be without trying that we will provide time and resources to go through the agreement-in-principle to get better understanding of it and reaffirm our commitment that we’re not going to take away from Aboriginal rights through this process.

I guess I’ll just have to wait and see what comes forward later on down the line. I did want to express my concern and I express it again.

I’m going to change tack a bit here. One of the concerns I think that’s been expressed by this department in terms of implementation of self-government agreements for the tables that they are currently negotiating and that also may be finished, one of the concerns that I have heard expressed is the underfunding by the federal government for implementation. I’d like to hear from the Minister or the department whether or not that’s still a concern and I guess some kind of an explanation as to the effect that underfunding by Canada is going to have on GNWT resources. Another part of that is whether or not they think there’s any solution to this problem.

I guess this is where I can say maybe some of our diligent work has caused concern amongst the groups that they’re looking at the agreement-in-principle and that the net fiscal benefit portion on resource revenue sharing is a way of making up the gap that we’ve identified. It was through this department that we looked at all the negotiations that are going around in the Northwest Territories, the items of discussion at those tables and we did a, it was, I would say, a conservative figure about the shortfall that we would be seeing if there was not enough funding put in place and what we were starting to hear from federal negotiators about the level of funding. The initial work that we did, we identified a gap in the neighbourhood of $40 million. If every agreement was to be signed off and to be implemented, we identified approximately $40 million short. Since that work that was done and the negotiations of ongoing in a number of areas we feel that number is probably closer to $50 million where there’s a gap. As I’ve heard from some of the staff of the Aboriginal governments and some of the representatives of Aboriginal governments, that they realize that and they want to make up the shortfall. Our issue has always been that’s a federal government policy. They need to fund it. The fact that a hand went out and identified 25 percent in the previous government was, I believe, a way of trying to allow for the capacity of the groups to take on some of these programs and services. But it is in no means an avenue for financing self-government. I think it would even be dangerous for us to identify a funding source from resource revenues as a stable way of going forward. It would be very difficult.

Thanks to the Minister. I appreciate the comments and I would like to say that I appreciate the work that the department has done to raise this issue and to identify the shortfall, but I have to go back to my question.

When push comes to shove, if these agreements are signed off and we know there is a shortfall, what is the effect that has and is the federal government expecting the GNWT is simply going to make up this shortfall? If that’s the case, what can we do about it? That is kind of where I was asking about whether or not there’s any solution. Do we have the right, do we have the opportunity to say thank you but no thank you, we can’t take this on?

In fact I think that’s the gist of the work that we did was to identify the shortfall that was there, we feel is there. I think the example that we would look to, and as much as Premier Fentie of the Yukon might disagree with me, I would say when you look at that agreement it’s a great agreement but it’s unimplementable. They’ve implemented some areas but not all. If you talk to the Tlicho Government they are in the process where they haven’t drawn any authorities down. They have their governing structure and they’re realizing the cost of doing that. They’re not drawing that down. I think in fact, as the Member has stated, they are exercising their right not to draw down that authority because they realize that there’s going to be a financial implication for us or for them as well as we go forward. Hence, I guess, for ourselves as the Government of the Northwest Territories why we say self-government financing is not a part of this agreement-in-principle and it shouldn’t be considered to be a part of it. That is a bigger picture where we should be working together and our work was based on that where we would work together with Aboriginal groups, go the federal government, and ensure that the federal government was honouring their commitment around their inherent right policy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just following up from Mr. Bromley’s questions, I know that I heard the Premier saying that I don’t think he could probably find too many people that wouldn’t suggest that we want devolution or want to take over more power of responsibilities from the federal government, but I think also the question is at what cost. I think that by approaching it the way we did, where we basically had a minority of people signing on and a majority of the Mackenzie Valley being left out, I think that is the issue in regard to how do we include those Aboriginal groups. I think that could have been avoided by allowing them full participation in those negotiations and from the information in regard to the United Nations Declaration or even the land claim agreements,

under definition the consultation is clearly spelled out. It’s got to be more than just meaningful, but you have to allow them the opportunity to review what’s being presented to them and also the opportunity to bring back their points of view and then from there continue to negotiate or work those issues into the table. From what we’ve seen, and again, I think that that’s the part that’s missing, are people, I mean, our interpretation of consultation is totally different than what’s spelled out in the different land claim agreements. Again, in land claim agreements it is clearly stipulated that those groups shall be involved in the development and implementation of the Northern Accord or, as we call it, the devolution process.

Again, I keep going back to my days in the Dene/Metis claim. We were negotiating with the federal government to negotiate participation agreements like those that are in the Inuvialuit Agreement and the NTI Agreement into the Dene/Metis claim. At that time the federal government was basically reluctant to do that, but they made it specifically clear and even in regard to the agreement that was signed in 1988 when Brian Mulroney was up here signing it, he also stipulated Rae-Edzo when they signed the Dene/Metis agreement-in-principle that you will be involved in the devolution or the Northern Accord process for the transfer of oil and gas and resource responsibilities to the Northwest Territories, and clearly stipulated loud and clear for the public to hear that. I was there.

But the way this process was handled and basically not having the majority of the members involved at the table negotiating those elements, and now we got an agreement that you’re trying to get people to sign on to, which basically has had issues with the principles that you signed off on and leaving other obligations. I’m glad that they had the Dene leadership meeting last week, because the information was provided in regard to the fiscal arrangements and looking at the overall Norman Wells and other issues in regard to transfer of positions. Those issues were broadcast live in the Northwest Territories where the public had an opportunity to hear them and those are the issues that are outstanding from the Aboriginal perspective.

Again, I think that for us to say that, well, everybody wanted devolution so we agreed to sign off with a minority and not realizing that you didn’t. Even as legislators, from the last presentation we got from the department, we were totally convinced that you were going to get the majority of the Aboriginal groups on side and you weren’t going to sign until that happened. But in this case it didn’t happen. I think that is the issue that’s still out there, is how can you sign an agreement with a minority and not a majority and say that you have support for that agreement.

Again, there are only two treaties in the Northwest Territories, Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, which are constitutionally protected, which recognize their rights in regard to lands and resources, and the Dene-Metis, clearly the Dene-Metis will receive royalties and resources throughout the Mackenzie Valley. It’s stipulated right in those agreements. It’s stipulated right in the treaties. The same with Norman Wells. Norman Wells, it’s stipulated in the land claim agreements which clearly identify that Norman Wells has to be part and parcel of these agreements. But again, under the subsurface resources section of our land claim agreements, those elements were supposed to be part and parcel of the devolution agreement. Again, it’s the how can we get some clarity on exactly how do we move forward on this knowing that the only options that the groups have moving forward is you have to sign the flawed agreement that you can’t agree to the principles, but yet in order to move on this you have to sign off on something that you know needs some revisions.

Again, I’d just like to ask the Minister exactly where are we in regard to finding a way of including those groups in regard to the implementation of those land claim agreements, those provisions of those agreements, regardless if it’s Section 21 in regard to the surface rights, revision of the Gwich’in Agreement or Section 23, the Tlicho Agreement, or even in regard to the Dene/Metis agreement-in-principle that was signed in 1988 between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, because I believe that those elements make it perfectly clear that Dene-Metis had to be included in the process right up to the negotiation of any agreement-in-principle and not to be brought into a minority situation where you have a minority signing agreement that’s going to have major implications to the majority of Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories, which is the Dene people.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Member is reverting back to his previous position as a negotiator on file, and, I mean, I respect the Member’s right to voice his concerns and advocate for the groups. I must say that we all represent communities and we’re elected to a public government and everyone in our communities. None of us are elected by one group specific, although, yes, there are significant people within our communities of one Aboriginal group or another.

Let’s go down the list, Mr. Chair. Norman Wells: two-thirds of that is under royalty regime. The groups that have signed the land claims agreements and the Tlicho self-government share in resource royalties from that two-thirds. In fact,

the Gwich’in share from the development of the diamond mines, so that goal has been met in that sense. In fact, I believe the Dehcho and part of the interim measures approach actually are qualifying right now for a flow of the resource royalties. Akaitcho and Northwest Territories Metis don’t share in that because in their framework as they have it does not permit for that. In a sense, as the Member has quoted that they shall benefit, well, they are benefitting from the royalty regime in place and, in fact, by this agreement would benefit an additional amount when we negotiate bilateral agreements.

In fact, the Member quotes a couple of sections in agreements. Well, let me quote one: “nothing in this agreement shall prejudice the devolution or transfer of responsibility or powers from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories.” That language is written in the Tlicho Agreement, 2.4.1, the Gwich’in Agreement, 3.1.10, and the Sahtu Agreement, 3.1.9. The Inuvialuit Agreement carries a similar provision of 20.(1). Devolution was considered in all of those discussions where we have settled claims and is considered in future discussions as well. But short from negotiating out our own interpretations of things here, what we’ve tried to do in all of this and the role of Aboriginal Affairs in this process is to ensure that we are honouring the land claims agreements, and I believe we have done that. We continue to inform departments of the need of following the consultation framework that we’ve put in place and, in fact, the Department of Justice, as I spoke earlier, is taking that over and will be carrying that workload as we go forward.

It is, I know, a sensitive area and it is fraught with complexities and opinions on what was done or not done. Clearly, as the Government of the Northwest Territories side, we have, I believe, honoured the commitments as we go forward. In fact, in the language of shall be involved, well, in fact, to help write the agreement-in-principle by most parts as we went forward. In fact, there is a seat at the table going forward if they choose to do so. The ability to consult, in fact, if it’s declined, it’s declined because they choose to decline not because they have been overlooked or omitted by a process by the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Premier Roland. We are on page 4-19, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Krutko.