I guess I’m wondering if it is possible for the AIP to go into a devolution agreement without the participation of this group that I refer to, the two groups of the Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 people that are treaty Indians under the Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 within the Northwest Territories. I guess specifically I’m looking at the resource revenue sharing. On the resource revenue sharing, if you took all of the land quantums in the Northwest Territories, then all of it with the exception of the piece that’s near the Beaufort-Delta is land that has been either negotiated or under negotiation. I recognize that there are lands within the treaties, or not the treaties but land claims. In Gwich’in they settled their land claims and so did the Sahtu, Tlicho. Dehcho and Akaitcho are not settled. If you add all of those five areas up it essentially covers the whole Northwest Territories except for, like I said, the area that is claimed by the Inuvialuit. I’m wondering how we could get beyond or even to an AIP stage without the

participation of all of the landowners. How could the Government of the Northwest Territories, which was essentially municipal lands is the area that the Government of the Northwest Territories has jurisdiction over. Then the federal government and the Aboriginal governments that I speak of have jurisdictions over all other lands within the Northwest Territories. How can such important governments or Aboriginal governments be left off of signing the AIP? How could that happen? How could someone even sign something? If those guys are not at the table, how would that be signed? It would be like you’re going into somebody else’s house and you’re agreeing to divide up the property. I am wondering how that came about and how that is possible. I recognize a call for those guys to come to the table. The call wasn’t answered, but I am wondering how that would be possible. I’m just trying to figure out the possibilities of even signing a final devolution agreement without the original landowners being involved.

I guess clearly, for the record, because there’s been comments made by many since the signing and the idea of the signing to say that there’s been zero involvement. The facts speak for themselves. There has been involvement right from the Aboriginal Summit days through the hiring of consultants, lawyers, negotiators, through to even involvement in this last year by a number of the groups to either be at the table, to hear what’s being said and to make comments there or to be as a full participant at that table to do the work that’s necessary to get the right language in.

Going forward on a devolution piece, one could say that this is a continuation of devolution. When you look at the very first programs that were drawn down by the Government of the Northwest Territories, even the matter of housing which is spoken about at many of the regional meetings we’ve gone and community meetings. They talked about Aboriginal housing, for example, specific funding. Education, forestry, transportation, all of those have gone through a devolution process. This is another stage. It’s understandable, it is one that has a lot of emotion attached to it because in one area you do have settled claims and within those settled claims -- and the Inuvialuit are included, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu -- that have Crown lands within the settlement areas that are managed by the federal government and it’s that management piece that would come in place.

The agreement-in-principle speaks to having existing structures remain in place. That means the co-management bodies that are there would remain there and any changes to that would have to be in full consultation with Aboriginal groups going forward. Again, it’s full speculation as to the final agreement. We’re talking about two years out potentially of a final agreement being looked at as to whether it should be assigned by the

governments-of-the-day. I can’t speculate on that, but quite clearly if you look at the existing drawdown of authorities across the history of the Northwest Territories, there were two parties involved in those agreements right from health care to education to justice to transportation to forestry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the transfers of responsibilities that have occurred over the years from the time the territorial government has existed in 1967 and those programs and services have been devolved to the GNWT. That’s all history. However, that is something that the Aboriginal governments had participated in, in a sense, by voting and putting MLAs in this House for that purpose. But the thing is, if you look at the structures and the way the MLAs are elected, you’re looking at seven MLAs in Yellowknife and Yellowknife does not have a land quantum. So when you make a decision on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories to sign an agreement-in-principle to devolve responsibilities, it’s a different process to devolve programs and services through Health Canada and housing and so on. I’m not prepared to get into a discussion at this time of the discussion of the transfers of the housing that have occurred by the creation of the NWT Housing Corporation in 1974. I’m out of time, right?

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Anything further, Mr. Roland?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, there’s a lot of history. The Member has touched on it, I’ve touched on it, about processes that were established. Yes, the issue of devolution on lands and waters within the Northwest Territories, and these are waters, for example, inland lakes and so on, that are managed today by someone who wears a badge that has a federal government insignia on it; an INAC employee or others in similar areas of responsibility. All we are talking about is drawing that existing authority that is practiced by the federal government who has shown us on a number of occasions and that has brought the ire up of Aboriginal governments and the people of the Northwest Territories to say that we need to bring that control north. That’s what this is about.

The issue of land claims/self-government negotiations ongoing, the federal government has put a clause in here that they can draw back lands when there’s a settlement that goes beyond the discussions that have been put in place and they hold that authority to reverse decisions in land quantum, for example. Again, clearly we’re being very cautious as a Government of the Northwest Territories not to take on any fiduciary responsibility that the federal government has, because the treaties, as mentioned by many leaders and

Members of this Assembly, rightfully belong with the federal government and their role and responsibility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Next on my list I have Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to operations expenditure summary with regard to devolution, you’ve got $460,000. I just thought I heard the Premier making reference that he’s going to come forward for a supp. I’m wondering what that $460,000 for devolution is going to be spent on under devolution or program delivery detail. Have you identified how that $460,000 is going to be expended?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Members recall, in fact that budget item used to be significantly higher when we were much more active. Through our reduction scenarios, we turned in some of that money. That amount right now is for existing salaries and O and M of our existing staff that are in place. That’s why I stated that as we step up this work now and begin the work plan, the scheduling, looking at the resources, we’ll be able to tap into some of the money the federal government have signed onto under this agreement-in-principle, but we will have to additionally come back for additional resources to continue to reach out to the regional leadership as we look forward to beginning the negotiations. Thank you.

I heard the Minister stating earlier that he has been giving funds to different groups who request funding. I know the Dene Nation wasn’t too successful in that area, but I know the Sahtu have been. How is that funding going to be delegated to those Aboriginal groups that want to have external meetings to talk about their participation in the devolution process going forward?

Mr. Chairman, following on the regional leaders’ table that we’ve established since the start of this government and quite clearly at a number of those meetings those regional leaders that have the authority to make decisions on behalf of their constituents have put on record that they’re the decision-makers in their regions and they’re the ones that need to be consulted in this area. That’s why we’ve sent the letter out to all the regions to say that as we go forward on this we’re prepared to go into the communities, regions and communities to go over the AIP and that work that needs to be done. As I stated earlier to a Member, that in the first piece of trying to deal with that is to get an official response back, so we can talk about a format of how we would do that and then come up with a budget to match. Thank you.

Again, you’re saying you’re coming forward with a supp. Right now there are only two parties who have signed on with the government, which is the Metis and Inuvialuit. So is the supp only going to pertain to funding that’s going to be required by those two organizations to participate going forward, or will there be dollars available for those other regional leaders that you mentioned that are out there who are members of the Northern Leaders’ Forum?

Again, the Northern Leaders’ Forum was a side table on Creating Our Future Together. The regional leaders’ table is the one we’re working with and reaching out to the regional leaders and community leaders on that. Quite clearly, as we’ve shown already, the Sahtu have not signed this agreement, but they wanted to have meetings where they brought the elders, youth and representatives from many of their communities to discuss the AIP and go over it. We’ve cost-shared the initial meeting and are looking at following up with an additional meeting that brings in the rest of their communities. One of the things we have to come up with is a format on just how we would progress with that. So, clearly, we’ve already gone beyond those who have signed. The ones that have signed are able to tap into the additional resource the federal government have identified and that agreement has to be, I guess, articulated through the actual federal government. We don’t have any role in that $3.9 million that was identified by the federal government. Thank you.

Has the government or the Executive considered dispute mechanisms in regard to arbitration or having an arbitrator come and try to work it out between the parties and try to find a way that they can save face, but at the same time save the Northwest Territories from collapsing politically because of an agreement that has some people on and some people aren’t ready to sign, the other ones are looking at it? So have we considered alternative dispute mechanisms such as the possibility of arbitration or mediation to have someone come in between the parties and have somebody run between the Aboriginal governments, the GNWT? It’s just like being in kindergarten and trying to keep the kids from fighting in the playground. So I’m wondering, have we looked at those types of alternatives to get ourselves back? What I’m suggesting is we have to find something that’s going to get us back to some table and find a way that we can sit down and talk face to face. I mean, I was over in Dettah and over the last number of days there was not one government employee in there. Yet as MLAs we walked in, sat down and made sure. They might have said a few things we might not have liked, but at least we were there. We all live in the Northwest Territories, we all know each other and the thing is why is it that we seem like we’re in two camps here.

I think, for me, we have to find a way around it. So has that option been considered in light of where we are today, such as mediation or arbitration or court? My suggestion is mediation.

Again, I guess I would draw back on even the Member’s own history as a negotiator. A framework agreement, there is no process for arbitration. When you negotiate a final deal, you do build into those final deals a process of dispute resolution, arbitration processes like what’s established in the land claims and self-governments. Setting paramouncy for legislation and so on. I think we’ve already begun to reach out to try to come to a place where we want to draw back the groups, and as I pointed out in response to a question earlier, that with response to the letter we’ve sent out we can begin that process of bringing people back to the table, but quite clearly there are a couple of points that are very significant. One and earlier meetings it has been discussed publicly as resource revenue sharing of 50 percent. I think that that is, as you look at chapter 12, a negotiation item to be had as we go forward in this. The other of jurisdiction and chapter 5, chapter 6 probably more so, again, another negotiation item. So I think those are things that by signing the agreement we can begin that work and talk about what mandates are and how that would work going forward on that basis. So I guess what I would say is we have extended the arm out to say we’re ready to work with regions and come up with a budget, at least in the process of understanding the AIP as it sits now.

The concern becomes one, as I’ve heard some of the discussion that happened over in Dettah, was can they look at the AIP and renegotiate it? Well, again the Member knows from his past experience as a negotiator the authorities that set the mandates have set their mandates in the past and they’ve lasted through this whole process.

Other issues that are out there, for example, Norman Wells, even though the federal government continues to say that’s off the table we say that’s an area still of discussion that has to occur. The 2005 numbers to be escalated, we have put a marker down to say that is a point we will continue to discuss and negotiate on going forward. Ultimately if the deal that does come back is one that cannot be supported by the groups in the North, whether it’s the GNWT not happy or the federal government, maybe there’s some bilateral arrangements that aren’t successful, we’ll have to see how that plays out. That’s a future government discussion. Our role is now we’ve got to get to this next stage of getting to the table and looking at those work plans, looking at the actual areas of transferring down what that would really mean, how that impacts on the working relationships in those co-management boards, for example. There’s much work to be done and we would like to be prepared for that and we

understand fully that the groups will need to be prepared for that as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Committee, we’re on page 2-21, Department of Executive, activity summary, executive operations, operations expenditure summary, $7.010 million. Agreed?

Page 2-22, Department of Executive, activity summary, executive operations, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the NGO funding, I know there’s a lot of community organizations that are struggling just to run their organizations. Again, is there sort of a time limit or an amount of times that you can apply for funding over a period of time? It is a Stabilization Fund to assist those organizations to stabilize their operation and get them on the way of being some sort of an independent process. So is there a possibility of looking at a different type of criteria where you can use this money up? I know that there’s some frustration with some community programs. I know there’s some frustration with some community programs that were put out, but there was only one-year funding where once you get it you can’t get it the next year. I think for a few community organizations it was a great program to begin with, but the next year when they applied on it they were told sorry, you can only apply once. Because there’s these types of restrictions on different types of programs I’m wondering if there’s that type of regulation or rule that would be applied to these types of NGO funds so that groups that have applied but didn’t get an opportunity to receive it would be able to have a fair playing field so all organizations are able to establish it. It is a stabilization and assistance fund. The whole idea is to make sure you’re stable enough to operate on your own. NGOs have hiccups once in a while whether dealing with Revenue Canada or the tax man or whatever. I’m wondering if that thing is that you don’t continue to pay for bad behaviour. You have to make them realize this is one-time funding and is there to assist when you find yourself in that situation but it’s not saying that you come back every year and find yourself in the same problem with Revenue Canada or never paid your payroll tax or whatever. I’d like to know if there’s some sort of understanding regarding that fund. It’s not ongoing funding. It’s there for the purpose of assisting NGOs with a Stabilization Fund to assist them in the operation of their services.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Since we already approved total grants I’m just going to ask committee if it’s okay to go back to total grants. Is committee agreed?

Thank you, committee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier we discussed this area of the Stabilization Fund. There is a call that goes out annually. There are areas that are reviewed and the applications that go into four general areas, applications, regions of the NWT, the type of support being requested including management costs or governance costs, organizational development costs, extraordinary general operations costs, whether ongoing personal costs are being requested, and whether the proposed projects had not received support or where the same or similar of those supported last year for the same NGO. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of going in. There are limited funds in trying to reach out to the North as much as possible. I’ll let Mr. Stewart go into that. He’s much more well versed in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Stewart.