Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have no persons who have declared a disability. Thank you.

Committee, page 2-15, Executive, information item, directorate, active positions.

Page 2-17, Department of Executive, activity summary, Ministers’ offices, operations expenditure summary, $3.597 million.

Page 2-18, Department of Executive, activity summary, Ministers’ offices, grants and contributions, grants.

Page 2-19, Executive, information item, Ministers’ offices, active positions.

Page 2-21, Department of Executive. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of questions here. Initially I want to follow up on my colleague Mr. Abernethy’s comments with regard to the volunteer sector. I am totally supportive of his comments. I fully believe that we lack coordination of the voluntary sector across this government. I did want to point out, although it’s a matter of semantics perhaps, whether or not NGOs are a voluntary sector, I would think that, I can’t guarantee, but I would imagine 100 percent of non-government organizations are run by volunteer boards, and in my mind that makes them part of the voluntary sector.

I note with interest that on page 2-20, at the top under the strategic planning, the description says that this office provides support for cross-government planning activities. I think that’s a perfect description of what’s required for those organizations and the people who do volunteer within our Territory and that provide services for our residents through contract with the government, but also we have any number of volunteers who work

not on a contract basis but simply provide services, and coaches are one example that provide services to our residents through their goodwill.

The other point I wanted to make, in terms of support for cross-government planning activities, is the initiative that’s being worked on right now and that’s the Anti-Poverty Strategy or framework, whichever title it is. It’s well placed in the Department of Executive because it is an initiative that does encompass every department within our government. I want to reiterate that. I know that the department is working on it. I have my concerns about what kind of a discussion paper is going to come out at the end of this period of consultation, but I’m willing to wait and see. I really hope that we’re going to look at anti-poverty or look at actions to fight poverty. I hope we’re going to look at those across every department because they totally overlap each other. Housing, health, education, ITI, they’re all interwoven, and if we don’t look at all departments when we look at this particular initiative, it’s going to be a waste of time and money.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that I’m glad to see that the single-window service centre is working well and I heard from the Minister that it seems to be a successful initiative. I look forward to hearing more about that particular initiative whether, as time goes on, that it still is seen to be as successful as the Minister says that it is at this particular moment.

I do have some concerns with the non-government organization Stabilization Fund and I have sort of expressed those to the Minister. I know that the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has also expressed some of those concerns to the Minister by letter.

The word “stabilization” to me indicates that the funding should be provided to assist an organization that is not stable and the criteria for this particular fund, in my mind, allows for activities which enhance an organization but it doesn’t actually stabilize an organization. Two of them that I can think of off the top of my head are website development, which, to me, doesn’t necessarily stabilize an organization, and training and so on for board governance. I agree that those things are absolutely necessary, certainly the board governance more so perhaps than website development. To me, those are both ongoing operation and maintenance expenses. They are not something that is out of the ordinary. I would sincerely hope that the department would look at re-evaluating the criteria for the NGO Stabilization Fund. I think it ought to be used for those organizations which are in danger of failing, crumbling, disappearing into oblivion, because most organizations are relatively stable, although they struggle from year to year to get their funding and

they might hit me in the back of the head for saying they are stable, and that is why I use the word relatively. If they get their funding on an annual basis or multi-year which is far better, then they are relatively stable, but certainly circumstances intervene quite often. It makes life difficult for some of them. It will cause some of them to actually cease operation. That, to me, is where the NGO Stabilization Fund should come into play.

I guess I am kind of carrying on, but I would like to first of all ask the Minister whether or not there is any appetite to review the criteria for the NGO Stabilization Fund for next year’s distributions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Roland.

Mr. Chairman, earlier today, a number of times there has been talk of a transition into the next government. Clearly, government coming in can review their definitions and standards they put in place to make changes. This is an area that has had some discussion through a number of the budgets and committee, as the Member has highlighted. I would say that that is definitely a possibility of another government having a look and changing the status from where we have come from and looking at this. The Stabilization Fund, one, and that is why the different pieces of it, the board training is... Clearly there is a distinction here between someone volunteering to coach a minor hockey league versus someone who signs a contract to deliver services A, B and C. If an organization and that board go beyond the services of A, B and C and then cause that instability, that is a different question that needs to be addressed and that is where we get involved with the appropriate departments to say, okay, how are you going to coordinate that so there is a recovery plan put in place. Recovery plan would have to take into consideration the willingness of the contract in place and those holding the contract. I think that is where the board plays an important role as we go forward on that. The overall fund, the definition can be expanded if that is the wish of the next government knowing that this is our final budget. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I should thank the Minister for his example because he pointed out that the need for a focal point for NGOs in the voluntary sector by saying that when there is a problem, then the Executive has to go to the department the NGO has the contract with and work with them. To Mr. Abernethy’s point, if there is the focus of the Department of Executive for NGOs and for voluntary sector, I think there might be a little bit better efficiency in our operations.

That is all I have at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that this line item is specific to, I believe, some of the devolution discussion and some devolution budgeting requirements. Given the heightened awareness of our Aboriginal groups, most particularly the Dehcho First Nations which is a concern about where we are going with devolution. They want to understand more. I think last week they had passed the motion at the Dehcho winter leadership meeting about the willingness to at least talk about it at this... Their first position is always completing, of course, of the Dehcho process. That has always been a priority to them right from day one. However, with the agreement-in-principle, the devolution agreement that was signed on January 26

th

, they are

concerned about it, how it would impact them. I think in their motion, if I read it properly, they do want to examine it and they are probably going to need some resources. I think part of the stipulation of our agreement-in-principle for any Aboriginal groups there, Mr. Chairman, was to actually sign on with the agreement-in-principle. It is probably something that they are not willing to go there. At the same time, I believe that our government, I believe the Premier’s office, the Cabinet, members on this side of the House would probably be willing to entertain some extraordinary funding for the Aboriginal groups so that they can have a good second or even third look at the agreement-in-principle. I believe that in order to make an informed decision, you have to examine things from all different angles, get even independent reviews just to make some good educated decisions about something that is going to impact your Aboriginal group and impact the future of everybody you represent. That is a huge thing to consider.

I don’t know what the Premier is thinking on this item. Is there a way that we can actually enter into discussion without them signing on, give them some resources, some dedicated resource to assist them in trying to understand the agreement-in-principle? Maybe the Premier can also speak about their communication strategy that he mentioned in the House about how they are delivering that message as well. At the same time, I still believe that our Aboriginal organizations need some extra resources to look at it. I know that last week we heard the Dene Nation meeting for all the various different actions that Aboriginal groups could take. I believe the best action for anybody is communication. Maybe I can get the Premier to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Roland.

Mr. Chairman, the process that we have gone down in the past, as I

said a number of times quite a number of years ago, funding has been provided by both the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories in assisting groups from their earliest days of the Intergovernmental Forum, the Aboriginal Summit and to the regional Aboriginal leadership meetings that we have established through the 16

th

Legislative Assembly. As following

the AIP signing, sent a letter out to all the regions, and copied their leadership, inviting them to contact us to set up a process where we can set up community meetings and discuss the AIP and fund it through that process. Clearly, by signing the AIP, that allows then the groups that sign to be able to tap into the fund that was identified through the agreement-in-principle, so that is one area.

As I had informed Members, this budget hasn’t been adjusted to deal with the increased workload that we are going to have to take on, so we would have to come back in a supplementary appropriation to deal with the additional requests as, for example, we are working internally right now with the Sahtu, for example, to help them with a meeting that was recently held in looking at support for an additional meeting. We would be prepared to do that type of work with other regions and communities as well. Thank you.

I believe that we cannot be too stern and continue with the carrot stick approach. There’s willingness out there. Anywhere the government can be flexible or creative in communicating with our Aboriginal groups and give them the information that they need, the resources that they need, I think it will go a long way. We are talking about their future and the future of the North and we’re at a big turning point here. It’s very important that we continue to be at the table with each other and discuss it.

So just in terms of a group like the Dehcho First Nations’ willingness to at least try to understand the AIP, are we talking about submitting a budget, or what kind of process would we have to undertake here, Mr. Chair? What would be the next steps if they truly want to go down this road of trying to understand the agreement-in-principle more, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

I guess the first step would be a response, a formal response, a letter that was sent out inviting a dialogue and communications to happen around the agreement-in-principle. At that point we would discuss a format that would be looked at and then begin to work on a budget that could be used before going into communities and going over the agreement-in-principle. Thank you.

I guess the next biggest component is where is the federal government on this? I still think that they do have a huge fiduciary responsibility and to me it just seems like the

federal government has been very absent in this whole process. The GNWT did have a role, but the federal government does have fiduciary responsibility as well. I believe they too should provide some resources and it really doesn’t have to be tied to signing the agreement-in-principle as well. I think that they should be flexible and creative as well and try to make this work for the North and for all Northerners. So I don’t know how much discussion the Premier has had with the INAC Minister’s office ever since they signed the agreement-in-principle on devolution. Maybe the Premier can comment on that. Thank you.

We have had regular contact through our staff to begin the very early stages of looking at a work plan. Of course, as we begin this next stage and get responses from communities, we’d be more than happy to invite the federal government to sit with us at the table and go over what this AIP means and confirm again the intention of not infringing on Aboriginal rights through this process. So we’d be prepared to invite them at this point. We wanted to, from an NWT side, by sending out the letter and as we get the responses to those letters, as I said earlier, discuss a format and then look at a budget. Thank you.

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