Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Member is not talking about this winter. I think the Mackenzie Delta has been warmer than years. I will have to check into the significant change from 25 millimetre to the 35 millimetre for operation of the ice roads, but I do know, and I have said it in this House a number of times, safety is our number one priority for residents of the Northwest Territories.

We have guidelines for safe construction of ice roads in the Northwest Territories and I will endeavour to have a look into why the change took place from 25 to 35 millimetres. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last spring, as we are all aware, the ice road closed quicker on the ice road to Aklavik. It was due to a little open section of water. Mr. Speaker, all we had to do at the time was block off a section of that road to ensure that vehicles didn't go near that open water, which was just alongside the road. Will the Minister block off any open sections along the ice road this spring, rather than closing the road all together?

Well, first of all, I'll say no to that, just to protect myself. There are a number of circumstances that have to be taken into consideration on the closure of these ice roads. One of the things is, as I said, we have a guideline around how we operate the ice roads in the Northwest Territories. Climate change is impacting how the Government of the Northwest Territories operates and how we build and maintain these ice crossings in the NWT, and it's become a significant challenge. Even this year, we're having some challenges right now with a number of overflow issues on a number of the roads. They're going to actually bring the cost up of operating these things continually as we go forward. I think the Member from Yellowknife mentioned that in his comments about climate change, how it's affecting us. We have warmer water that is flowing under the ice, and it can degrade the ice surface, the thickness of it, and it's not visible to the naked eye, and people assume that the road is -- just because the ice conditions look on the surface as they can be operated and it's cool out, warmer waters and river currents and stuff are having an effect on these things, and we have to continue to monitor them, and we will continue to do that, but safety is our number one priority.

The Minister talked about increased costs. Maybe if the Minister would listen to some of the things that we're trying to let them know of to bring the costs down, maybe those costs would be half of what they are today. Like heat trace, for example. The other question I had was: our contractors up in the area have years of experience with these conditions, and even your colleague next to you knows of this area that we're talking about, and over the years, it's been the same conditions in that area, and the people have a lot of traditional knowledge in that area. This spring, I'm sure, we may have to do it again, but will the Minister ensure that the department tests the ice in that area to ensure it's safe? If we have to block off a little section of the road, maybe a quarter or half, then, especially for light transfer, because it is safe for light traffic? To let residents, give them time to stock up for the spring. They don't have access to that road until next fall.

I agree, the contractors have a lot of experience in that region building these ice roads. It's been the same contractors off and on for a number of years, but at the end of the day, I'm the Minister whose head is on the line here if something happens. Safety is our number one priority. We will continue to monitor the situation going forward. I can talk to the department if there are any issues arising right now on that section of highway in the Northwest Territories. As I've said, I know that a number of our ice roads have challenges right now, and as you can see by the weather outside, it's going to increase. When it's plus six in Hay River right now, there are challenges right across the board, but safety is our number one priority. I will talk to our department. We'll have our superintendent have a look at the road and make sure it's safe to operate for everybody.

Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to follow up with questions to the Minister of Lands. Can the Minister explain to this House how the Yellowknives Dene First Nations were consulted in regards to the land at Cassidy Point? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Lands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do know that there was consultation, and I just want to make sure I get my dates right. In December, formal consultation, December 2014, that is, the department sent formal consultation letters regarding the possible fee simple transfer to the Akaitcho Territory Dene First Nations, ADFN, Northwest Territories Metis Nation, North Slave Metis Alliance, and Tlicho government. Copies of the letters were also sent to the Yellowknives Dene First Nation chiefs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a little bit concerned. This started in 1992, and if I heard the Minister say it correctly, it was 2014 when we consulted with the First Nations, so maybe he'll have to clarify that a little bit later. I guess my concern is, my understanding is that the Yellowknives Dene did not support the sale of this area to lease holders. So how was the government able to move forward with this commitment?

My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that when the letters were sent out on December 14, 2014, to the groups that I have already mentioned, the consultation period with respect to those letters ended on February 3, 2015, which would have been about 60 days later; and by that time, no Aboriginal governments responded to either support or object to the proposal.

I find it hard to believe that the First Nations would not object to this, but I guess I'll go on to my next question. Has the government of the GNWT compensated the Yellowknives Dene First Nations for taking these pieces of land and for that happening?

As I mentioned, letters were sent out to the groups I mentioned, and no responses, negatively or positively, were received by February 3, 2015, which, as I said, was approximately 60 days later. No compensation has been paid, as I understand it, to this point.

Thank you. Final question. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that answer. So on October 20, 2016, the Minister spoke about the importance of the Government of the Northwest Territories honouring its commitments no matter how old they are. It comes with the honour of the Crown. In speaking with a number of residents, we're not too sure what the Minister meant by this. Can the Minister please explain to the House what he meant by this statement? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As all the Members of this House know, a commitment was made many years ago to the people at Cassidy Point, allowing them to obtain fee simple. Period. That was the end of it, we thought, but it is a little more complicated than that, simply because the people out at Cassidy Point doubtless relied on this assurance from the government. So there are two reasons why the government must follow up on its commitment, honour of the Crown, as I call it: one, we made the commitment, as I said; and, doubtless, people affected relied on that promise. So there are two reasons why we must follow through on this promise, and that is in keeping with the honour of the Crown. Thank you.

Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I'd like to ask some questions of the Minister of Finance about the renewal of our territory formula funding arrangement. Buried on page 317 of the federal budget, there is this set of curious numbers and so on. It says, "Proposed renewal of equalization and territorial formula funding for a five-year period, with technical changes to improve accuracy and efficiency of calculation of entitlements," and so on. So this seems to indicate that our territory formula funding arrangement is going to be renewed for another five years, as is. I'm just wondering if the Minister of Finance can shed any light on what this commitment from the federal government is all about? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in this year's federal budget, they announced that we were going to get an additional $1.7 million toward our formula financing as a result of the negative impacts of the review of the territorial formula financing that they just completed. The current deal expires on April 9th. The Member is correct. We are getting renewed for the next five years, and my understanding is for the next five years we should get incremental increases, actually, to our budget, to offset the negative impacts of the review. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the Minister for that. I'm just worried about the renewal of the agreement for another five years. There are issues here in terms of the carbon pricing. There is a commitment from the federal government to ensure that any impacts on the TFF with respect to carbon pricing are going to be dealt with. We know that we don't get to keep enough of our own source revenues under the TFF, so I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if there is still going to be an opportunity to make further changes for the funding arrangement with regard to carbon pricing and own source revenues:

In my response to the questions to Members previous, I had talked about the carbon pricing and the effect it might have on the territorial formula of financing. Part of the discussions that we will have with Ottawa is on how that may affect our territorial formula of financing. I know we have had commitment from the federal government that they were going to recognize the uniqueness of the North, so we are hoping they take that into consideration. As we proceed into those discussions, again, I will commit to keeping Members updated on the discussions that we have. On the own source revenue, we keep all our own source revenue except for the resource royalties, which we just started receiving a few years ago. A part of that goes back to Canada. We get a portion of that, but all the other own source revenue, we keep within the territorial government.

I would like to thank the Minister for that. My understanding was, and look, I'm not an expert on the territorial formula funding arrangement, but my understanding was that, if we introduce a new tax, we get to keep the revenues from that for the first three years and then it gets rolled into our base and sort of clawed back through the arrangement. Is there going to be the ability to change that sort of provision of the arrangement, so that we get to keep more of our own source revenues in the future?

Again, I'm positive that we get to keep all of the revenue that we generate, but I will confirm that and have a conversation with the Member. I have raised in the last Finance Ministers' meeting that our concern about the impact on some of the technical changes that they have, and so I have started those discussions with the federal Finance Minister. I'm sure that we get to keep all of the revenue that we generate. Again, I will confirm that and if I was wrong, then I will let the Member know.