It sounds to me that you’re talking about one Aboriginal person represented on this panel of three. How do you pick the Aboriginal person that’s going to sit on the panel? What’s the process going to be used to identify that person or what’s the process going to be used to ensure that you have someone there that’s representative of the whole Northwest Territories?

So the $70,000, is that professional fees or is that actually given to each of the organizations to be represented on this panel that you’re talking about?

I just have a question going through the detail of that $725,000. There was $70,000 for Aboriginal participation. Could you clarify what that $70,000 has been spent on?

Mr. Chair, again, I think this process is too top heavy. It’s basically run out of Yellowknife. I think that you have to start doing workshops and having these meetings in the communities. I know in the Mackenzie Delta we

have been requesting having a water conference and we have been talking about the Peel River watershed. There’s a major effort being made between the Yukon government and the Gwich’in Tribal Council to develop a land use plan for the Peel River watershed. Again, that’s another government in another jurisdiction and we seem to have a better relationship with the Yukon government than we actually have with the Government of the Northwest Territories when it deals with overlap issues such as the Peel River watershed. I’ve been asking for that since I’ve got here in regard to trying to have a conference in regard to the Peel River watershed, because the issues that Fort McPherson and Aklavik have had in regard to water directly correlate with the Peel River watershed. There’s major mining development that’s going on in this watershed and I think it’s important that, you know, we’re focusing on the Alberta watershed and we’re not focusing on the watershed in regard to the Peel River which, again, has to be developed into any process.

Again, I’d like to know, out of the $725,000, how much of that is going to be expended in actually doing work in the communities with community groups and organizations so that we can develop a made-in-the-North Water Strategy and depending then on groups and agencies from outside the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just going through the briefing with regard to this item, it seems like we are spending a lot of money on outside agencies but very little by way of community-type projects and looking at the water issues regarding our communities such as boil water orders and people still having challenges. With regard to Aklavik and THMs and not really focussing on community-based water issues, it seems like your department is trying to solve the national issues in Canada, but not focussing on community-based health and water aspects. What are we doing to work with those communities, whether it’s Aklavik that have been recognized to have a health issue regarding water? I’d like to know why aren’t we developing a strategy and working with the Northwest Territories communities with regard to these issues.

I’ll use the Athabasca Delta, for instance. It seems like we are spending much money in Alberta, but what are we doing for communities like Aklavik when they still have THM issues which affects people’s health, and the possible connection to THMs and the water, which is the Peel River, which flows in from the Yukon and the potential water elements that may flow down those river tributaries by way of metals or heavy metals or different types of contamination.

I’d like to ask the Minister how much of this is being expended actually in Northwest Territories communities.

I, too, like my colleague Mr. Bromley, can’t support this on the basis of I don’t think we’re doing justice to the people of the Northwest Territories by going ahead and not having the resources to try to get people together and find resolution to this outstanding issue. I’ll leave it at that.

Again, if we’re not able to get that information immediately, I suggest that we postpone this section of this bill and deal with it once we get the information from the Minister. Because I think to make a decision on spending $2.2 million, we should know exactly how it’s going to be expended and if we’re spending money on something that’s not going to take effect until future years, I think we have a real problem. Spending money on implementation of an agreement that is not even close to being finalized. More importantly, if you implement agreements after you have an agreement. It’s kind of odd we’re spending money on people and resources for something that’s not going to see the life of this government and more importantly having to hire people and yet we’re going to be laying people off in the next while.

Again I do have concerns with the words “implementation activities related to the devolution.” Usually you do the implementation after you have a final agreement so that you know what the final elements are of the agreement and then you do the implementation. I find it kind of odd that we’re funding an implementation of an agreement that isn’t final.

I’d like to know how much of these dollars are going to be expended for implementation. How much staff are we talking about to implement something that’s not final? Especially when we’re kind of tight in regard to the cash flow of this government and looking at the deficit situation we’re probably looking at in the 17th Assembly, I think there are

better ways to spend this money than having to set something up that doesn’t really have an opportunity to do deal with it. Can I get a breakdown of what the implementation portion of these costs are and how many people we are talking about here?

Can we get an idea of how many dollars have been allocated since the signing of the agreement-in-principle with these groups and what the terms of these dollars are? Is it up to December 31st or is it on an as needed basis?