Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the line item that says “to provide funding for Aboriginal participation in negotiations,” can we get a breakdown of what that funding is and what exactly it is used for?

Mr. Chair, just in regard to the Premier’s comments, he just said a couple minutes ago that there’s no money in there to bring other people to the table at this time. So how can he state now that, oh, you can come to the table anytime you want? Technically, there’s no money in this budget to have the people come to the table. That’s what he told us. There’s only money there for two groups and not for the other groups to take part. That’s the point I’m trying to make, is where is the money to ensure that those groups that have an ambition to take a second look at this have an opportunity to take that second look, have the resources to get those groups together and consider possible changes to this arrangement going forward.

This is an agreement-in-principle. This is not a final agreement. You can make changes to this agreement with the parties. As long as the parties agree, it’s a negotiated process. There are also elements that are in the land claim agreements that differ from one land claim agreement to the other. Those elements have to be negotiated into a Devolution Agreement, because it’s in the land claim agreements under the surface rights section. Those surface rights obligations have to be negotiated into those agreements. How are you going to do it without having those claimant groups at the table?

Again, it seems like it’s a simple thing that’s, oh well, come to the table and we’ll invite you through

the door and basically now you’re full participants, but yet there’s no money for you to fully participate. That is my understanding of what they stated, is that the $2.2 million only covers the operational costs and those groups that have already signed. How do you intend to make those additional expenditures? Are we talking about another supp coming back when those groups come to the table?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that’s the whole problem with these dollars that we’re being asked to approve here, because it does not really deal with the problem at hand, and more importantly, it does not basically justify spending this type of money on a process that, as you know, is flawed. When you have a flawed negotiated process, you’re going to have a flawed result.

I think that we have to realize that as important items such as devolution of the Northwest Territories that we as legislators, as government, have an obligation, regardless if it’s through a constitutional obligation or as a moral obligation, to ensure that all parties that are affected… We’re hearing in the Wildlife Act there are certain groups out there saying they weren’t consulted. We’re hearing it here again today. These groups have a legal obligation to be at that table. They have a moral obligation to be involved in the drafting of the Northern Accord.

I was involved in 1988 when we negotiated the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle, signed it off. The same day the federal Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, signed an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories that morning. That afternoon he signed the Dene-Metis Agreement-in-Principle because the two agreements were combined to ensure that we’d have that ability to negotiate those agreements.

The Inuvialuit, they got it made. They got a participation agreement in their land claim agreements. The Dene groups do not have that in the process and we were told the only way you’re going to get that is through a devolution or Northern Accord agreement negotiating those elements into those agreements to make them basically have the same standing as the Inuvialuit have by way of participation agreements. The same with NTI. That is why it’s so critical that the Dene people be involved in this process and not be stepped on the sidelines and have a group who already have something that’s negotiated on their behalf on lands that they own and not be at the table.

I mean, for me this is a political hot potato that’s going to blow up not only with this government but

the next government, and this is the legacy that this government wants to leave. For me, this is definitely a legacy that’s going to be tarred to this 16th Assembly going forward.

I think it’s critical that you do re-profile these dollars to find a mechanism that you can either send it to a dispute system or have an arbitrator or have someone basically formulate a mechanism that you have side room discussions with these groups. But simply ignoring them and saying, well, you have one choice, you sign this bad agreement, you come to the table and we’ll give you $170,000. Sure, that sounds like a great idea, but I don’t think people are going to sell their rights for the sake of $170,000 where they know they have the legal right to basically have this thing overturned in future years either through the court process or by not having the final agreement that you’re trying to sign off and none of those parties at the table. There’s no damn way you’re going to sign a final agreement without having those parties at the table. It’s either you deal with it now or you basically forget about going forward.

I think by the approach that you’re taking, by the hardhat approach of trying to ram this thing through for the sake of two Aboriginal groups and forgetting that there’s seven and leaving the other five groups on the sidelines who have more rights by way of legal rights through Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, to basically do what you’re doing by way of taking or arbitrating a process that basically you know is flawed.

Again, I’d like to ask, out of the two-point-something million dollars, can any of those dollars be reallocated to allow for side table negotiations to take place during the duration of these expenditures being funded? You’re still dealing with the same aspect, but you’re looking at it by trying to get the parties to the table and also by saving face in this process. Thank you.

That is my concern, is that we don’t seem to have the resources or the capacity to assist these people to get them to the table. We have money there to pay people that have signed on. I think it was $170,000, yet we are asking for $2.2 million. So there’s a small portion there for that consultative process, but what is there to find ways of working around the challenges we are facing? I thought we were going to be close in this process.

There was a bilateral arrangement back in December. Everybody met in Edmonton after Christmas. We came back to Yellowknife to get together and then basically the whole process collapsed around it. There were efforts being made to get parties together and get them to some sort of an arrangement, but we never allowed the process to see the light of day. I think we, as government, still have an obligation to ensure we hear people out on this process, good, bad or indifferent. We need to at least have the resources there to have that take place. This is a critical building block of the northern environment going forward. If you don’t have this, you are going to be on a rough road going forward with regard to relationships government to government to government.

It seems like the relationships we have is just with two interest groups. There are five groups still not there. I represent one of these groups and I feel

that we have been unjustly chucked out of the room simply because we don’t have an agreeing of the minds where people are coming from or taking the time to understand it.

So out of the $2.2 million, how much has been set aside to find an avenue to bring those people together with regard to the approval of the $2.2 million budget?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are with regard to the executive operations of $2.2 million and the devolution process. I’m not really clear how to read it. It says to support transition and

implementation. Usually implementation takes place after you have a final agreement. How can you be implementing something that you are still negotiating?

The other aspect of the resources is to provide Aboriginal participation in negotiations. Again, we are leaving out a large portion of our population on the Aboriginal participation in this process, as we all know. We have some 4,500 individuals being represented by two groups, yet that leaves out over 18,000 First Nations people, mostly the Dene people of the Mackenzie Valley, from this process.

What are you doing to include those groups or have side table negotiations to find a way to work around the problem we are facing regarding the bypass? We need to ensure we have a side table to ensure we resolve these outstanding issues and get all parties to the table through the negotiations for the Devolution Agreement, so we have an agreement that’s good to all people in the Northwest Territories and not just a minority of people being represented at this time. What are we doing? How is that $2.2 million going to be expended, and are there monies allocated for that purpose? Thank you.

Next I have Mrs. Groenewegen.

General comments, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger.

General comments. Next I have Ms. Bisaro and then Mrs. Groenewegen. Ms. Bisaro.