LIIDLII KUE/FORT SIMPSON
Concerns about what devolution will mean for the territory were raised and shared during a public meeting in Fort Simpson on May 8.
Gordon Hamre, a consultant with Alternatives North, writes notes about the concerns related to devolution raised by participants in a meeting in Fort Simpson on May 8. The meeting in the village was the third Alternatives North organized to promote discussion about the proposed transfer of powers from Canada to the GNWT. - Roxanna Thompson/NNSL photo
|
The meeting was the third of its kind held by Alternatives North, a social justice coalition based in Yellowknife. Devolution is an important issue and as a result there should be a thoughtful public discussion about it, said Gordon Hamre, a consultant with Alternatives North who led the meetings in Fort Simpson, Hay River and the Hay River Reserve.
"This is a vitally important step in the evolution on the NWT," he said.
Trying to promote discussion
Alternatives North is trying to promote discussion and help residents to develop questions about devolution to ask their MLAs. The organization wants MLAs to have a thorough discussion about devolution in the legislative assembly, but doesn't think that will happen unless MLAs believe their constituents care.
"We believe people care about it," said Hamre.
There was no shortage of concerns raised by the 10 people who attended the evening meeting in Fort Simpson.
Jonathan Tsetso questioned if some federal employees will have the option to transfer to other positions in the federal government rather than join the territorial government. The staff with departments including Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and Fisheries and Oceans have a wealth of knowledge that could be lost, said Tsetso.
Tsetso questioned how effective the territorial government is currently at on environmental assessment and how effective it will be if all of the technical expertise in a department like AANDC is lost.
Elizabeth Hardisty said she doesn't agree with devolution at all.
"I'm not willing to fork over Deh Cho lands to the territorial government," she said.
Through devolution the Deh Cho would lose its say over the lands and resources in the region. The territorial government already doesn't have a good track record with areas such as health and housing, so how would it do with lands or resources, Hardisty asked.
Dehcho First Nations Grand Chief Herb Norwegian also decried the territorial government's attempt to gain control of the land in the Deh Cho. The territorial government wants control of more than 45 per cent of the Deh Cho through devolution.
Dehcho First Nations will not support devolution if the territorial government keeps that demand, Norwegian said.
"The federal government or the territorial government doesn't own a grain of sand in the Deh Cho territory," he said.
Money was at the root of Chuck Blyth's concern.
The question shouldn't be what the territorial government will do with the money it gets from resource revenues through devolution, but whether there will actually be any money, he said. Through devolution, the territorial government can receive up to 50 per cent of its resource revenues to a maximum of five per cent of the territory's annual spending requirements. Resource dollars earned exceeding the cap will be subtracted from the transfer payment the government receives.
Annual spending
The annual spending requirements are linked to the money for the territorial budget provided by the federal government in the first place, said Blyth. Through devolution the territorial government will be taking on potentially massive liabilities in the form of contaminated sites. If the territorial government has to clean up just one mine site, the money from resource revenues will be a pittance, he said.
"We're not going to have any money, we're just going to have a range of liabilities on our hands," said Blyth.
Hamre made note of all of the concerns raised by people at the meeting. The concerns, along with those from the first two meetings, will be given to MLAs prior to the debate in the legislative assembly about devolution.
A devolution information session was also scheduled in Fort Simpson on May 15. The goal of the meeting was to discuss people's concerns.
