Debates of August 20, 2007 (day 13)

Motion is on the floor. Motion is being distributed out to the committee. Motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The offer that the Minister has made to sort of brief committee on the fly here on the floor in the dying days of this Assembly really falls short. It demonstrates a number of the things that we’ve talked about over and over in the life of this Assembly. I spoke to them this afternoon in my reply to the opening address; that communication issues have really dogged the relationship between just about every department or other and committee. I am sort of doubly frustrated here because at heart I am a tourism guy, Mr. Chairman, but I also have a responsibility to be a steward of the resources and the needs that we have over here to make sure business is done thoroughly, openly and in decent time and that has not been the case. Minister Bell advised us a little while ago that this mission has been in the works for some time now. I am assuming that is months, perhaps even longer. My understanding is it’s years. It takes a long time to set up protocols with the Chinese officials to do this. I can appreciate that accessing this is going to potentially further delay our chances of getting a foot in the door at China. But I am still sitting here, Mr. Chairman, saying I am going to sign off on $100,000 without the benefit of information or performing or doing my job, doing the committee’s job as oversight and as partners and contributors to this kind of thing. I have been denied the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask a couple of questions here. Why didn’t the department come to committee and distribute the information? I am speaking to the motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Can I ask committee to keep to the motion? To the motion.

Thank you. Wow, I have the floor. Thank you very much. We can’t ask questions. I had my hand up to ask questions when it was still being called as an item on the paper, but I guess we went to the motion instead. Anyway, I have questions that nobody is going to answer, but let me ask them anyway.

If we can have all the details in half an hour, why couldn’t we have it when…I am yelling in my own ear here. Why couldn’t we have had it in the last three days if we could have them in a half an hour? If we only have to wait half an hour to get the answers to the questions, I say we wait for half an hour to get the answers. I don’t think this is a $100,000 trip, for everyone’s information. This is a $200,000 trip. I think there is another $100,000 coming from somewhere. I would like to put that in a question, but I will put it in a statement. I think this is a $200,000 trip. Furthermore, how did you select the people who are going? Of course, I am all for tourism and I am all for aurora viewing and I am all for NTCL, the shipping from Asia. I am a supporter of all that stuff.

I went on a trade mission once to Germany. The government paid for translation, they paid for some of the logistics and that, but operators all had an equal chance to participate by contributing to the cost, it was a cost-shared thing. Then more people got to go. I don’t have any sense -- because I haven’t had a chance to check this out -- but there might have been other tourist operators in the Northwest Territories involved in lodges and outfitting and aurora viewing who might have been interested in doing this. How was this particular group, and this group only, selected to go on a $200,000 trip to China? Why are we doing this now? There have been years of preparation go into this. Why aren’t we doing this in the new government? Why are we rushing off now during election period when people like the chair of the Governance and Economic Development committee can’t go? Even the MLAs might be interested in this particular thing. They might have constituents involved in activities who might want to go. I am not a big international traveler myself personally, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other Members of the Assembly who might have wanted to attend this.

Anyway, $200,000 is a lot of money and somebody pointed it out the other day in committee that there are other NGOs struggling here. Mr. McLeod mentioned a few in Inuvik that were short of funds. Think of $200,000 and we can’t even get information. Anyway, I think we should get information. Call a break, postpone. Thank you. No.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be voting against the motion. As far as I am concerned, if the communication plan didn’t work out in this particular case, I don’t want to put the whole plan at risk. We should write maybe a strongly worded letter, but the bottom line is if we put our industries at risk, take our aurora industry, they are barely surviving as it is and here they are trying to open up new markets. For over three and a half years, I have been saying let’s find new opportunities and try to expand it. Yet, here we are saying no when they are looking at a new opportunity and trying to build some bridges. As far as I am concerned, if we can get everybody working, it will help support the investment we have here on the ground.

As far as transportation logistics, I have even heard of the mini airline groups' interest in this opportunity. Although it doesn’t sound like it from Minister Bell’s description when he said NTCL is going, that doesn’t sound like one of the airlines. But at the end of the day, I would encourage him to reconsider so we can get some airline groups in there.

As far as I am concerned, I think it has merit and it’s a mistake to say no. I think it’s okay to put more demands on this and find a way to get those demands realized, but the fact is saying no to this opportunity right now may be a mistake when our tourism industry is hemorrhaging in the sense of lost opportunities. It wasn’t that long ago we were losing the hunting of caribou and now aurora is falling apart. How much more of our tourism industry do we have to lose before someone realizes its tomorrow’s opportunity? So we need to be doing that today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick on this. Like Mr. Hawkins says, in the absence of information, it’s so difficult to make a decision. I have constituents who are interested in the tourism and industry side of this. I really don’t know what I am turning down if I vote in favour or the motion and turn down $100,000 and the trade mission gets scuttled. I have no idea what I am turning down. It’s not fair to us, as decision-makers, to put us in a position where we have to turn something down not knowing all the details.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. This is an interesting one, but I am going to have to vote in favour of the motion because the government just has not provided us with the level of detail I am comfortable with. I don’t think the work is going to be wasted because it can just be transferred over. The government is officially over on the 30th of August or 31st of August. A new government is coming in after October 1st. The work that was done by ITI staff and the existing staff surely is not going to go to waste. It’s only another eight weeks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chair, the comments are probably similar to mine and Mr. Ramsay's. The trade mission is with Industry, Tourism and Investment. I, myself, don’t have enough information in terms of this trade mission. You know Husky Energy has invested in the Sahtu region. Husky Energy is closely related to the productions in China. There is tourism in our region that needs to be looked at.

I don’t know. I don’t have the information. I don’t know who is going or for how long. This is new. I am having a very difficult time supporting this here. I am going to have to support the motion as we go forward. So I need some information and I do not appreciate this and asking us to give you a blank cheque for $100,000 like this one here. Give me the goods. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is another good example of the lack of communications sometimes between Cabinet and Members on this side. We are asked to vote on a motion and we don’t know the details of the motion. We are scrambling down on this side trying to figure out who is going, what is going to happen at the end of this Legislative Assembly. So you come forward and you ask us to approve something. If we are just going to approve anything that is put before us, let’s approve this and be done with it. But we are put there to question things and if we have concerns and legitimate concerns, this is my understanding of supposed consensus government where we get some input into what is going on so, like Norman said, we can make an educated decision. But to come before us and say you need $100,000 for a trade mission to China without providing details isn’t good enough for me. So that being said, I am going to support this motion if we decide to go ahead today. If they want to do it in the 16th Assembly, they can send somebody to China then. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, this is information that was requested a while back, two days ago. Now we are scrambling around, like everybody else is saying. I think it’s critical that we get advanced information. We wouldn’t be going through what we are going through now, waiting. We are asking questions here and nothing has been provided at this time. Some Ministers are getting information as we speak. This was a major decision you are making here. Whether it be $100,000 or $200,000, that is a lot of money that could also go to communities. Without backup documentation, it’s hard for me as a Regular MLA to approve it or to go against it. I need detailed information that breaks down attendees or expenditures, who is going or who is meeting with who, departure dates, an itinerary and so forth. So I just want to reiterate what other Members have been saying here. We do need the documentation as a backup to make our decision, Mr. Chair. Without information, I would have to support the information that is in front of us. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I also wanted to speak in support of this motion. It’s simply due to the fact of all the reasons Members have provided today, but also one big reason is due to the recent developments in the outfitting industry relating to caribou harvesting for outfitters. I think there is money to be put towards assisting outfitters dealing with the shortage of tags they have been allocated for this year and next year and years to come. If they had this $100,000 or $200,000 and used it to promote their own ecotourism initiatives, whether it be in China, Japan or anywhere else in the world, it would be put to better use and we would get better bang for our buck if we directed the money towards the people that are in the front line of tourism, which are the outfitters. That is why I support this motion. I have no information. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, although we were provided some information, a lot of information isn’t before us with regard to the trip to China. I think it’s important that although the mission seems like it would be a good one, I think at this time, without the information required, I will have trouble supporting the motion. Thank you.

To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Thank you, committee. Industry, Tourism and Investment, operations expenditures, page 10, economic development, $3.083 million, total department, $3.083 million.

Agreed.

Page 11, Environment and Natural Resources, operations expenditures, special warrants, forest management, $1.980 million.

Agreed.

Thank you. Total department, $1.980 million.

Agreed.

Page 12, Executive, capital investment expenditures, Human Resources, not previously authorized, employee relations, $523,000, total Human Resources, $523,000. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up where I left off asking questions under general comments of the Minister. I don’t have Hansard in front of me, but the Minister, to summarize where we left off, was talking about a report that was all-encompassing of the chronology and the history of the implementation of this software. However, he made reference to a report and the exact two words he used were “specific incident.” So what I would like to ask the Minister is what specific incident is he referring to? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify this position, there are a number of different reports. There is the 2005 implementation one; the 2005 Hackett review of the situation and the issue that was raised in the Assembly about the information being let out about our employees through our system. That incident or the situation that we reviewed was to do with information being let go and if it was a breach of any of our protocols or policies. That is the one I am speaking of. There is an additional report coming that will be a more encompassing one and that is still in the works. So the one I am speaking of is the one that was looking at the issue of information being let go because of part of a failure in our system. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the Minister said that that had not been shared with the Minister of Human Resources. He had not received a copy of that report. I would like to ask if that’s true, am I correct in that? Also, what’s the date of that particular report dealing with that efficiency? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would have to go back and look at the actual date of the correspondence that I received. I do not believe it was shared with the Minister at that point. It came to my desk because it was an issue looked at through FMBS. I would have to look at the actual correspondence when I received it in my office, but I haven’t forwarded it to anyone else. I thought initially that it may have gone to committee, but I believe that is not accurate. If it is, it is still within my domain and department or within my office as Minister responsible for FMBS. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that the Minister understands why I have a concern with this. I have a concern with this because I specifically asked the Minister of Human Resources in this House if there had been any breach of any confidential information regarding GNWT employees as a result of this new software upgrade going live on the system. Of course, we know at the time, the Minister said absolutely not. I pursued it and subsequently found out that, in fact, there had been. That was conceded or agreed that it happened. Now you are telling me that there is a report that came out subsequently on that particular matter and it was not shared with the Minister of Human Resources. At the time, I questioned. People monitor this in the public service, but there are people who monitor Hansard and what we are saying here in this House. Why wouldn’t the deputy minister have picked up the telephone and called the Minister of HR right away and said we do know there has been a breach of the system? I asked that question at the time. I never really did get a satisfactory answer because it was the end of session and people left. But people knew I asked the question. They knew he denied it and nobody set out on their own initiative to set the record straight. Now, here we are. There is a report that has come out about this and I believe it also includes a few other things. It talks about the implementation of this not following a GNWT model or any other software model in terms of the rollout of some of these changes. I think the same report talks about that as well. Why would that report not have been shared with the Minister of Human Resources? This looks like two incidents where something has happened under something that was within the Minister’s purview and he wasn’t even told about it. Now a report has come to you. It hasn’t come to us. I would like to know about it. Why are we not being kept informed of these things? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the report does not go to the issue of the Minister and his deputy minister. It goes to the policies that we have in place, the programs and it is very specific to that situation. I would be prepared to sit down with committee to go over it. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would have to tell you, I certainly have some questions still linger in my mind with respect to the integrity and the quality of the information that we get when we stand here and ask questions like this in the House. I understand that the incident report you are talking about does not go to why the deputy didn’t inform the Minister and things like that. But it does go to the issue of the breach. To me, again, why wouldn’t the Minister of HR be aware of a report that would speak to that? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, again, just for the record, the correspondence I saw come across my desk was on the issue of our processes, policies and if there was a breach on information being leaked, and I am prepared to sit down with Members to go over that. I believe you will see that information, though there was a problem with our system at that point, it does not go to a breach. I would be prepared to sit down with Members and go over that. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. I will just say this again. I have said it before in this House that we have an obligation as a government to ensure that the most basic things such as confidential information, timely paying of employees for the work that they do for us. HR is a very important function in this government. I think it needs to be done right. At the end of the day, when you look at the issues and the incidents, as you call it, that have occurred in the HR department, somebody is responsible. Maybe some of it is software. Maybe some things are a sequence of events that have transpired which nobody is trying to turn back the clock. But I will tell you, it makes more doubting of the system and wondering what is going on when we can’t get straight answers or straight information. I do appreciate the Minister’s offer to talk to us about this, but it is too bad that we have to find out about it through this process. As MLAs and as a Minister, I think we just need to be shown the respect to be kept apprised of these things. We are trying to serve our constituents. Our constituents are raising these issues with us. We don’t have the answers. If we have to go these lengths to get those kinds of answers, I just think it doesn’t speak well for this government and this department and certainly some people in the HR department are responsible for this mess on our hands. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I believe the Minister, in further response in the House, talked about the processes of implementing the latest version and some of the modules in the work and the transfer from the old system to the new version and some of the problems that occurred in that. He has corresponded with Members in a letter regarding the latest in that area. Beyond that, I am unable to comment on the information. As I stated, and probably oversight on my part, is when I saw that initial correspondence come to my desk, looking at that and seeing the results of that didn’t tie the issue there. I have to look at my correspondence to see how far it had gone, but I am prepared to sit down with Members on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. Is the Minister prepared to share that correspondence with Members? Thank you.