The discussion paper that we put out, we will consult with all affected stakeholders before we release the final drafting in June. The final draft is actually not the implementation, as the Member had noted. It would be a draft taken into consideration, all the comments that we have heard during the consultation process. Thank you.
Again, thanks to the Minister. I would like to know from the Minister, because this is another area that, in my mind, where lack of information was glaringly obvious. There was no assessment of current use of particularly the Vee Lake and Walsh Lake areas and a couple of small lakes around it like Jackson and Banting, I believe. I would like to know from the Minister if we are talking about a June 30th final document, how will the department get that current use evaluation, that data, how will they get that prior to June 30th. I think it is vitally important that they have that data in order to have a good framework and policy going forward. Will the department do that work that is required? Thank you.
I believe the department has done some work in identifying the density of the cabins out in these particular lakes as they have done around the airport like in Inuvik, just to ensure that there is room for growth and able to get more cabins on there. Some of that work is done. Again, I will assure the Member that we need to make sure we get a good product out there and this is one that we are going to take our time, make sure we get the right product out there before any kind of implementation because it is very important to residents not only of the lakes surrounding Yellowknife but the residents of Airport Lake in Inuvik too. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I totally agree with the Minister that we want to get it right and I think there are a number and certain parts of information that are lacking. The density study unfortunately was done from a desk, it wasn’t done from on the land, and that, in my mind, is lacking.
I’d like to ask the Minister, there’s another area that hasn’t yet been handled, from what I’ve seen, and that would be the ownership issue of letting leases on land that’s been claimed by prospectors where there are mineral claims, and also how is he going to handle the ownership issue of Yellowknives Dene First Nations land. Thank you.
Thank you. Obviously, these are very important questions and ones that we need to address. Part of the consultation between now and when we get the final draft framework done, we need to make sure that we have all these questions answered, the ownership issues taken care of so as we go to implement the framework there’s not a lot of confusion. So we hope to clear up a lot of confusion before we actually get into implementation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my colleague’s questions to the Minister of MACA on the whole business as per my statement earlier. I’d like to start by saying that I do appreciate the department going after a renewal of this policy. It was desperately needed and I think there are a lot of lessons obviously being learned along the way and that’s what I want to do is improve this process. I’d like to start by asking the Minister if he could explain how it is possible that the Yellowknives Dene First Nation and the central holders and users of these lands had not even received the consultation documents until they heard about them from somebody else and asked for them, much less being included in consultations before the public process began. How could this happen in this day and age? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This whole process was one, as the Member said, that was much needed. It was one that was actually endorsed by Members of the 16th Assembly to start to carry out the work as they felt there were a lot of squatters out there and the issue needed to be dealt with.
As far consulting, we do our best to try to consult with all affected stakeholders in this. As I responded to Ms. Bisaro, we are trying to get a product out there that they can actually see and make their assessments and comments based on the discussion paper. So it’s not a perfect scenario, but it’s one that the department has worked very hard at trying to address the issue of cabins and squatters that was brought forward and endorsed by Members of the 16th Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you for the response there, but that’s very lame, Mr. Minister. This is a First Nation we’re talking about here and the fundamental first thing we know in consultation on anything that we do involving the land is to talk immediately and thoroughly with the First Nation. So I hope the Minister will ask his staff, inform his staff on that protocol. It certainly should be routine by now.
Regarding the recommendations, MACA has admitted that the consultant plotting new lease sites did not even leave his office and walk the ground. Area leaseholders, a gold mine of knowledge and experience, were not consulted for their input, preparing informed options. The area is underlain by mineral potential and mineral leases active for 40 years, yet MACA was unaware. We’ve since found out that recreational leases are packed into shallow, and weedy and inappropriate bays. Any weekend trip to the Vee Lake landing would have revealed that parking and docking are already bursting with users.
So could the Minister comment on why recommendations were brought forward without any on-the-spot visits to proposed lakes and facilities before consultation with the people who already live on the lakes, or site examination of the facilities now in place? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I’ll try and stay away from lame answers and give the Member the answers that he wants to hear.
As far as I know, we didn’t GPS track the worker that was supposedly glued to his desk and not on site. So I’m not aware of that. I will follow up and find out how many site visits we actually have done. According to the Member we’ve done none but again, without a GPS strapped to our employee, we’re not sure if he’s gone out or not. So I will follow up on that for the Member. Thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate the Minister’s response. The next question I have is enforcement. Again I am astounded that a department with the responsibility of regulating land use has essentially no familiarity with the land and admits it, and they’re responsible for regulation and they admit they have no capacity and yet they propose no remedy. Or at least I have not heard one so far. At the same time, MACA is proposing to double a number of leases here and the past leases are in complete disarray in terms of any adherence to regulations. We lack the enforcement. So why is the Minister proposing new leases when we can’t enforce the regulations we have and will he go forward to address our capacity for enforcement? Mahsi.
It is our intent to grant new leases once the whole framework is done and we’re able to. We are a government for all the people in the Northwest Territories and we do have folks that are sending us communications saying that they think this is long overdue. They think this is a good idea. So we have to listen to them too.
As far as the enforcement goes, the Member is correct; we have been lacking in our ability to enforce in the least little bit. As part of the business plan process, we’re hoping to bring forward recommendations and get feedback from committee. Obviously this is one, because if we are putting a regulation in place, we need to have the capacity to enforce them. So I can assure the Member that we will work on getting that capacity so we’re able to enforce. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s response. I recognize that this, and maybe much of this, has been inherited by this Minister, but now is the time and opportunity to address these and I appreciate the Minister’s commitment.
My last question is on the greater issue of our land legacy. We’re in devolution negotiations; we’re proposing to take down the existing federal land management program with no additional resources I know of. As we know, federal enforcement is no enforcement. So we’re inheriting this huge deficit and I called on the Minister during the last Assembly to write the federal Minister, start a correspondence, ask him for priority action to begin enforcing the law. So will the Minister provide us with the correspondence he’s had to date on this with DIAND or whoever, and his perspectives on the implications of this to our devolution negotiations process? Mahsi.
Thank you. The Member is absolutely correct that when devolution does happen, it is something that we will inherit and we have to make sure that we’re best positioned to deal with all of the federal squatters on Crown lands. So we need to position ourselves to deal with that.
I will again commit to the Members that I will update them on any correspondence I have with DIAND as to our concerns with what we may be inheriting. Again, rest assured to Members that we will do our best to ensure that when we do take this over from the federal government, we will be in a position to be able to do the job and do it well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in my statement, I am quite concerned with the implementation of the Business Incentive Policy and the northern manufacturing policy. My question today is for the Minister of ITI and it concerns that BIP and northern manufacturing policy.
How are the departments trained in the implementation of the Business Incentive Policy and northern manufacturing policy?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s a very specific question and I would suppose that training of staff at the departmental level would take place through the deputy ministers’ committees, I would suppose, and that information would filter down to the departments. There undoubtedly are training sessions that are conducted by the BIP folks at ITI with the various departments. That’s how I would see the training of departmental staff taking place. I can get a further detailed response for the Member, if he wishes. Thank you.
I’m looking forward to that information. My next question is concerning, as my colleague for Hay River South had indicated yesterday, we’ve had some businesses that have been trying to talk to some of the different departments about the services they provide. This may be something the Minister may need to get information on, as well, but how are the different departments informed of the new products and services that companies in the Northwest Territories are added to the Business Incentive Policy listing, I guess?
If a company does avail themselves of new equipment that would enhance the services that they could provide, I think that would be part of the salesmanship of the company to get out to both government and private sector to ensure that people know what type of equipment they have and what services they can provide. The Government of the Northwest Territories certainly wants to be a partner with northern businesses and ensure that opportunities are maximized to the greatest extent possible when we do look at procurement here in the Northwest Territories.
Another area of concern that some of the businesses in my riding of Hay River expressed is the bundling of packages. The departments may have a larger project that includes everything. When they’re building a road, they may include the signage. They may have an engineering contract that includes the drilling. My question to the Minister is: How does the Business Incentive Policy extend to subcontractors that are working for the companies that have the actual contract with the GNWT?
This is a very important point to make here. I think some of the recent changes that we have seen with BIP is how those design-build RFPs are evaluated. I share the Member’s concern, that oftentimes the local subcontractors don’t get the work and the work goes someplace else. I think we’ve done a great deal of work, working with the Construction Association here in the Northwest Territories and other stakeholders, to ensure that we come up with an evaluation criteria that is going to allow the maximum extent possible of local and northern content so that those dollars stay in the North and continue to work to benefit our economy here in the Northwest Territories, not somebody else’s economy. I appreciate the Member’s concerns that we are putting our best efforts to looking at that. I know Public Works and Services has done a good job on that as well. Going forward, the evaluation criteria are something that we are going to address in a serious way.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. My next question is along those lines. How do we encourage the different departments to break down those contracts? Like I had indicated in my Member’s statement, I am concerned that at this level we’re having difficulties getting maximization from northern businesses. When we get into larger projects, how are we going to deal with that? How can we encourage the GNWT and departments to break down these contracts to maximize the northern businesses?
I think, in answer to the previous question, a step in the right direction is the evaluation and the criteria to get the government to evaluate RFPs and a waiting system that is going to give more weight to proposals that maximize northern content. That would include subcontractors, engineering services, whatever the case may be. I think, going forward, that is an area that we certainly have to pay attention to as a government. We again need to maximize those benefits to local businesses and northern businesses here in the NWT, not south of our border and in other places. That’s something that I’m intent on pursuing. I know this government is very interested in maximizing the dollars that stay in the North.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs some questions, some old questions on the New Deal. Under the New Deal they’re turning the facilities over to the community of, specifically, Jean Marie River. The issue was that they had committed to train people to have local resources to help maintain and upkeep the facilities. To date they’re not in a capacity situation. I’d like firstly to ask the Minister what the current status of the New Deal is, as it deals with Jean Marie River.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try to give some new answers to old questions. The New Deal is one that’s been embraced very well by the community governments. Obviously, there are challenges as far as capacity goes in some of the responsibility that they’ve inherited. But the communities have come along really well, working with our partners at Local Government Administrators program. There’s a training program that Jean Marie River is actually one of the recipients of some funding for, to help train one of the local band members to eventually be in a position to take over the operation of Jean Marie River.
As far as the infrastructure goes, we do work with the communities quite closely to make sure that they’re positioned to be able to handle the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with it. I know in Jean Marie River’s case they have been working with Public Works and Services to do some of the maintenance until they’re better positioned to handle the maintenance themselves.
I guess the facilities and assets do get transferred to the community come March 31st. Is that assistance still there up until March 31st or does it end March 31st? That’s the issue that the community of Jean Marie River is talking about: that they’re not ready yet, and it’s very, very costly to bring in outside services to the community.
Obviously, we’ll do our best to make sure that we don’t leave Jean Marie River on their own as far as the maintenance goes. We’ll work with the community to try to come up with – they usually work with our departments very closely – a maintenance plan, capital plan, and so forth.
Again, we need to make sure that our communities benefit from the transfer, if it means training opportunities for their local residents. There are some cases with some of the communities that have inherited the New Deal where they’ve kind of bundled together and hired maintenance people to make a tour of their communities and take care of the maintenance. We’ll work very closely with the community of Jean Marie River to ensure that they’re not left out on their own without any assistance from MACA.
So is it the Minister’s intent, with regard to Jean Marie River, to continue with the deal as it is, which means transferring the facilities over to the community come March 31st? They are anticipating an impact to their budget.
That was the intent of the New Deal right from the beginning, to transfer all assets over to the community and have them responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure. Again, we work with them and make sure that we’re not setting any of these communities up and putting them in a position where they fail. That’s not our intent. We’ll work very closely with the community but the intent is still there to transfer all assets over to the community.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I guess one of the questions that they did ask me is: Can the transfer be delayed until the question of sustainability and ability to maintain the assets are in place?
Obviously, I’m not going to make that commitment here on the floor, but I can assure the Member that I’ll have discussions with the officials, see where Jean Marie River is at, see what challenges they’re facing and if there’s any possibility of delaying. I’ll work with the Member and the officials to ensure that Jean Marie is in a good position to succeed once everything’s signed over to them.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Housing with regard to his Minister’s statement that he gave earlier today. Before I begin I just want to commend all the hard work that the department of housing has been doing with the Yellowknife Homelessness Coalition and the creation of the Betty House. However, you have to understand that homelessness is more than a Yellowknife issue; we see it in all our communities. We see it more in the regional centres. I want to ask the Minister what work has been done in the regional centres such as Inuvik, Hay River, Fort Smith and Fort Simpson to deal with the homelessness issues that are arising in those communities as well.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The honourable Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the communities themselves, they have very active groups that try and look after the homelessness issue in their communities. We would work with these communities. The one in Yellowknife here, most of all we helped with the infrastructure. Then the groups are usually responsible for the operation of facilities. If there are groups out there that have ideas and plans and want to sit down with the Housing Corporation, we’re always more than willing to listen to any plans that are out there. As far as funding the O and M on a lot of the shelters, we’re not in a position to do that. We usually help with the infrastructure.
Thanks to the Minister for his comments. I’d like to ask the Minister, has the department of housing taken the initiative to speak with these interested groups in the regions and given them advice and some support and motivation to move to this next step of building the infrastructure in these communities so our people who are in dire straits and on the streets have a place to go.
We don’t go out and solicit these groups and see if they need our assistance. In many cases the groups will come and initiate the conversation with the Housing Corporation. Then again we would be willing to listen. This would be one that’s driven by the particular groups in the community. If they drive it, then it has a chance for success, rather than having Housing drive it where the chance of success is a little lesser. Groups like this that drive these initiatives in the community, that’s when it starts to work.
In terms of the contribution that was given to the Yellowknife Homelessness Coalition of $2.3 million that he had stated earlier, it is quite a bit of money and I know it will go to a good use. As the contribution as such, would the department be looking at developing some kind of contribution to get these groups started up into developing a plan that can eventually lead to these kinds of infrastructures such as the Betty House? If there is already a contribution program in place, can the Minister describe what that contribution is?
