Mr. Speaker, certainly one of our objectives is to increase the hiring of Northwest Territories employees in all sectors. We think that we can achieve the objective that the Members laid out without having to open up the socio-economic agreements. We will be working towards that very end.
Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
On the news this morning there was more speculation about the Alaska pipeline and the Mackenzie gas pipeline taking a major sidelining to the proposals and thoughts that are out there now on serving North American markets through liquefied natural gas. It seems an alternative. When it looked like there was a possibility for the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, we criticized this government heavily on the front of being prepared because we said when the diamonds were coming to the Northwest Territories, we didn’t get out ahead of it. We weren’t prepared.
So now, when the natural gas is coming, we encouraged our government to get involved right from the outset. Get people in positions; let’s be prepared. The government, in response to those requests, did so. Now we have people working in almost all departments, working on pipeline readiness.
In fact, I’d like to know how we are going to address all that build-up of expertise, planning and personnel should the pipeline not proceed at this time. The Mackenzie Gas Project offices have already been closed. What is the signal to the government by this other information coming forward on alternatives to our pipeline?
The government has been working very hard to be prepared for the pipeline. We realize there is significant lead time to make sure that we have people trained up and businesses ready to take advantage of the opportunities that will come with a pipeline.
I should point out that the offices in Inuvik, Norman Wells and Fort Simpson have not been closed; they have been downsized. Imperial Oil has indicated that they are doing so to wait the writing of the Joint Review Panel report, and they remain committed to the project. The Liquid Natural Gas reports that you are referring to…. This was something that the proponents had pointed out several years ago. We were always aware that LNG was a real alternative to a pipeline and that the technology was developing to the point where there are several locations in Canada where LNG terminals had started to be constructed. So this is something that we are aware of, and we want to ensure that we can advance the pipeline as quickly as the regulatory system allows.
Mr. Speaker, the eventuality of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline is something that has been debated extensively all through this process. Will it go, or will it not go? When will it go? This has been a question that has been out there.
Given the ramping up of positions and people in preparation for the pipeline on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories, do you have a contingency plan in place? Do you have an exit plan? Do you have something else these folks can do? Do you have other priorities they can turn their attention to if the pipeline is postponed and deferred?
In the work that we are doing, with most of the positions for the government that would be affected, those skills are still transferrable. I would think that with the economy the way it is, there would probably be little difficulty in finding alternative employment for those affected employees. I think it would be more difficult for businesses that have ramped up in anticipation of the pipeline. Our expectation is still that the pipeline will go ahead, and we’re continuing to work on that basis.
I have been a big proponent of the government being prepared for the pipeline and making sure that Northerners are prepared, that industry is prepared, that as a government we are prepared. What kind of timelines are we looking at? You said you were waiting for the completion of the report of the regulatory bodies. What kind of a time frame are we looking at now to have that kind of information in hand?
Although we wanted this kind of preparation in place, at the same time, if there is a significant delay or postponement of the pipeline, we have financial pressures on us right now. We don’t want to be wasting money pursuing something that isn’t going to be forthcoming in the time frame we expected.
Mr. Speaker, the timelines that have been laid out indicate that the JRP report would be completed within four months after the hearings were completed. If you adhere to that, then you’re looking at early spring of 2008. If there’s any delay, it would push it back into the summertime, and as we all know, even for writing reports that would probably mean that it wouldn’t be available until the fall. That would be problematic, because it would probably push back the go–no go decision which the company would have to make probably within a year after the report has been concluded.
I’d like to know when was the most recent communication the Minister has had with the APG and the producers group and the proponents of the pipeline. When was the most recent communication that he had with them that causes him to still feel optimistic, and what is that vehicle for ongoing communication with our government and the business components of the pipeline?
We’ve been in communication with a number of people, most recently with Mr. David Hudson, the ministerial envoy for Minister Prentice, who is the lead on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline for the federal government. We’ve also had discussions with Randy Broiles of Imperial Oil and the APG members, so we continue to remain optimistic.
Mr. Speaker, I believe quite firmly in the concept of lifelong learning, and I’ve been reading a lot of Greek mythology lately. I have to admit I did have a tongue-twister trying to describe this situation. In modern terms it’s referred to as a rock and a hard place. But in my reading it was called the Scylla and the Charybolis, and it was about that six-headed monster versus the monster that sinks your ship through whirlpools. I thought that perfectly — perfectly, I have to stress — describes the struggle of small business, where the monster of the system chews you up and spits you out and the whirlpool sinks you in paperwork.
Mr. Speaker, I find the frustration of small business is not getting the help they need when they need to try to get foreign workers and help with the paperwork of permanent residents.
My question to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment is: will he set up a program to help these small-business folks process that paperwork?
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education does provide services and programs to assist with these immigrants in Canada. We do have various programs that we offer newcomers via Aurora College for English as a second language and also career counselling, job search assistance that the Member is asking for. And also the resume writing and job skills assistance. Those are just some of the areas that we are conducting at the department. I do believe that Industry and Tourism also provides various programs to assist businesses, but with our department we provide employment services programs that specifically highlight the individual’s needs. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respect the Minister’s answer, but while I’m not going to say wrong, I don’t agree with him. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about people trying to get here. I’m talking about small businesses that want skilled and semi-skilled workers here to help do specialized jobs that they can’t get just walking out on the street and saying, “Here, I’ve got a job application. Please jump on board, and I’ll pay you.”
Mr. Speaker, we need talent. Sometimes we have to reach outside the N.W.T. That’s what I’m describing. I’m saying there’s a role for the Department of Education to play here.
Would the Minister of Education strike up a program that will help businesses so they can attract and fill out the paperwork needed to bring in employees and possibly foreign workers to the Northwest Territories to fill those gaps created?
Our Department of Education, Culture and Employment is working closely with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the federal government department, specifically dealing with the immigration status here in the North. There is an increasing number of immigrants to Canada and also specifically to the Northwest Territories. We are doing what we can as a department with the federal funding that we are receiving through immigrant settlement and adaptation programs. That is the program that we are initiating and that we are working with other departments to deal with the issue at hand. So we are delivering programs to assist those immigrants that are here in the North and also throughout Canada. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, the system, I hate to say, doesn’t exist to anyone out there on the street. The system must exist under some rock hidden in some broom closet or something, because I’ll tell you, we’ve got small businesses out there that need help filling out the paperwork . That’s what they need. They need someone to help them along with the process. They need someone to help them work with Citizenship Canada. They need that process. Not when they’re here, because when they’re here that’s not the problem. They just want to get them here. So the problem is getting them to the Northwest Territories and helping them with their temporary residency and turning them into permanent residents. Which, by the way, we get grant money of almost $20,000 a head for every one of these people. So it’s in our best interest.
Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Education take into consideration what I’ve just said there and look at starting a program so that small business can tap into those skills to help them?
Mr. Speaker, again we do provide those programs and services to immigrants that are in the North. Also, with the business sector it does fall under Industry and Tourism, but with our department we are working with the program itself dealing with immigrants to the North. So we are doing our best with the programs that we have to assist those individuals from outside Canada that are immigrating to the North. There are various programs as highlighted, Mr. Speaker.
So we will continue to work with the federal government, within our Territorial departments, and improve and enhance our programs that we have currently in place. Mahsi.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I am not going to say that I agree with the Minister, because I didn’t agree with that at all.
Mr. Speaker, there is no system to help a small business like a restaurant hire a professional cook who cooks a very special style. There’s no program out there that helps other small businesses bring in foreign workers so they can fill gaps for skilled and semi-skilled workers. He may have a system out there — who knows where — that helps them learn English. Yes, I know there are cases of that. I know that there are a few other things. But there’s nothing to help them with that.
By the way, if we think small business has nothing to do but fill out paperwork, we’ve got to be crazy. They’ve got a business to run. So the fact is we need a program.
Mr. Speaker, would the Minister please take the time and help me investigate this problem and solve this problem? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the challenges that we’re faced with, with the retailers here in the North. It’s a challenge throughout the North, and also nationally. So we will continue to improve our services and programs. Mahsi.
My questions are for the Minister of ITI — Industry, Trade and Investment.
Northerners are certainly quite concerned, as are many Canadians, about the whole issue of climate change. They are aware that we need to do business a lot differently than we have been, and that it is not necessarily easy. They are willing to shoulder their responsibilities to provide leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I’m quite concerned about this policy of not allowing support to be spent in an environmentally responsible way. Will the Minister immediately review the so-called travel policy and make the change to allow environmentally responsible travel, at least when there’s no additional costs?
I guess I just want to point out to the Member that’s he’s referring to one incident that happened some time ago. I think, as a government, we are definitely responsible for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly, if it can be shown that the purchase of carbon offsets will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we would definitely find a way to put it into place. I guess a question is…. The practice of buying carbon offsets from travel agents. Does that really reduce the emission of greenhouse gases?
I had responded to the Member in response to a previous question. At that time he had indicated he would provide me with a list of travel agents he said were able to do exactly that. We would have to satisfy ourselves that paying an extra $20 on an airline ticket to provide for carbon offsets would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Once we were satisfied that was the case, then we would definitely bring forward a policy for the government to implement when making travel arrangements.
The Member also referenced my letter where I talked about the federal level. In a lot of our human resource practices, sometimes we look to see whether the federal government has done anything in that regard. We are definitely prepared to review that policy, and if it, in fact, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we would take forward a request.
I think the Minister misinterpreted my question. The situation was not that my constituent wanted to purchase an offset — in fact she did that, having been forced to travel by air. In this case the constituent wanted to travel by a means that would produce a lot fewer carbon emissions, because there is always the little bit of uncertainty with purchasing offsets. She wanted to travel by land at no additional cost to this government. She was not allowed to do it. She had to travel by air. We were forcing this person to be irresponsible in an environmental sense.
Let me expand on the question, here. I’m concerned that if this interpretation has been given to individuals, the same interpretation will be given to business, which is a big part of ITI’s responsibilities. I’d like to see this concern extended. I use this as a bit of a platform. Will this department review all of their policies with regard to identifying and encouraging opportunities for businesses, as well as individuals, to behave in more environmentally responsible ways at every opportunity when receiving support from this department?
I didn’t think I had misinterpreted, but with regard to the specific policy that he’s referring to — I guess it’s a travel policy — our objective is to make sure that the most economical mode of transportation is used. I’m prepared to review that policy.
With regard to further extending the reach of the government when it makes funding available, I’d be prepared to work with my colleague in implementing the Greenhouse Gas Strategy for the government.
I certainly agree with the most economical travel. This government has to be responsible economically, financially. Of course to do that we need full-cost accounting. Obviously air travel is, when it’s fully accounted for, one of the most expensive ways of travelling that’s possible in this world today. You need to account for the subsidies we give to the airports and so on.
Basically, we’ll let you do the necessary research and departmental self-education to engage in a full-cost accounting review in order to minimize our net costs and improve the health of our land and our people through a very aware full-cost accounting approach.
Yes, I’ll do the necessary research, and I’ll make sure that whatever we follow is consistent with the accounting treatments that are provided for by the Department of Finance.
Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
No supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much to the Minister for that response.
Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier. It gets back to my Member’s statement from earlier, where I was talking about the Nunavut government signing a $242 million dollar deal over the next seven years with the federal government for infrastructure development in the Nunavut Territory. It got me wondering. I know the Building Canada fund. We’ve had much discussion here in the House about, well, I guess, what the definition of a list is. I have my own definition; cabinet seems to have their definition of what a list is.
I’d like to ask the Premier what plans his government has to secure a long-term infrastructure funding deal with Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the federal government on a very similar plan to what the Nunavut government has just announced. It’s a combination of the Building Canada Fund and the municipal gas tax rebate that’s going to communities. We’ve been negotiating, and we’ll be signing an agreement in the very near future as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier what resources are currently being deployed to secure this investment deal with the federal government. Is it the Department of Transportation, or is it the Department of Executive, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, in this government we’ve given the lead to Municipal and Community Affairs and Transportation to work jointly on this initiative as the Building Canada Fund has those aspects to it.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to request a timeline for when the Premier might have the two departments come back to Members of this House with information pertaining to a deal with Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement that has to be worked out has two levels of negotiations that need to be done. One is a framework agreement; following that a funding agreement. In the very near future they’ll be able to sign the framework agreement, and we’ll have an idea following that on the funding arrangement that will flow from that agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the funding is contingent on project-specific details. I just wanted to make that clear.
I’d like to ask the Premier: is the federal government looking for project specifics on funding, or is it just blanket funding for a period of time?
Mr. Speaker, the process that we’ve been involved with to date… Initially they were looking for us to look at a number of projects that could be attached to this agreement. We’ve had further discussions preparative to signing a framework agreement. We’ve been saying it’s fairly difficult to highlight project-specific funding when the agreement still includes the federal government having a say in what the final outcome will be on any project.
Mr. Speaker, today I talked about the importance of hiring qualified, properly trained recreation staff in our communities and the struggles many of our communities are experiencing with this. My questions today are directed toward the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Geographically the North is unique in many factors, and these factors include the cost of living in each community. Taking this into account, can the Minister commit to taking the lead in developing standardized pay scales and job descriptions for recreation professionals?
Mr. Speaker, the Member’s statement regarding the challenges facing communities in hiring trained recreational workers and paying them a salary that is comparable across the board is something we’ve recognized for some time. The N.W.T. Sports and Recreation Council has recognized it. We’ve had some early discussions on it. They have been quite concerned about the level of investment that goes into the bigger events, such as our Winter Games, Canada Games, and want to have discussions about what the challenges are in the community and the possibility of redirecting finances. So my answer to the Member is: we will be entering those discussions, and I would be glad to share that information with the Member.
Mr. Speaker, if the community is able to hire qualified, properly trained recreation professionals, that usually means the individual will be hired from outside the community, in many cases from the south. Because of this, sometimes problems can arise because of cultural differences between the new employee and a community and its residents. It would be ideal to hire local individuals who work with recreation professionals and the community. Would the Minister commit to developing standardized job descriptions and pay scales for these local recreation positions?
Over the years we have really made the attempt to enhance our investments in our communities to deal with some of the real challenging areas. Recreation, of course, has been one area that we needed to see improvements in. We’ve increased the O&M funding to all our communities across the Territories, and in some cases that has been fairly significant. However, the investments are at the community council level — sometimes recreation doesn’t come out on the top, and other priorities overcome it in terms of investment.
We have certainly tried to expand our School of Community Government programs to be able to take in training for recreation workers and people at the community level. Nunavut Arctic College, of course, has a Recreation Leaders Program. We’re still in the position where we need investment from the community. We need to be able provide support. We need to be able to take a look at the whole issue of recreation leaders, recreation workers in the communities. As I indicated earlier, I’d be willing to look at that.
At one time the Department of Municipal Affairs provided a wage subsidy to these communities for recreation programmers and facilities maintainers. But with the new funding formula for financing communities, this was done away with. Mr. Speaker, attracting and retaining good, qualified recreation staff continues to be a constant challenge for our communities.
Would the Minister commit to once again providing a wage subsidy to allow communities to have competitive wage and benefit packages for recreation professionals in communities?
I guess I should first point out that recreation workers work for the community governments and not for our government directly. We, in turn, have, through the new deal program, really tried to enhance the government funding in the communities. We also have a community recreation contribution program which all communities can apply to. We, as a government, spend roughly $5 million in the area of sports and recreation. The N.W.T. Sport and Recreation Council spends close to the same, around $4.5 million. We have increased our money through the youth centres, the youth contribution. So there is quite a lot of support. We are moving forward to providing money for the Territorial sports organizations.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to make a commitment here in light of all of the reviews we are doing and be able to comfortably say that we will directly increase the support through recreation board programs.
There was a dispute regarding the numbers of the caribou count in the 15th Assembly. I would like to pose my question to the Minister of ENR today. I would like to ask him if there was a second count using local input and local knowledge, and what was the outcome of the count?
Mr. Speaker, back in 2005, as the Member indicated, there was work done, and we were asked to redo it, just to confirm it. We made sure that we used local people. We worked with various co-management boards, and they in effect confirmed that there has been, in all the herds that had been surveyed, right from Cape Bathurst to the Bluenose, west and east in Bathurst, significant decline. We have done a small amount of work with the Beverly and Dolphin caribou, and initial concerns are there as well. It is anticipated that there will be Porcupine as well that have not been surveyed for about four years or so. This will also be down at least 20 per cent.
I thank the Minister for that. I would like to ask him, based on the dwindling numbers, how much longer can the caribou last?
Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex issue, where there are a number of key factors, including things like the changing climate, resource development, predation, increased insects, hunting. We are very concerned, as the Member is. We are going to continue to invest the funds to do the monitoring.
I’d like to point out that we are the only jurisdiction in, I believe, North America that is doing the amount of work that has been done on caribou, to try to come to a better understanding of what is happening. Clearly the signals are there. We have to pay attention and adjust the things that we can control, which are going to be access to the caribou when hunting, the type of resource development and habitat fragmentation.
So the trends and projections are that things are not looking good. We are committed to monitoring them and working with the co-management boards to make the right decisions to ensure that we don’t let this slide continue.
