Thank you, Mr. Minister. Yes, I am looking for a formal program with monetary recognition. I think it’s important. The Minister mentioned that there was a program earlier with nominal recognition. To my mind, something like 10 per cent of the amount of savings which are garnered would be an incentive. If somebody saves $200,000 for this government, that certainly is going to give them incentive to do it. So I would ask the Minister if he would consider reinstating such a program.
Mr. Speaker, as a government we’re always looking to find new ways of improving the morale of our employees and new ways to improve our performance. So it’s certainly something that we would look into as part of our Employee Recognition Program.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and are related to the Arctic Winter Games and the volunteers, G.N.W.T. staff in particular.
The question is very specific to a two-hour block — two hours maximum per day — where individuals would be allowed to volunteer without penalty against their lieu time or annual leave. So where operational requirements permit and where a G.N.W.T. staff is registered as a volunteer and is either scheduled from a 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. shift or a 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. shift, the government has said no. Basically, if you need that two hours at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day, you have to use lieu or annual.
It seems a bit short-sighted to me. It seems like we actually are creating a lot more work through entry into PeopleSoft — through entry or verification and approval in PeopleSoft. It would be better if the people who met those conditions, if we were just to say, “Yeah, you can take that time where operational requirements permit.” Unfortunately the answer was no.
Is there any way I can get the Minister to review and reverse that decision in order to reduce the paperwork, support our staff and support the Arctic Winter Games?
I too am looking forward to the Arctic Winter Games. We’re looking forward to having the most successful games on record. I understand that the Arctic Winter Games Host Society have reached their quota for volunteers and have shut off their requests for assistance.
I think I should point out that we have followed the policies of the government, and any employees who require time off have not been denied. We haven’t denied any reasonable requests. I think that as a government…. And we also have a commitment from our senior managers that we want to make the Arctic Winter Games a success.
We have provided time off, annual leave — or Arctic Winter Games leave, I guess I should call it — for athletes and coaches and also for chairs that have been identified by the host society. Senior managers are prepared to make flexible arrangements, or flex arrangements, with staff that require time off to go to the different venues and work out the arrangements so that our government operations can continue.
I happily acknowledge that the government is doing a lot for the Arctic Winter Games and that the commitments they’ve made are good commitments, but I come back to that two-hour block. You’re asking people to take lieu and you’re asking people to take annual. This volunteering is good for the community; it’s good for the public service. In fact, it can almost be viewed as a public service.
You talked about the fact that they’ve already got the 2,500 volunteers. Yes, but now they’re trying to schedule them. It’s proving to be quite difficult as people don’t want to work certain blocks because they can’t afford to take lieu and they can’t afford to take annual.
By allowing people up to two hours, which is, say, the equivalent that you’ve given casual time if they had a doctor’s appointment, you would be supporting the Games to a greater extent. You’d be showing the government’s commitment.
I didn’t hear any sort of reference in your response as to whether you would review the decision, rescind the decision and allow our employees a two-hour maximum. If they want to work longer, I could see lieu and annual. But I’m talking about a two-hour block at either the beginning of the day or the end of the day where Arctic Winter Games is having trouble filling schedules that G.N.W.T. employees would happily fill if they didn’t have to liquidate their own time.
We certainly recognize the considerable effort required to host the Arctic Winter Games, and also the significant volunteer efforts required to make the Arctic Winter Games successful. Our senior managers have committed that they will be very flexible. They will make flexible arrangements for those government employees who are volunteers for the Arctic Winter Games, such that if they have to leave for two hours at three o'clock on any given day, they can make arrangements to be available for Arctic Winter Games work.
In 1998, when the Games were last here, we had similar policies in place and the government’s decision at that time was, “Let the staff have the two hours.” I'm wondering why, several years later, we now look at the same or very similar policies and we're rigidly applying them. We are not seeing the value in having our staff work on the Games. We are not seeing the value in giving them the time they need without taking credit away from them. We're saying, “Yeah, do it, it’s great, but you have to use your own time,” whereas in the past, we've stood up for employees and given them the time they need to support this valuable community and Territorial event.
I want to point out a couple of things. First of all, I am familiar with the letter that the Member is referring to. We've reviewed this request on at least two occasions and have expanded the original ruling to make Arctic Winter Games leave available to the chairs of the various committees and to the first-responders.
This is an area where we have had some responses from volunteers who are not G.N.W.T. employees, who don't think it’s a good use of money when somebody working as a volunteer beside them is getting paid and they're volunteering their own time. We have to have a bit of a balance in this regard.
I'd like to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask the Minister of Public Works and Services — perhaps the Premier would care to answer as well — a question with respect to our arts enhancement policy. I would like to know where this government stands with respect to that policy. As I mentioned in my Member’s statement, the last government passed a motion and it was accepted by the House. I would like to know where the government stands on this issue today. Mahsi.
The Public Works and Services standards for building construction usually focus on safety and design efficiencies, and not so much on artwork. It’s something that we still haven't adopted as part of our government to include in our infrastructure. Adding an art component to our infrastructure sometimes doesn't make sense, as in the case of water treatment plants or sewer treatment facilities. It adds to the cost overall, and it really starts to complicate things when we start designing facilities and buildings and try to accommodate the artwork.
This is something we have to have further discussion on. I will commit to having that discussion with my cabinet colleagues.
The benefits of arts-enhancing policies are many. One of them, of course, is to provide revenues to our people as well as to stimulate our art and culture sector. That’s the reasoning behind that policy. I’m surprised that the government hasn’t done much work on this, and I thought they were.
I’d just like to ask the Minister how much work has been done to date. He said… I wasn’t quite sure of the answer there.
I have to inform the Member that we haven’t had the opportunity to discuss this policy recommendation to any degree at all. We do, however, incorporate some consideration when we deal with committees in terms of cultural setting and cultural enhancements. I will, however — I said earlier — undertake to have that discussion with my colleagues.
Just in terms of impact upon how much of a building can a program like this work….. We’ve got an $8 million building being built in Fort Simpson and approximate $80,000 in arts and crafts to stimulate the region and the whole North. Yes, there’s a cost, but the benefits outweigh the cost in this instance. I’d like the assurance of the Minister that he’ll analyze that as well — not only the cost aspects but the benefits aspects.
The Member has pointed out an excellent point that needs to be considered by all planning departments that deal with Public Works and Services. In the case of Fort Simpson, there’s an additional cost of $80,000. That’s $80,000 more than the department that the community would need to come up with.
So, Mr. Speaker, it’s not a decision I can make in isolation. I have made the commitments to have that discussion.
Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
I’d like to know if the government or the Public Works department is going to look at any art purchases for this new building that’s going up in Fort Simpson.
Public Works doesn’t purchase art or provide for art. I would have to make that request to the planning department, and I’ll do that.
Mr. Speaker, going back to my Member’s statement on the materials supply tender, the local and regional suppliers proved that they are capable of submitting competitive prices. I’m not here to tell N.W.T. Housing Corporation how to do their job. I am here to tell them that we want a fair and competitive process for all businesses, regardless of what they do.
I’d like to direct my question today to the Minister Responsible for the N.W.T. Housing Corp. I’d like to ask him what the rationale was that the Housing Corp used for coming up with this process.
Mr. Speaker, the rationale for the Housing Corporation was based on trying to obtain efficiencies, economies of scale, logistical and quality control, returns to maximize transportation corridors. Mainly, in their view, it was better support of Northern suppliers. But the key one was economies of scale.
Better support of Northern economies was a good statement to make, because that’s where I’m coming from. Some of the regional suppliers have basically been left out of the mix, because they’re capable of supplying the regions; wider-scale is a little harder on them because they’re regionally based. I’m sure they could make the effort. But that’s not my point.
I’d like to ask the Minister if the regional suppliers have been proven incapable of supplying this tender.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t think this is a reflection so much of the inability of regional suppliers, but on the attempt of the Housing Corporation to try to maximize the dollars they do have via the Affordable Housing Initiative. At this time, they are trying to do the repairs and improvements on the units they do have. So it was an issue of economies of scale, as opposed to a lack of capable Northern suppliers, when they were looking at supplying within their region.
I do know for a fact that a lot of the regional suppliers have proved competitive in the past, and they have been able to submit quality bids for the supply in their region. So I’d like to ask the Minister if it’s proven that there’s a significant cost savings to the way the Housing Corp is proposing to do business.
Mr. Speaker, the Housing Corporation is always interested in trying to be as efficient and effective and fair as possible. We’d be happy to discuss this issue with committees, to look at the numbers to make sure this is the best way possible. Are there other options? Right now it’s based on 11 commodities Territory-wide. If there’s a regional application base developed that is competitive, I’d certainly be prepared to look at that. I’d be more than happy to sit down with the appropriate committee to look at this.
Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.
I thank the Minister for that. I’ve seen cases where too many terms and conditions have been put on tenders that go out there, effectively eliminating a lot of people from being able to bid on this work.
I’d like to ask the Minister — and I think he made that commitment…. I’d like a commitment to have the Housing Corp put out regional tenders for all regions in the N.W.T., so that they can bid on their region. If they choose to bid on the whole of the N.W.T., they have the option also. It’s worked before, I believe, and I think it’ll work again.
Mr. Speaker, what I will commit to, as a first step, is to share the rationale and the math, in terms of economies of scale, that allowed the Housing Corporation to come to the decision to adopt this particular policy. I’ll share that with committee, and we’ll see what those numbers add up to in terms of how a regional application compares Territory-wide, based on commodities. Together we can see what that information tells us and discuss the best way to move forward.
Mr. Speaker, in November I raised the issue of follow-up on treatment programs for individuals. My questions were directed to the Minister of Health and Social Services. The Minister wrote me back, just a couple of days ago, in response to my concern about not having a follow-up process. One of the statements in her letter to me basically put the onus back on the person who’s sought treatment programs and basically said it’s their obligation to work through this process, and if they want to call in for support, it’s up to them
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the Minister is taking, back to my reference earlier, the Pontius Pilate approach: “You’ve come for treatment. Good luck; see you later; you’re on your own.” I’d like the Minister to reconsider this approach by establishing a follow-up process for anyone who receives treatment, and have our employees give folks a call every once in a while to make sure they’re doing okay. Would she reconsider that process?
Mr. Speaker, I must say I have a different interpretation. I read that letter quite differently. I reviewed it a number of times, and a lot of thought was put into that. If I remember correctly, the letter I sent to him said that there is, in fact, an after-care program, where the Northern residents are sent to.
For anybody who is involved in wanting to deal with their addiction, the most important part of recovering and living an addiction-free life is self-motivation and self-discipline. The letter did indicate that where the residents are sent to institutional settings, they work out the after-care program with the places where they‘ve been treated. They are encouraged to have an ongoing relationship and contact with them.
Any after-care programs that work together in partnership with the regional staff of the Department of Health and Social Services have wellness workers and addiction specialists who work with the people who want help. We in this House know addiction issues can only be addressed when the individuals involved take full control over the process.
My concern is what the Minister just pointed out right there. She read the letter and she reviewed the letter, but I’m concerned it wasn’t written by the Minister or with the intent to call it what is was.
“There’s a phone number here. They can call in.” Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about taking the responsibility one level further. I’m sure employees aren’t too busy to call folks once every three months to make sure they’re doing okay.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister again: will she move forward by setting up a policy that encourages our staff to get out there? When someone goes through treatment, they call them and follow up and just say: “Hey, how are you doing? Are you feeling okay? If you need any help, here’s the phone number and process to get back and re-engage.” Would the Minister do that?
Mr. Speaker, the letter the Member is referring to is not before the House. I have a problem with the Member misquoting and misinterpreting that letter. I stand by that letter. That letter has some information that says our workers work in full partnership with anybody who wants help with their addiction issues, whether that be by working with the wellness and addictions workers or by wanting to get treatment. The department and my staff are involved with the process throughout.
I’m just saying that those who go through programs like Poundmaker or any institutional setting, they have a separate relationship and a separate process that is designed by that institution, and the people involved have to take full control over that. I think the Member is completely misunderstanding that information.
Mr. Speaker, we’re asking for a simple process. The Minister can set forward an initiative, a directive, by saying “Create a consultation process that phones people once every three months, six months” — whatever the Minister feels appropriate — “to re-engage folks.” We’re throwing money away if we send them out for treatment and we don’t help them follow through. Treatment is a lifelong process. We just can’t say, “Here’s a pill. Take it. Good luck. See you later. You’re on your own.” I want to see that we follow up with people. It’s a good investment for people; it shows the government cares.
Would the Minister send out a directive to create a follow-up process so people who seek treatment get continual care for a number of years, to make sure they know we care about them and their success?
I state for the Member again, that process is in place. Our wellness workers and addiction workers are continually with those who want help. I don’t really understand. That work is being done, and that is my answer.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
I haven't tabled the letter yet, so I’m not going to read it word for word. But one of the facilities has a phone number for people to call when they so desire. I’m talking about changing that around. I think the Minister perhaps has not read the letter that was written for her closely enough, because it says the situation is the other way around.
Would the Minister set up a program as I have suggested?
I’m happy to repeat again that those who want to have an addiction-free life have to make that choice, and they have to access programs. All the help is available to them. It is not beyond good practice and policy to ask people to be engaged in their own healing process.
All the help is there. The numbers are there. Our workers are in communities. Wellness workers are there. It’s a good policy. The programs are there for the people to access.
My question is for the Minister Responsible for Public Works and Services.
There was a technical review done on the Diamond Jenness Secondary School quite a number of years ago which listed items of priority. Code requirements were one of the areas that were listed. Areas of life safety and health were listed separately.
It would appear that for quite some time, the department, through their assessment of this building, was aware that there was asbestos on heating pipes in this building.
Under “Code-required items, if renovation planned, not complete” was:
“Remove asbestos from heating system, piping elbows, and investigate pipe elbows in crawlspace for asbestos. Present asbestos within the facility is non-friable, is encapsulated, identified by signs, and logged in log book. No immediate action required as it is not hazardous to health as long as it is not disturbed.”
I believe that the pipes and the elbows in question where the insulation containing asbestos was compromised were actually covered with duct tape, which apparently is not an acceptable practice.
This situation in the Diamond Jenness School has existed for some time, and it goes to the reason why a renovation retrofit should have been done a long time ago. Asbestos in buildings is a very sensitive issue. It has a long history of information about health risks.
I'd like to know from the Minister why this specific item was never completed, based on previous reports, which brings us to today’s situation where the air handling being fed through the whole building has possibly come in contact with these corroded asbestos-coated pipes?
The Member is correct that there is a significant amount of upgrading and retrofit that's required in the school. Our report — I believe we're looking at the same report — confirms that. That information has been provided to the Department of Health.
In this case, we've had a situation where some material fell off the heating pipes. We haven't confirmed if it is asbestos as of yet. However, we have taken the precaution of having air quality testing done. We've taken the material and sent it south, and we're waiting for those results. We suspect that the material may contain some asbestos, but we have yet to confirm that.
Mr. Speaker, right now, the school has been closed. I anticipate that if no asbestos of significant amount is found, the school may reopen as soon as Friday. If that is not the case, we have a big problem on our hands.
I’d like to ask the Minister what the chances are of expediting the retrofit to this school at this time.
Mr. Speaker, our job is to do the evaluation and take an assessment of the condition of the school. We have done that. We’ve shared that with the principal and the MLAs. We’ve also forwarded it to the Department of Education. They are making an assessment and will make the decision to bring it forward.
The time for question period has expired. However, I will allow the Member a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, the removal of the asbestos from the heating pipes would be a very major undertaking in the school. Many other things need to be addressed in the school besides this item.
Would it be possible to expedite or advance or move this work on the Diamond Jenness School forward, so that in the scenario of upheaval anyway, while the students are going to be removed from the school…? If they have to take the asbestos insulation off the pipes, it’s going to take some significant time and effort, and the students won’t be allowed to be there.
I just want to know, in the interests of addressing this and many other things, what kind of a time frame are we looking at for a contract for the rest of it?
It may be beyond the Minister’s jurisdiction. However, I’ll allow the Minister to respond.
The decision will be made by the Department of Education whether to bring it forward. Mr. Speaker, the time frame will be revolving around the capital planning process and when the decisions are made there. That’s the process we have to follow.
Mr. Speaker, in the capital planning process, one of the five criteria that will give priority to projects is protection of people — it’s number one. For the benefit of the people who live in Hay River and who use the school, whose students attend there, I would like the Minister to confirm that the protection of people will be given the highest priority, given the scenario that currently exists.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we’ve already done that. We’ve taken the review from our staff and all the technical evaluation that was required and made note of where our concerns were. We have forwarded and are recommending to the department that they seriously come forward with a retrofit for this facility. It is 34 years old and is due for a serious upgrade to remove some of these areas of concern that the parents have and that their children may be facing.
