Debates of February 14, 2005 (day 35)

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 373-15(3): Meetings With Ministers Responsible For Day Care

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the NWT, like most jurisdictions, is willing to accept the accountability provisions as long as there is adequate money. The problem we face right now is if the money flows to us through the CST and comes only in a per capita basis, the costs to report on what we are doing would take up an awful lot of the amount of money that we would get. As Members of this House know, if we get funding flowed to us on a solely per capita basis, we will not get enough money to make a significant difference in the childcare field. So our position is that there has to be base funding plus a per capita, and we’re asking for base funding of .51 percent, which would amount to about $5 million. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 373-15(3): Meetings With Ministers Responsible For Day Care

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to know if the Minister was to get the money that he’s looking for or somewhere near to that, what is the plan of this government in terms of putting in its own money? Is there any plan for the government to put in its own money? I’ll leave it at that for this question. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 373-15(3): Meetings With Ministers Responsible For Day Care

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this government already puts millions of dollars into early childhood programs and we will continue to invest in early childhood. Whether or not we would increase our funding is something we would have to take a look at. Without knowing what the amount of money is that we’re looking at, it’s difficult to advance any plans. We are quite ready to move forward and we had hoped that we would get some signals from the federal government on Friday that would help us advance our plans so that we would be prepared to move things forward. The federal Minister has indicated that in all likelihood the money will ramp up. In other words, we won’t start to see the money flow in equal amounts each year; it will be a gradual increase, which means that we will have some time to develop the plans to take advantage of the money as it starts to flow.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Your final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 373-15(3): Meetings With Ministers Responsible For Day Care

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions to this and the details to work out and the debates to have, perhaps the Minister could make a statement in the House about where the government’s position is. But in the interim, could I get the information from the Minister as to whether we’re looking at a nationally run child day care program, or are we looking at tax benefits or are we looking at 50/50 funding? Putting aside the dollar commitments that the federal government is willing to give, because we do hear numbers flowing around, what is this government’s position as to what this childcare program will look like that will best benefit the people of the NWT? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 373-15(3): Meetings With Ministers Responsible For Day Care

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, childcare is an area of exclusive provincial and territorial responsibility. We’re not talking about a national system, we’re not talking about something that would be the same in all jurisdictions. For instance, Quebec already has a system that is the envy of everybody else in Canada and they’re putting billions of dollars into that. Our system is starting from a different point, as is every other system in Canada. So what we’re talking about is a program where the federal government would assist the provinces and territories to improve on the systems that we currently have. We’ve agreed on the vision as a national priority and what each of our systems should look like. Ours will continue to be an individual system and we will build on the strengths of the system that we have in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the elders' long-term care home facility in Deline has been closed for a number of years. To date the government continues to pay operating and maintenance costs on the facility, but have yet to determine its use. Mr. Speaker, it’s really hard to imagine an empty building in a community when there are not enough buildings to administer programs and services that people have daily access to in larger centres. My question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Will the Minister tell me why the elders’ long-term care home facility in Deline is closed?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The Minister of Health and Social Services, the Honourable Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this goes back quite a few years, but there was a determination made sometime after the facility was built that it wasn’t needed for the purpose it was designed. Therefore, it was no longer used. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Supplementary To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell me what are the operating and maintenance costs associated with this facility? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, has just indicated to me that the mortgage payments are over $22,000 a month. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Yakeleya, supplementary.

Supplementary To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell the Legislative Assembly what the department has considered for the use of this facility in Deline?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m aware of the interest in the region and in Deline for the use of that facility and, as a government, it’s a facility that we built and we’re funding to pay the mortgage on. We have looked at it with its potential for a long-term care facility and a number of months ago, as we were doing our review of facilities across the NWT, there was an initial review done of the facility where it was indicated to us that it would cost about $3 million to upgrade the facility to the current code and standards for a long-term care facility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Supplementary To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, surrounding that, we have…(inaudible)…in Deline. It is costing $22,000 a month, according to the Minister, for the mortgage and they are looking at it. Will the Minister tell me when the department expects to make a decision on the future use of this long-term care facility in Deline and have our people come to stay back in our region? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 374-15(3): Long-Term Care Facility In Deline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the constructive use for that facility is on the government agenda. As I have discussed with the Member, if there is a clear understanding in the Sahtu region, for example, that there would be political support for one regional care centre, then that would go a long way to assist in making it clear for the government on what the wishes of the people in the Sahtu are. If every community in the Sahtu is going to be wishing or demanding or asking for a long-term care facility, then it will be a very difficult circumstance. Those are the circumstances at present. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are to the Premier, and they relate to the amazing deal that was signed earlier today with two of the Maritime provinces on their resource sharing deals. I wanted to ask, Mr. Speaker, just what parallels are there between the deals that Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island have and the deal that we are seeking with Ottawa for our resources? Where are the similarities? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The deal as signed today is actually with Newfoundland, Labrador and Nova Scotia, not P.E.I. P.E.I. is not involved in this. As the Member may remember or recall, several years ago, Premier Hamm in Nova Scotia was touring across Canada raising this issue of the unfair distribution of the off-shore tax royalties. This is an arrangement that was negotiated for several years, and it came to a head last June during the federal election. So it is a long-standing one. It did not go on, I don’t believe, as long as our discussions on resource revenue and royalties sharing have, but it has gone on a long time.

In our case, we have, in this government, worked out an agreement with the Prime Minister to come to an agreement-in-principle this spring and a final agreement in 2006. As I have said before in the House, I intend to keep the Prime Minister to his word on that. If we begin to slip and start to see time passing, if we have no agreement-in-principle and that we can see that the federal government, for some reason, is dragging its feet on it, then, yes, there may be very close parallels to what the people in this territory would want to do and what happened in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland/Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Premier’s correction. Indeed, it was not Prince Edward Island, but Nova Scotia that kind of also claimed that it has a brand new day. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue following through with this. What we know to date, does this deal with these two provinces help the NWT’s case or could it, in fact, hurt us? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the face of it, it helps us because it sets a precedent that we can follow. But as the Member again may have noticed in the papers in the last few days, that Ontario are now raising some concern because they feel that the Prime Minister has done a one-off deal with two provinces that is unfair to Ontario, and that they're going to end up having to pay more than their share in equalization as a result of this. So on that front, there clearly has to be some discussion among the Premiers and with the Prime Minister to figure out how all of this is going to work.

There are other provinces that share the same kinds of concerns as we do. Saskatchewan, for example, has made it clear that they intend to try to work out a similar deal for themselves. So it helps us, but on the other hand it does create the possible imbalances that could work against us. But as far as I'm concerned, we have a deal with the Prime Minister -- a deal on devolution and resource revenue sharing -- and I intend that we will stick to that deal. We will honour it and we will trust him until he shows us, for some reason, that he's not going to live up to it. If that happens, then we're ready to take more drastic action. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I do know -- and it's Valentine's Day so my heart is with the Premier and with the Prime Minister, too -- their promise is to see a deal that is going to mean net fiscal benefit. I've heard this from the Premier, I've heard this personally from the Prime Minister, that is where I want to go. But, Mr. Speaker, with suddenly these new demands coming from the provinces, there are many more provinces and they're a lot bigger than we are. While we have this understanding with the Prime Minister, do we also have this understanding with the provinces and are they going to keep us on their radar screen, as well? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Mr. Speaker, we intend to stay on the radar screen. I can tell the Member that I am very much aware of what's happening. I spoke with Premier McGuinty on Saturday regarding Ontario's concerns, and I have his assurance that he's not trying to do anything that's going to undo our deal, nor is he trying to do anything that's going to somehow compromise what we're asking for. So I have registered our concerns with him and assured him that I'll be watching very closely what happens, and the arguments that Ontario is putting forward. If they are in any way seeming to interfere in our agreement, then I'll certainly let him know further. But I will be in contact and continue to be in contact with Premier McGuinty and other Premiers as these various scenarios unfold. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Your final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Premier for taking the initiative to phone Premier McGuinty. That tells me that he's doing his job.

Where I wanted to follow through now is in the answer to a previous question. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that we may need to take more drastic action. I wanted to ask what actions are available to us, or what courses of action are available to us to really ensure that we will stay on the radar screen and we will achieve a fair resource revenue sharing deal? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 375-15(3): Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to a process with the Prime Minister, we agreed to achieving an AIP this spring and a final deal in 2006. When that begins to fall apart, then we will look at what the alternatives might be.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to start laying out possible scenarios; they're going to be seen as threats and I don't think our counterparts in this deal are going to view that very well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, last week I questioned the Finance Minister at length in terms of the Sirius deal that has gone off the tracks, and the potential loss to the Government of the Northwest Territories in that regard. Today I wanted to concentrate on the Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development angle in this fiasco. I know the Minister was listening intently last week when I was questioning the Finance Minister, so I would like to ask him some specific questions. I guess the first one is what his department knew and specifically what the diamond projects division’s involvement was with the proposal with the Leviev Group, with the receiver, any involvement that they might have had in this and why they didn’t step in to try to help things out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 376-15(3): Sale Of Diamond Processing Plant

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me first state that I share the Member’s concern and disappointment that we weren’t able to see a deal between the Leviev Group of Companies and BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Diamonds. I was very enthusiastic when I learned of Leviev’s interest. It is obviously a very credible world player. I think we are looking for stability in this local industry. I believe somebody of Leviev’s calibre would be able to deliver that stability. Let me say that we have been involved in every stage of this process from soliciting interest in bids. We saw a number of those come forward. The department did put together some discussions with various groups who had eventual interest in the assets for sale and the sale of the factory as a going concern. Then the receiver handled the valuation of the proposal stage and came back to Cabinet with a discussion around what the best proposals were. Obviously, Leviev came to the top.

From that stage, we were involved on a weekly basis in discussions. My division was with both Rio Tinto and BHP and the Leviev Group of Companies. We were very disappointed when the eventual deal was not to be made. I would like to remind Members that although we have the socioeconomic agreements, and although the producers have expressed their support for the industry, we cannot force the marriage of any two companies. This is, and will be, a commercial deal, when it is finally done. Our ability to influence the exact partnership is limited. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 376-15(3): Sale Of Diamond Processing Plant

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development why there is a six percent mark-up over what the producers charge here in Yellowknife, as opposed to sales of comparable goods in Antwerp. I would like to know why that six percent mark-up exists. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 376-15(3): Sale Of Diamond Processing Plant

Thank you. One of the difficulties, obviously, with diamond pricing is that it is not as other commodities that are traded on an open system where you can see the actual value of product very easily. There have been some suggestions by the local industry that they believe they may be charged more than what customers in Antwerp are charged. We really have no way of knowing. The prices charged in Antwerp are commercial deals between site holders and the producers. They are confidential. We have no way to compare those prices to the prices that our local industry is being charged here. I can’t comment one way or another. I have no way to verify if, in fact, there is any difference in the pricing. Thank you.