Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier, and it gets back to my Member’s statement from earlier today, where I talked about the boards and agencies review that was conducted by the 15th Legislative Assembly and the government of the 15th Assembly. It looked into the 112 boards and agencies here in the Northwest Territories. As I mentioned, some of the best work I’ve seen here as a Member was done by that review. It was shelved in 2005.
I’d like to ask the Premier: where exactly is this review, and who’s in charge of carrying out the rest of the necessary work contained in that review?
Mr. Speaker, the work that was done previously, in fact, was chaired by Minister Miltenberger. It just so happens that in this government, the 16th Assembly, he is the lead on the refocusing-government portion of our initiatives. This area would be falling under that activity.
Mr. Speaker, we would have to look at all the boards and agencies, not just health authorities but education authorities, the relationship we have with them, and the LHOs as well, looking at where there may be potential overlaps. That work is to be done, and the lead Minister, again, is Minister Miltenberger. They’ve started collecting that information and dusting things off.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for that, and I’m just wondering if…. It sounds like the government may be starting over, and I’m wondering if they are going to use the work that was done in 2004-2005 as the basis for advancing the review of boards and agencies. I’d also like to ask him whether that review would take in such things as governance, residency and competency of board members.
Mr. Speaker, we’re not about reinventing the wheel. If work’s been done by previous governments, that would be a good starting point for us. It is part of the work that’s included. This refocusing-government piece will incorporate a whole number of initiatives, this being one of those.
I’m just wondering if the Premier could provide the House with a time frame on the work that’s going to be going into the review of boards and agencies across the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members are aware, we’ve been trying to finalize a schedule of getting the upcoming budget in place and how much of the change we can incorporate in our first year. So the time line’s in front of us.
Much of that work would flow into the ’09-’10 business plan process, so we’re going to see what work may be able to be carried forward. But the refocusing piece, and the amount of work that’s required, would take us more time than the typical approach we take to business planning. I would say much of this type of work would flow through into the ’09-’10 business plan process.
Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up, I’d just like to ask the Premier why it is necessary that the review of boards and agencies that was done three years ago is going to have to wait that long again to see any real progress being made.
I’m wondering, and maybe the Premier could explain it to me, why are we including the review of boards and agencies with the other work the government’s doing through this reduction exercise in budgeting? Why is this included in that, and why can’t we move forward with the work on boards and agencies today?
Mr. Speaker, one thing we’ve learned — and we must learn from past history — is if we are going to make decisions, we have to make sure they don’t come back and reinvent themselves because we haven’t quite closed all the loopholes that may be established or end up coming out as we make changes. There’s a substantial amount of work involved in the refocusing-government piece. The boards and agencies are a big piece of that. As I’ve worked with Members, our time frames…. There’s a lot of work being done now. The time frames we have are tight, and that is one of the reasons why it would fall into that area.
Work will be done so that it can be presented, and Members can be reviewing that through the business plan process as early as the fall.
Mr. Speaker, going back to my Member’s statement, I mentioned I was told that the bids on the highway maintenance contract were reasonable based on the scope of work. I received a letter with some numbers on it, and this letter, actually, Mr. Speaker, is an insult to my intelligence. I’m no engineer, but I know these numbers are not reasonable. I don’t know how the numbers were reached. I don’t know if it was the summer or winter that they used these numbers on.
I would like to direct my questions today to the Minister of Transportation. I’d like to ask him: the decision to cancel the highway maintenance contract — was that made in the regional office?
Mr. Speaker, the Member’s correct that the decision to cancel the contract was done on the advice of, recommendations and discussions with the regional office.
I’d like to ask the Minister if the regional office has the authority to cancel tenders.
Mr. Speaker, the final decision to cancel the contract was made with the deputy minister.
Why, then, was the contract cancelled by the deputy minister? Does the region not have the authority to cancel the contract? Why did the deputy minister cancel the tender?
The prices were too high, and with the processing system inside the department, the contract was cancelled by the headquarters.
Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.
I say again, the letter I received was an insult to my intelligence. I can add these numbers up just as well as anybody else.
I’d like to ask the Minister if the department felt they were obligated to cancel the tender because of public comments made by the Minister to give an additional 20 per cent guaranteed on top of the 50 per cent already guaranteed.
This, Mr. Speaker, doesn’t create a level playing field. I guarantee you any money that if these tenders were opened today, one company will be low-balled because there’s not a fair playing field.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Members of this House and members of the public that when this department decides to cancel any government tenders, it’s based on strong merits, it’s based on a financial decision, and this decision was based on a financial position that the tender came in way too high – 2 per cent way too high. This had nothing to do with any other issues. It’s just that the prices were way too high.
My questions are to the Minister Responsible for Human Resources and are a follow-up to questions I asked on Tuesday with respect to Arctic Winter Games and the volunteers.
Recently, in an effort to secure enough qualified volunteers for the 2010 Olympic Games, B.C. civil servants have been offered half their salary if they sign up to help out. The government felt that these are the kinds of programs large employers should be doing to create a positive work environment and good employee morale.
When morale is already challenged in the G.N.W.T., requiring employees to take lieu or annual seems a little shortsighted. The games are valuable. They’re going to add a significant amount of value to Yellowknife, a significant amount of value to the Northwest Territories as a whole.
Given the approach of other jurisdictions and our previous direction in 1998 in the last games, I would like the Minister to commit to reviewing their decision once again and modifying it so these employees don’t have to liquidate annual or lieu for volunteer periods of up to two hours a day.
We’re talking about the Arctic Winter Games. We’re not talking about the Olympic Games or the Canada Winter Games, as have been previously referred to. The government of the Northwest Territories is following a policy that has been in place for 40-some years. We think we’ve been more than generous with our leave policy for participants in the Arctic Winter Games.
Clearly the Arctic Winter Games aren’t as large as the Olympic Games, but for a Territory of 44,000-ish people, this is a very significant event. Yellowknife is going to have thousands of people in the community participating in the games. For a population of 19,000, having thousands of additional people is a pretty big deal, and they need volunteers.
You talk about our position. Our position has changed. As I said before, in 1998 we gave the employees the time off. We allowed them to take up to two hours a day, where operational requirements permitted, without penalty to annual or lieu. We are now rigidly applying policies and procedures that do affect staff and do make them question whether they’ll volunteer or not, or when they will be scheduled.
Once again, will the Minister look at reviewing their direction on this and being fair and equitable with employees?
If the Member wants us to go back to take the same position as we did in 1996, that would mean we’d have to look at the funding. We provided considerably less funding in 1996.
I just want to advise the Member that we have 33 communities in the Northwest Territories. I think we have to take a fair approach. Other communities in the Northwest Territories won’t benefit from reviewing this. We’ve followed leave policy, and we’ve expanded it to include head coaches and first responders. I think the government has been very fair in this regard.
Regardless of where the games are held, whether they are in Yellowknife or some other community in the Northwest Territories, I’d be standing here saying the same thing.
We’re talking about morale. We’re talking about helping the games be successful. My biggest concern is scheduling. They’ve got lots of volunteers, but the difficulty is scheduling the morning and afternoon 4-to-7 shift and 7-to-10 shift. People in the government aren’t stepping forward for those shifts as readily as they may, if they’re unable to get the times out without affecting their credits.
I would, obviously, like you to go back and review your policy and think about the image you’re sending and think about the image other jurisdictions are sending and rethink your position. So once again, can I get the Minister’s commitment to go back and review that policy and change it?
My expectation is that after the Arctic Winter Games have concluded, we would review the policy to see how appropriate that policy still is.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Today, I spoke about seniors and disabled homeowners and their need to be able to access assistance from this government to conduct regular preventive maintenance work on their homes.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of the NWT Housing Corporation provide this House with the number of seniors and disabled homeowners that were assisted through the Seniors and/or Disabled Preventive Maintenance Initiative program prior to the introduction of the CARE program?
Mr. Speaker, in the information I have, in 2004-2005, there were 168 clients; in 2005-2006, 156; and in 2006-2007, 162.
I’d like to thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to, once again, emphasize the need for providing assistance to seniors and disabled homeowners who are doing preventive maintenance work on their homes. Can the Minister tell me if these homeowners can access preventive maintenance only programs today to have work done on their homes in the fall?
Mr. Speaker, under the CARE program…. The Member indicated in his Member’s statement that there was a consolidation of programs, and the one that now captures the seniors and disabled funding is the CARE Program. Seniors are now eligible to apply every year for up to $2,000. There is, as well, a larger home repair program for seniors in their own homes for a forgivable loan for $90,000 that’s repayable — or forgivable — up to anywhere from one to ten years. The previous amount was, I believe, $20,000 over ten years, and you couldn’t reapply for ten years. In this new one, as soon as it’s paid off, you’re eligible to reapply.
Mr. Speaker, with the current CARE program in place, there’s such things as a requirement for full insurance on the program. Some of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, live in log homes. There are no fire hydrants and no full-time firefighters. This all adds to the cost of insurance. For example, insurance on one unit that’s approximately 1,000 square feet with these dynamics to it will cost $3,500 — not affordable for seniors.
Under the old Seniors and/or Disabled Preventive Maintenance program, they were able to access that program without a requirement to carry insurance, which is now a requirement in the new programs.
Would the Minister be prepared to meet with me to discuss other options for bringing preventive maintenance programs to the seniors and disabled persons in my riding, in order to provide options to the seniors where they are not required to have all the various requirements under the current CARE program?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns of the Member, and I recognize that in some cases our policy design and program design tend to have a very modern, urban focus and sometimes maybe undervalues the reality that in small communities where people burn wood — as the Member indicated, they may be living in log homes or older homes where they don’t have fire hydrants and those type of things…. So those are very legitimate concerns.
I would extend the invitation that the Member made. In fact, I would like to broaden it to say that I would be very pleased to sit down with the housing officials and the appropriate committee to talk about issues like the Member has raised and improvements that could be made if there are policy issues or process issues and/or re-profiling of funding.
This current program amalgamation was done trying to improve services. If, after this particular length of time, as we look back and we recognize that there are areas of improvement required, we’re definitely interested in identifying those, as well as identifying what improvements we can get done.
Mr. Speaker, this 16th Assembly has identified healthy, sustainable communities as a high-priority goal. Yesterday I spoke about youth. They make up an important part of these healthy communities. I’d like, in the absence of the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs if his department is planning to continue its support for the Northern Youth Abroad program.
Mr. Speaker, we’ve been a supporter of the Northern Youth Abroad program since 2005. We partnered up with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. We’ve been providing financial support and meeting on a regular basis to see some of the outcomes and have been very satisfied with what we are seeing. We’ve had a number of meetings and recently had some further discussions. We have decided that we will continue to support this program.
Thank you for that response — very good news. This organization is doing incredible work, and I think we’re already seeing the returns.
Another aspect of the sustainable communities is, of course, the economic, the social and the environmental components of sustainability. I’m wondering if, in that aspect of sustainable communities in the new deal, all three components of sustainability are being profiled in the requirement for community energy plans in the integrated sustainable community plans — for the capital plans. I see this as an opportunity to highlight those three aspects of real sustainability. So if we’re going to carry out a sustainability plan, let’s make sure those aspects are in there. Can the Minister assure me that those aspects are in the exercise?
I see we’ve moved away from the youth abroad program and we’ve entered another line of questioning.
Mr. Speaker, the integrated communities sustainable plans are something we’ve worked on together with the federal government. We felt in order for the communities to be able to become sustainable and to become self-sufficient, they need to develop a number of plans. They are working on energy plans, capital plans and innovative initiatives within the communities. I’d certainly be glad to share the information, and possibly share some of the models we’ve come out with, with the Member, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it’s well known that I’m a big supporter of tourism. I can tell you honestly that I’ve got the scars to prove it.
The fact is the Territorial government, I think, is being outpaced by other territories such as the Yukon, and even Newfoundland, about promoting tourism and regional tourism. I’m not a guy who goes to bed too early at night, I should say, and sometimes at one o’clock in the morning I see these wonderful ads by Newfoundland. They really draw you in, and I can’t help but think: “Jeez, I’d love to go to Newfoundland.” And then a few minutes later there’s a Yukon ad, and it’s a wonderful commercial about “Come to the Yukon.” But you know, something I never see is “Come to the Northwest Territories.” It seems to kind of disappoint me. I think we’re really letting our residents down in the Northwest Territories.
My question is to the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. What is he doing to promote the Northwest Territories in a national profile, to raise our profile so we can help bring in some of those fresh tourism dollars to all regions of the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to see the honourable Member come to realize the value of tourism and that he will support making more resources available to promote the Northwest Territories.
I think that as a territory we have been very successful in the last few years in increasing the level of resources available for tourism. We have been working in partnership with the N.W.T. Tourism Association. We have the Tourism 2010 Strategy. We have more than doubled the amount of money we are investing in tourism.
Working with the other two territories of Yukon and Nunavut, we established a marketing campaign that was held in conjunction with the Canada Winter Games and that was very successful. For the first time in nine years we had the federal government invest in tourism for the Northwest Territories. So we have really increased the exposure for the Northwest Territories.
To be able to reach the par of a province like Newfoundland, I think we would have to look at investing more resources. We would probably have to look at perhaps introducing a hotel tax, which every jurisdiction in Canada has except the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. It costs money to advertise on a national basis, and advertising on TV costs a lot of money. That’s the direction we have to go.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of partners out there that would be more than willing to engage, such as the Canadian Tourism Commission — the CTC. The fact is that I think the potential does exist out there. The fact is we’re missing out on a huge market that comes to the Northwest Territories, such as the southern Canadian market as well as the American market.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to hear what else the Minister is doing. Is he advocating for a potential hotel tax to help find new revenues so we can reinvest in tourism advertising, or is he searching for other types of joint partnerships? If so, what partnerships is he considering at this time? If I may note, we just cut back on some of the tourism product diversification programming money that was out there for our tourism market, tourism companies. People are having a difficult time drawing in a new market. I want to hear how he’s promoting this.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the Member. We haven’t cut back on the tourism product diversification program. All we’re doing is re-profiling the money so we can cash-flow it better. We’re still working on the same levels that were approved previously. I think there’s a whole number of different areas that have potential.
I should point out that we keep track of our tourism numbers very closely, and while our overall tourism numbers continue to increase, what we are finding is starting to get disturbing. The numbers for the rubber-tire tourists and so on have been starting to decline, also for the consumptive tourists, like sport hunters and fishermen. The only area of increase is for business travellers. We have to keep that in mind when we are looking at ways to spend money for tourism. I think the most important thing is that we want to continue to keep the federal government investing in tourism.
Can the Minister tell this House today: would a typical tourist, whether they are rubber-tire or they come here just to fish — things like that — spend more money than a business traveller? As far as I see it, a business traveller would come anyway. So who spends more money?
I would suggest that the business traveller who comes up and stays on as a tourist would probably spend more money.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
No questions.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs in regard to the new deal that has been put out there over the last couple of years. There are concerns raised by the communities as to what happens over a five-year term we put on it. Is there going to be a suspension to this program? Exactly what is going to happen after five years?
Mr. Speaker, the new deal is here to stay. We expect the communities to be more independent through this program. We expect the communities would become municipal taxation authorities. That is the goal we set when we worked with the communities. They have been asking for that for many years, and that is the goal we have worked towards.
