Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome back to the Chamber. Point of order, Mr. Miltenberger. What is your point of order?
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Rule 23(h) and 23(k). I waited until today to present my point of order because I wanted to view unedited Hansard from Monday, February 15th, 2010. During his reply to the opening address on Monday, February 15th, 2010, Mr. Bromley said, and I quote from page 30 of the unedited Hansard for that day: “The February 11th response to the JRP report says that “the NEB should reject recommendation 8-6 from the JRP, which related to the establishment of the greenhouse gas emissions target or a series of targets in connection with the MGP facilities.”
Mr. Bromley went on to say, and I quote from page 31 of unedited Hansard: “Yet when I look at the government’s published response to such issues with respect to the Mackenzie Gas Project, we are recommending that we reject rather than strengthen the recommendation that attempts to ensure management of emissions.”
Mr. Bromley also said, and I quote also from page 31 of the unedited Hansard: “This government has formally rejected a JRP recommendation on greenhouse gas targets and Regular Members have to read about it in a public registry.”
Mr. Speaker, these comments make allegations against the government and apply hidden motives with respect to the Joint Review Panel. In fact, the GNWT has not rejected recommendation 8-6 from the JRP, but rather has called for additional information to be prepared and considered with respect to anticipated greenhouse gas emissions. The information presented to the House by Mr. Bromley is egregiously incorrect and does little more than create confusion amongst the public and disorder in this House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I will allow a few comments on this point of order. To the point of order. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I actually stand guilty as charged.
---Laughter
That was a grievous error and, in fact, it reflects the main principal of my argument which was with consultation. These sorts of errors can be avoided but, better than that, we can put forward much better information.
I had today a set of questions I intended to ask. In that, I was going to make the comment that, in fact, I had read that wrong. The letter did say rejected but, upon closer examination, it said the proponents had rejected that recommendation. I have some other difficulty with what we did recommend, but I stand guilty as charged. That was incorrect information. I intended to correct it myself today in the House. So I leave that to your decision. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the point of order. Hearing no other comments on the point of order, I will... The honourable Member of Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who’s been here quite some time, I think that Mr. Miltenberger has taken the opportunity to raise a point of order to, in fact, correct the record on a certain matter and I’m not sure that that actually constituted, in my experience, in my opinion, a point of order. I suppose if each one of us stood up on a point of order every time somebody said something in this House that was not correct, we’d be standing up a lot.
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Bromley did err in his assumption or his assertion on this particular matter and has withdrawn his comment, but just in terms of the process of this House, I’m not sure that the Minister would not have been better off to have delivered a Minister’s statement perhaps in response to correct the record and I think that’s what this was about; correcting the record. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of order. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, under Mr. Miltenberger’s point of order, he stood here and he used Rule 23(h) and 23(k). As we’ve heard some discussion on this point of order, things are said at times in this House, whether it’s in the heat of the moment that things are said and upon reflection, as Member Bromley has done, has accepted that he provided information in a form that has caused this point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is -- and I believe Member Groenewegen has touched on this a bit -- at times things are said in this House and if we all decided to use points of order, we would consume the time of this Assembly. Well, in fact, I think at times points order need to be used because there’s been too many cases where information that is not necessarily complete gets put out there and as we find out, the people of the Territories and the media pick it up and run with that part of the information. So we need to, as Members, be aware of what we say in this House. Yes, we have the opportunity and we are protected here, but it also affects so much more of the business we do as government and how we represent the situations and the positions that are put out there. So I look forward to hearing your ruling on this. Thank you.
Speaker’s Ruling
Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the point of order. Colleagues, it is my understanding in the debates in this House, there is nothing against the rules of the House to being wrong in information you are talking about. It’s also another forum in a point or forum to correct the record. So I am going to rule on this that there is no point of order. The Members are allowed to talk. Information that is given in this House is not always accurate, but I don’t think it’s a point of order. Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the unique process we are a part of in the review of the JRP report.
As an administrative decision-maker under the MVRMA, as Minister of ENR I have a unique role to play in the decision-making process. As such, I am part of a process which includes other federal responsible Ministers. Mr. Speaker, as a result of this relationship, I cannot act alone. I have a duty to exercise my functions in accordance with the principles of administrative fairness required of me as a responsible Minister under the MVRMA and I must work with my federal colleagues. As a responsible Minister, I am bound to protect the integrity of the decision-making process as well as ensure that government is not fettered in its ability to make a decision.
Mr. Speaker, responsible Ministers will ensure that our obligation to consult will be met. The MVRMA requires responsible Ministers to accept, reject or modify recommendations of the JRP. At this stage, the responsible Ministers of our respective governments must review each recommendation. This process includes the comments from the proponents and interveners to the JRP/NEB processes and a review of the evidence presented. Although we have started the review process, no final determinations have been made on the recommendations as we are still collecting evidence.
Mr. Speaker, recently questions have arisen about how we as a government plan to involve Regular Members in this process. I would like to assure this House that we do, in fact, intend to continue to brief Members and seek their input as we move forward. We must, however, do so in a manner that respects the unique process and the integrity of the MVRMA and the principles of administrative law. At this time, legal counsel for both the Department of Justice and the Legislative Assembly are actively engaged in exploring possibilities to achieve this.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record the GNWT’s submission to the NEB with respect to the JRP recommendations which stated: “The proponent submits that the NEB should reject recommendation 8-6 from the JRP which relates to the establishment of the greenhouse gas emissions target or a series of targets in connection with the MGP facilities. The GNWT believes that it is desirable for the proponent to provide a clear prediction of the anticipated GHG emissions associated with MGP facilities over time including both emission targets and trajectories and the details of any approaches that they proposed to adopt to mitigate GHG emissions.” This information will be important to NEB and other agencies to assist in understanding the implications of the MGP on GHG emissions in the NWT as a whole and to evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce those emissions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Following on the statement of the Minister of ENR, this is rather interesting. If I thought my job was depressing last week, yesterday set things up for this week to be even worse. I was aghast to discover yesterday morning that the GNWT had submitted a response to the National Energy Board regarding the recommendations in the Joint Review Panel report. I am not trying to suggest that GNWT should not respond to the JRP recommendations. No, absolutely, we should respond. But if it is the government who’s responding, Regular Members must be included in the development of any response. I am very glad to hear the Minister say that we will be.
I acknowledge that the time frame to prepare a response was short. I acknowledge that it can be difficult to schedule meetings between Cabinet and Regular Members, but really, Mr. Speaker, if this Assembly operates as a consensus government as we keep professing to do, why wouldn’t Regular Members be advised or consulted on a response as vital as this one to the JRP recommendations?
On top of that, as a member of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, I know that that committee had expressly advised both the Minister of ITI and the Minister of ENR that the Social Programs committee wanted to have input into any GNWT response to the recommendations in the JRP report.
As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, I tend to think the best of people, so in regards to a GNWT response, I fully expected that I, as a Social Programs committee member, would be consulted. At the very least, I presumed that we would be advised of any response. Now, not only has a response gone to the NEB without any Regular Member input, but the Minister of ITI kind of forgot to advise the Standing Committee on Social Programs of his actions.
Even if the content of the response had no bearing on the Social Programs committee responsibilities, the Minister had an obligation to copy the committee on his letter to the EDI committee chair. By doing so, he would have shown respect to his colleagues. But we seem to have reverted to the situation we endured about a year ago, a Cabinet who does what they please, when they please, seemingly without regard for the accepted practices of consensus government and without respect for the 11 Members on this side of the House.
We, the Members of this Assembly, are in this job together, Mr. Speaker, no matter which side of the House we sit on. The Cabinet’s strategic document is titled Northerners Working Together. So let’s try that novel idea, Mr. Speaker, the idea of working together with respect...
Ms. Bisaro, your time for your Member’s statement has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted.
So let’s try that novel idea, Mr. Speaker, the idea of working together with respect and consideration for others. We can accomplish a whole lot more together than we can if we antagonize each other. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, people in the Northwest Territories want to know that their government is there for them. People want to know when they are asked to put their names next to the ballots as we ran as MLAs, to be there for them stepping up to the plate and be the voice in this House. People want to be consulted in a meaningful way and know that we are there for them, Mr. Speaker. They want to know that we will bring down the cost of living in the North. Mr. Speaker, the people want to know the traditional way of life will be honoured and that we can exercise that right to live our culture.
Mr. Speaker, the people want to know that we will not be shocked about the megaprojects such as the Deh Cho Bridge saga and that this government will abide by its policy to err on the side of caution when going forward.
People want to know that we need to concentrate and be very clear about the emergency measures that our health care system needs in our small communities. We have a right to good, cultural health care. People want to know that more transparency will happen within this GNWT and there will be no more miscommunication or misinformation about the way things are handled.
The people want to know that the rich North can be a place to live, visit, and invest in and that we can live up to this phase by cleaning up our own backyard. Give the power back to the people.
The people want to know that when we are done in this Legislative Assembly, we did what we said we were going to get done and that we will leave this place in a good way. People want to know when they can drive down the Mackenzie Valley Highway all year. People want to know we can pay the same price here in Yellowknife and anywhere else in our small communities. People want to know we set the power rates in a fair and just manner. People want to know that when they elect us as leaders, that we are leaders and want to listen to our people. People are waiting for us.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a constituent who is a student attending full-time studies at the Grande Prairie Regional College in Grande Prairie, Alberta. My constituent had a medical specialist appointment booked in Edmonton. She had gone through the appropriate channels for this appointment. She had been seen by a doctor in Hay River, referred to Yellowknife, and in turn received a referral to a specialist in Edmonton. When booking her medical travel for her appointment in Edmonton, she was informed that she could not access assistance from where she was attending school because medical travel must originate within the Northwest Territories. She was told that she would need to return to her home community of Hay River, fly from there to Edmonton, return to Hay River, and then go back to Grande Prairie. The inconvenience of this process was too difficult for my constituent to manage and, therefore, she had no alternative but to cancel her appointment with the specialist in Edmonton. My constituent’s medical condition warrants being seen by a specialist and it would be unhealthy and possibly even risky for her to wait until a school break in the summer to return to Hay River to go to Edmonton for an appointment.
Northern students residing outside of the Northwest Territories on a temporary leave of absence to attend college or university are still northern residents. They retain their residency status and they have valid health care coverage. I am uncertain as to why the government would not accommodate someone in this situation, especially in the case of my constituent, considering that the cost of travel between Grande Prairie and Edmonton is less than it would be from Hay River to Edmonton and would in fact be saving the government money.
I am requesting a review of this policy to enable students to tend to their medical needs while going to school, whether inside or outside of the NWT. My constituent would like to rebook her appointment and be seen by the specialist in Edmonton and I would also appreciate if the Minister could provide options available to my constituent for accessing medical treatment as soon as possible.
This is not the first or only case that we have had like this. I understand that it may get complicated in instances where we have students that are perhaps not as close to the medical facility they’re being referred to, but somehow, some way we have to apply some discretionary common sense to these types of decisions and policies.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak today about the disposition of the Opportunities Fund, a fund Members will recall was used to give out a $34 million loan just over a year ago to Discovery Air. In talking about the decision to lend that money I don’t want to relive that whole debate today, but Discovery Air did make some commitments to this government that I believe need to be followed up on.
First, they were to relocate their head office from London, Ontario, to Yellowknife, which I understand is in the works. How come it took over a year for that to happen? Does the move include the CEO, the president, the CFO, and COO?
Discovery Air was also to move and operate a training school in Yellowknife and I was wondering if the government knows whether or not this will in fact happen.
What opening up the Opportunities Fund to allow a loan like the one made to Discovery Air did was raise expectations from other companies across the Northwest Territories that we would look at lending out of the balance of that fund. As chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, I’ve fielded many inquiries about the fund from across the Northwest Territories. Our committee has waited almost over a year for the government to put some workable options in front of committee so we could utilize these funds for others. Mr. Speaker, we got nothing meaningful to work with in the past year. Not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter stating that now Finance Canada has instructed the Government of the Northwest Territories to look at the Opportunities Fund money as debt on our balance sheet. And we all know how close to the edge this government is, given the current disposition of the Deh Cho Bridge Project.
Mr. Speaker, what I’d like to know today is whether or not the decision to lend the $34 million from the Opportunities Fund in any way precipitated the federal government changing their opinion on how we state that money in our accounting. Mr. Speaker, I will have other questions pertaining to the Opportunities Fund at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on my recent trip home this past weekend constituents of Tuktoyaktuk have asked me about the Income Support Program and productive choices options in the community. The Department of Education, Culture and Employment has been very strict and narrow in their interpretation of what constitutes productive choices in the community. For example, many clients, some who are on medication or are elders, have to physically go out into the community and actively seek productive choice options. Mr. Speaker, that’s very limited in the community of Tuk with a limited number of qualified local organizations.
Mr. Speaker, many concerns deal mainly with issues with what has not been explained by case workers to their clients. I understand if a client does not ask for a certain type of assistance, Mr. Speaker, the officer must make the client aware of the offer of assistance to the client. I’m aware of the people getting evicted in my community and having no food in their fridges. Mr. Speaker, that begs the question whether the clients know how to ask for an Income Support Program and what the real options might be. For example, in a remote community, clients don’t know if they can appeal the case workers’ decision and that the case worker must assist them with that appeal process. That’s not happening.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister responsible for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to re-examine ways for the Income Support Program that might be improved to better serve those who most need assistance in the communities. Thank you. I will have questions for the Minister at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. [English translation not provided.]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke of the need for environment officers in Tu Nedhe. Today, along that same line, I would like to talk about the Stark Lake cleanup near Lutselk’e. Mr. Speaker, I have raised the issue before and with little progress on this, I need to again raise awareness of this important environmental issue.
Mr. Speaker, the community, particularly the elders of the community, have been asking for something to be done ever since the mine closed in the late 1950s. It is unacceptable the way the land was left. Mr. Speaker, according to the community, the mine was a uranium mine that started in 1952 and then closed within a few years leaving behind a large tailings pile that was highly radioactive. The people hardly go near that area.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue for the community and a very serious issue for the environment. Something needs to be done as soon as possible. According to the community, since the mine closed residents have found fish that were deformed, some fish had unusually high amounts of parasites that may be fish coming from that area. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a primary source of food for the residents. Again, I cannot stress enough that this is a very serious matter and needs immediate attention.
Mr. Speaker, the government has a great opportunity to address a serious environmental concern and provide some employment opportunities for the community. I have stood up in the House and spoken about limited economic and employment opportunities in Lutselk’e, and it’s no secret there a number of exploration projects underway in the regulatory process or at the discussion stage with the local aboriginal government. This translates into a need for environmental workers and responsible stewardship of the land. This is a traditional territory of the people of Lutselk’e. They know the land. We would be in the best position to work with the government to clean up this site.
Mr. Speaker, the Stark Lake cleanup project is a very serious environmental concern. This government needs to start working through the process of cleaning it up as soon as possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the people of the Northwest Territories on their major success in taking up the challenge of recycling. Yesterday, the Minister of ENR added seven new beverage container types to the list of containers that can be recycled. Responsible citizens can now return 20 types of drink containers for return of deposits. In three short years, the number of communities with recycling depots has risen to 32 and over 100 million containers or 81 percent of drink containers sold are being returned for deposit.
We can see the benefits everywhere. Not only has beverage container recycling brought four out of five containers back for responsible disposal or recycling, the major nuisance of litter from spent drink containers has almost disappeared from our streets. Volunteer groups have found a new source of income to reward their initiative. I predict that the community cleanups that are coming this spring will be the last time we see major numbers of littered plastic bags included in the cleanup.
Perhaps the most important aspect of all this is that children are learning from early on that resources are precious and that every act can either be an act of respect for the environment and a contribution to the common good or an addition to the burden placed on the environment. By putting any revenues back into the recovery, what was once a major source of waste, we are building a capacity across the Territory to expand these efforts on other forms of waste.
Through recycling programs with the margin of return we have spurred development of local businesses and facilities needed to begin recovering more and different types of waste. Through government support, communities can look farther afield at controlling the handling of additional waste materials like cardboard and paper, tires, lead acid batteries, electronics and fuel drums. Nothing happens overnight, but we are taking firmer control of this challenge every day and disposing of the wasteful psychology that fuels the disposable society.
On the subject of the recent expansion of our drink container deposits, I would like one improvement. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn’t be taxing essential nutrition like milk. While I support the waste reduction aspect, I will suggest that we should roll back the 10 cents spread between the deposit paid and the deposit refunded on milk containers. Congratulations to all on a great success story and our determination for greater achievements. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to talk about Payday Loans and the need for territorial regulations. Mr. Speaker, it is in the middle of the month. What does a person have to do if they are short of cash? Well, in Canada, there is a $2 billion industry out there to help. They are eager, Mr. Speaker. This conventional short-term lending isn’t available by the big banks so a person has to go to one of those short-term lending agencies often referred to Payday Loans. Now remember this, Mr. Speaker, convenience does come at a price. It is a short-term loan and you have to promise to pay it back by your next pay cheque.
According to the Canadian Payday Loan Association, the average loan is about $280 on a 10-day borrowing cycle. But how does the loan work? Well, you have to have a job. You have to have an active bank account, permanent residence, and in some cases you need a current phone bill and a blank cheque of some form so they can make sure they can go get the money. Remember, there is no credit check for this type of service. So you sign the loan agreement and you leave your information and in the short term, you are ready to go.
Now, the loan agreement will ensure that you understand all the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions usually include things like the fees and it also includes the issue of built-in fees. So, Mr. Speaker, some of the things you need to pay are up front prices, the first time charge, service fees, service charges, repayment options and, of course, they stress what happens if you are late.
Mr. Speaker, the law says you can’t be charged more than 60 percent. In Yellowknife, I called around. Apparently their interest fee is 29 percent. But, Mr. Speaker, we can’t forget about those fees because they are built into the price. There is administration, processing, convenience, verification, brokers, collectors, early repayment, late repayment, initial, one-time rollover fees. The fees go on and on.
In Yellowknife if you go to one of the lending agencies to borrow $200 you have to pay $180 back within two weeks. That’s an interest rate of over 2,000 percent. If you went to another lending agency and borrowed $500 you have to pay $136 on top of that. In other words, your final payout is $636, which is roughly 711 percent.
With time running out I’ll say this: something needs to be done. This government needs to make sure its citizens are protected before something goes off the rail. Why wait for a problem and then act? We can act now.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Mr. Speaker, [English translation not provided.]
Today I would like to speak about the interpreter/translator training in aboriginal languages of the Northwest Territories. Last year the Standing Committee on Government Operations visited many communities as part of the review of the Official Languages Act. In every community, people expressed concern about the lack of interpreters and translators. They were concerned as often there was no one to help people who were fluent only in their aboriginal language. Sometimes, for instance, there was no one to translate for an elder when he had to speak to a doctor or nurse, or for an elder who needs to give evidence in court.
For years the Standing Committee on Government Operations has recommended that the GNWT implement training and certification of interpreters. There have been training activities completed by the Yamozha Kue Society, however, the certification process for aboriginal interpreters/translators has not been established. In order to develop a certificate program, experts in the language are needed to assist with development and evaluation of testing materials. Unfortunately it can be very hard to find qualified evaluators.
We heard from Nunavut the importance of culture, of singing, for instance, as a means to preserve language. One’s native language holds culture within it. It holds a way of looking at the world and it holds a traditional technology of living on the land. I trust that Education, Culture and Employment will take seriously the important task of preserving and revitalizing our aboriginal languages and the significant role that interpreters and translators can play in this task.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Community governments must complete the Community Energy Plan by March 31, 2010. The Gas Tax Agreement requires that all community governments complete an integrated community sustainable plan by the same date. Community energy plans are one component that has been considered. All communities in the Northwest Territories must comply with this arrangement.
March 31, 2010, is only a month and a half away. As the information that has been provided by the Minister indicates that only 10 communities have completed this plan out of 33, yet some 23 communities remain to have their work completed by March 31st. Hopefully we can complete some 13 communities by the end of February and hope that the last remaining one-third of those communities will be completed by the end of March. I think the question has to be asked what happens to those communities that do not complete their energy plan with respect to sustainable plans by March 31st and what is the penalty those communities will have to pay.
As we already know, a lot of our communities are having difficulties by running deficits, having challenges on capacity issues, and not having the resource people to assist them to complete this work. I feel that we have to ensure that we do everything we can to avoid this situation where communities will be penalized for not complying with the gas tax arrangements that we have with the federal government.
At the appropriate time I will be asking the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs questions on the situation of what happens to communities that don’t comply.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure to introduce in our gallery Ms. Rose McConville, office manager of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations from our Ottawa office. Welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was about a year ago or just over a year ago when I stood up in this House a number of times asking the government questions about the Opportunities Fund and how it was that they came to make a decision to lend $34 million out of that fund. What that did was to raise expectations from around the Territory for other businesses that wanted to get access to some of these dollars for their own pursuits.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance, I’ve got a number of questions for him today, but I’d like to ask the Minister why we haven’t made any decisions on the availability of the balance of that fund for other businesses across the Territory.
