Debates of February 25, 2005 (day 44)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, further to my statement today, I’d like to ask questions to the Minister of RWED. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot in the news and during our budget session where we have not been able to fund everything that we need to. I really do believe that for the people out there, they don’t really care if we have 28 more positions in RWED or wherever else. What makes the difference to them is what’s happening in their communities and to facilities that are breaking down. We have places with no indoor gyms, we’re closing facilities, and I just heard now that there is a very valuable program in Yellowknife that’s under the axe. So I’d like to know from the Minister how he can justify creating 20 new jobs and say that’s necessary for Mackenzie Valley pipeline development readiness. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not saying 20 jobs because of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I’m not saying 28 jobs, as the Member indicated in her statement. It’s 23 additional jobs. We’ve got a heated economy. We had to do something about our mandates in terms of economic development and environmental stewardship. These are critical priorities of this government. They have been well discussed and debated, as our Legislature set out to create the strategic plan. Certainly that’s where I was taking my direction, Mr. Speaker.

I want to also indicate that of those 23 jobs, one additional position is not because of the split. It’s a position in Hay River to help the south-of-the-lake region better handle some of the increased tourism traffic we’re expecting. Also, three of the positions are energy policy positions that didn’t exist before the split, because we feel we have a void or a vacuum in terms of a macro-energy policy on the part of this government. So those are the numbers.

In terms of other priorities and our limited resources, I would certainly acknowledge that there are other priorities. We do have limited resources. That’s the environment we operate in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Supplementary To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated in my Member’s statement, this department, before a split, runs with an $80 million budget. That’s a lot of money. Everybody here knows there are always vacancies in any department. There is a lot of room for the Minister to manoeuvre; 20 or 30 percent vacancies. Mr. Speaker, the Minister is already aware and he has already stated that there will be hardly any funding for individuals or small NGOs to take part in the Mackenzie Valley review process. Most of the government funding goes to other levels of governments and huge organizations. How can he justify even creating 20 new jobs on this when he can’t meet the needs of other more important areas within his mandate? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Mr. Speaker, the environment is very important to us, as is the economy. I think it’s important that we ensure that the resources are there for us to meet the needs of all NWT residents in this regard. I’d like to also indicate to the Member that when we looked at the breadth of responsibility in this one department, RWED, and compared it to other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has six different departments to handle this breadth; in Alberta, it’s seven; Saskatchewan has four; Manitoba has eight; Ontario has eight; Newfoundland has five. We were dealing with one department for all of these mandates and, quite honestly, we didn’t feel we were effectively organized and were afraid that some balls would be dropped and some very important things would be missed, especially with the magnitude of development on our doorstep, Mr. Speaker. So that really was the prime motivation.

Let’s also keep in mind that we’re hopeful we’ll have devolution in the next couple of years. We’ve got to be a devolution-ready organization. I don’t think we’re there yet. We have something now that will provide us the framework. I think there’s a lot more work to do and I don’t think it is going to get done adequately with one department handling the lion’s share of that responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Supplementary To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that all governments across the country are bigger than ourselves. But we are smaller than the rest of them, as well. We’re only 40,000 people and, Mr. Speaker, most of the positions that are being created are senior management positions. They are not going to add to the people on the ground who need to be in contact with communities to do the work. In the end, I really don’t think it’s going to make a difference in a way that people want to see it. It really, Mr. Speaker, was done to minimize the pain in reorganization and I think the Minister dropped the ball in terms of looking at the big picture. We have schools that are cracking…

What is your question, Ms. Lee?

Would the Minister revisit this issue? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. More than half of the positions are regional positions. Yes, there are some superintendents, five superintendents. But more than half these positions are in regions to help us deal with the clients in need, both on the environment side and the economic development side. I know the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development hears this message loud and clear as it travels. I’ve been with them on the road, I’ve been in these communities and we are hearing that we are not meeting the needs of our communities and we’re not able to meet regional needs in terms of preparing people for development and ensuring that we are providing that leadership and that environmental stewardship, Mr. Speaker. I think great initiatives are underway now. The Protected Areas Strategy is certainly something that we’ve needed for some time. I’m happy that this government has been able to fund this. It’s been a long time coming. We’re working on cleaning up contaminated sites. We’re doing a lot of good work, but simply, to be quite honest, we needed additional resources in some areas in order for us to meet the demand. That’s what we’ve done here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all the resources he had, the Minister still hasn’t got the beverage recycling plant off the ground, he hasn’t brought in the Wildlife Act that’s been in the works for 10 years, and people are crying in the public media saying we want to take part in having a say about what’s going to happen to us with this development. All the Minister is doing is creating government positions in offices. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not revisit this and see how the money could be better spent in making a difference in people’s lives? Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know if the Member is making the argument for me, but the fact that the Wildlife Act is taking a long time and the beverage container recovery plan is underway but won’t be rolled out in every community for April 1st, I think speaks to our capacity as a government in some regard. I don’t want to put it all there, Mr. Speaker. We’re moving forward on these initiatives, but quite clearly we have been under resourced. Yes, we do need to work to ensure the federal government steps up to fund its responsibility in terms of helping interveners through this GRPEA. I don’t deny that and we’re certainly willing to go to the federal government and insist that they live up to their obligations. But to suggest that our government is not receiving resources from development currently, not receiving the lion’s share of the revenues, is the one that should have to fit the bill for interventions across the board I think is misguided, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this morning are for the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board and they have to do with the program of legislative changes undertaken in the last Assembly. Mr. Speaker, there was a second phase of legislative review that was committed to. In fact, the most recent report of the WCB says that the second phase of the legislative review will focus on outstanding aspects not addressed in phase one. The research developments and consultations on these issues will be undertaken throughout 2004. Mr. Speaker, that has passed. I’m not aware of anything that’s before us now in terms of more legislative amendments or work to be done on the WCB. Could the Minister please advise the House what the status is of work to be done on the outstanding aspects of the Act Now report? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Krutko.

Return To Question 484-15(3): Operational Review Of The WCB

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are working on phase two legislation. There is draft legislation that is being developed and I am working with my counterpart in Nunavut. Because we have a joint board here, we have to share the information. I just concluded a meeting on January 25th in Iqaluit with my counterpart, Mr. Akesuk, from Nunavut, on the basis that we have to go forward with the legislation jointly because we have shared the same legislative authority and it has to proceed. We are reviewing that legislation jointly between the two territories and we are hoping to have something ready by the fall so we can bring it forward to our counterparts. Because of the sensitivity between the two legislatures, and because of the situation that happened last time under phase one where the legislation was passed in this House and then was given to the Nunavut government, they felt that they didn’t really have any ability to change that legislation once it was produced. This time we’re hoping to come forward jointly with the new phase two legislation into the respective legislatures at the same time, so that we can both have a process of debate through the committee process and also to ensure that if there are any changes from either side, that it will be done independently of each other instead of having to rubberstamp something that comes forward. So we are working on it. We are proceeding with phase two legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 484-15(3): Operational Review Of The WCB

Mr. Speaker, the primary recommendation of the Act Now report was that an operational review be undertaken of the WCB. This was reflecting the concerns and comments of many injured workers who have difficulty with the claims implementation area and, I believe, not a few employers who also had issues there. Is this government, this WCB, going to undertake any action at all under that very significant recommendation to have an operational review of the WCB? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Further Return To Question 484-15(3): Operational Review Of The WCB

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, like I stated, we are working closely with our partners in Nunavut with this legislation and we are looking to ensure that the phase two recommendations are proceeding. A lot of that does have to deal with ensuring we have a system of how to deal with appeals, and how to ensure clients are dealt with fairly. I think through the changes and the input from myself and my counterpart from Nunavut, we’ve had these discussions on making some major changes, but also ensuring that we have a transparent system that works for both jurisdictions, and also realizing that, at the end of the day, it’s the clients that we want to ensure the positive changes we do make are in good standing with the people we’re there to serve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 484-15(3): Operational Review Of The WCB

Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure the Minister understands the difference between a legislative review, which is partly what we’ve undertaken, and an operational review, which is to say that once we’ve created the rules and the platform for how a job is to be done, how is the job actually implemented and undertaken. This is where many injured workers have come to me and other MLAs, to say that the way the WCB performs in this area for some workers, not all, but for some, puts them on an endless treadmill of appeals and frustration. When are we going to undertake an operational review? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Further Return To Question 484-15(3): Operational Review Of The WCB

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I talk about in regard to the draft legislation does address the issue of the appeals process. We realize there are some concerns in that area and in order to make it work better, we have to make those changes. So we are addressing the area of the appeals because of concerns, but we’re also trying to have a transparent system through the new legislation to ensure that when people come forward and they have an appeal, that the appeal is being heard and that we’ve responded to it without having legislation that is overlapping between the authority of the government’s counsel or the Appeals Tribunal. So we’re ensuring that those two functions operate in a clearer manner than they are right now because if the legislation has originated from this, it does have some overlap and we are trying to resolve that through the proposal that is coming forward; to look at the new legislation under phase two to ensure that we have a system that works. With regard to the Appeals Tribunal and the roles that they have in regard to the governance council, the Appeals Tribunal should ensure that they don’t have these overlapping authorities where they are bumping into each other. I think that is the area that I and my counterpart in Nunavut are looking at to ensure that we make these changes so that we avoid these kinds of inconveniences to the people that are going through the appeals process.

So this is an opportunity for us to look at that and, with regard to the Members on the other side, once we have more meat on the bone with regard to figuring out what’s in that legislation and we have something that is solid, I will bring it forward to the Members so they can have a chance to look at that.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 484-5(3): Operational Review of the WCB

Mr. Speaker, the public report called Act Now, which spurred these initial changes, was presented to the Ministers almost three years ago now, but has yet to be tabled in this House. Will this Minister table this report for the record in this Assembly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Further Return To Question 484-15(3): Operational Review of the WCB

Yes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to ask a question to the Minister of Public Works and Services. Just recently the Village of Fort Simpson met and they forwarded me a concern that the department is looking at shutting down the Deh Cho Hall, formerly known as the La Pointe Hall. The village is concerned that it’s scheduled for 2006, based on an evaluation report. What is this report, Mr. Speaker, and when can we see this report? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that facility is one that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment uses to deliver its programs in that community and region. What was done and undertaken was a review through the fire marshal’s office and, on that recommendation, we’ve moved in this area. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, perhaps the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong, that was a report about four or five years ago. I’m not too sure how old that report is, but I believe some conditions have changed there. Does this report also speak about a relocation plan? Does that report speak to that, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the initial work was done as far back as about 2002, when the fire marshal was looking at that facility. There is a meeting coming up on Monday, between Public Works and Services and Education, Culture and Employment, to review what the necessary steps will have to be. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad that there’s a meeting coming up to discuss the life of the building and what the department plans to do. It has come up several times in constituency meetings that I’ve had in Fort Simpson, Mr. Speaker. People are concerned about maintaining the building. It’s about 10,000 square feet and it’s a future training facility; that’s what people would like to see. Can the Minister and can this government look at ways of maintaining this building? Even though government has to move out, do they have to demolish this building? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, based on the recommendations we received and the code upgrades that have been required, we’d have to do a cost-benefit analysis. That’s why the direction has been, at this point, to look at relocating, and that’s what the meeting is going to be about; to see what needs to be done to make sure that the department can continue to operate in the community and in the region.

With respect to the facility ongoing, again, we haven’t identified the cost of doing a total upgrade on that to see if it is a usable space. The government’s initial move, looking at the preliminary reports, was to look at alternative space. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the general feeling in Fort Simpson is that, if we undertake a good comprehensive review or a good foundation analysis of this building, you’ll find that it will probably stand for another 100 years. So that’s the concern, Mr. Speaker. Will the government and will the Minister have a real good look at this building and not demolish it, because we can certainly use a facility of that size in Fort Simpson? Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 485-15(3): Closure of La Pointe Hall In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we can’t commit to continue using the facility unless we get the okay from the fire marshal’s office. So with the fire marshal’s recommendation, the facility can’t be used beyond 2006. That’s why we’ve undertaken this next step, working with Education, Culture and Employment, and we can look at the reports to see what options might be out there. But with the preliminary work that has been done, this avenue was chosen because it’s the most cost-effective way to move. Thank you.