Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my statement regarding the Municipal and Community Affairs land swap deal with the City of Yellowknife and the developer. As I mentioned, MACA played a highly unusual role here setting up a deal directly with a developer, without city involvement. Typically the land is conveyed to the city and then the city sells the land and uses their income or revenue from that to manage the development. The city’s interest in this deal should have been obvious from the first moment swap negotiations began.
My first question is: Why did MACA not insist that the city be involved from the start of these negotiations? I ask that knowing that they passed legislation to try and stop this deal or frustrate it because they had been not involved. Why did MACA not insist that the city be involved from the start?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the city was involved with this deal right from the beginning. In April 2010 they had applied to MACA for two parcels of land. One was one that they could turn over to Homes North, that Mr. Bromley references. There was a second parcel of land that they had kept for their own use. So we try working with the city as much as possible. We don’t get into direct competition with the city for the disposal of land because we would then become the seller of choice if we dealt directly with developers. The city was involved in the disposal of this property right from the start.
I want to say that very strictly speaking the Minister was correct; but, as I mentioned, the Minister did this deal and forced the city to accept it. They even passed legislation to try and frustrate it and had to eventually pass additional legislation to reverse that. The main concern here, other than the irregularity and the kafuffles that this has caused, is we have 0.6 percent vacancy in the city of Yellowknife. If you’re a young person trying to get a start, you need access to housing, and reasonably cost housing as a start. It’s the residents who suffer the consequences of such irregular deals. Given MACA’s role, and to some degree – we can argue about the degree – but to some degree, responsibility in creating this situation now confronting the city and the developer, what is the department prepared to do to assist in resolving the situation and to help the city alleviate the chronic lack of housing in Yellowknife?
We can dispose of the land and the developers can then work on trying to alleviate the lack of housing in the city, but I can commit to the Member that we thought this was a very simple land swap deal and it seems to have gone off the tracks a bit.
I will commit to the Member that I will follow up on this immediately and see if we can get this transfer done, because the developer had made an application to turn this into a subdivision and that’s all up in the air right now. I will commit to the Member that I will follow up on it and we will see what role MACA can play in trying to get this deal that’s been going on for almost two years now, try to get this deal done as quickly as possible because it would probably benefit the city and would benefit the developer, and hopefully at the end of the day it would benefit MACA because we are trying to dispose of this land. We make no profit from it. The financial beneficiaries of any Commissioner’s land within the city should be to the city, so that’s what we try and work out.
I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment there. That shows a real willingness. I think everybody has learned, and I say the responsibility is shared amongst the various parties here. I think this helps quite a bit. Obviously, we hope this won’t happen again, but a good approach to that would be the transfer of all remaining unencumbered Commissioner’s land within the city boundaries to city control. Is that something that the Minister is considering or a transfer that he would support?
I won’t make that commitment right now but what we do do is work with communities to try to ensure that they have first dibs on all Commissioner’s land within their municipalities. We’ve had applications come in from communities on Commissioner’s land within their boundaries and we try to work with the communities as much as we can to ensure that they are the beneficiaries of it. I will again commit to the Member that I as Minister will have a look at how this issue played out and ensure that we don’t run into any further problems when we’re disposing of Commissioner’s land within municipalities in the future.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, again I appreciate that commitment from the Minister. I appreciate his offer to see what can be done, because it’s taken two years and obviously under current economic conditions, costs have changed quite a bit. The city has been forced, really, to a more rigorous application of their cost recovery policies and so on, so that when we enter deals like this and the complexities that are involved, costs go up for all parties. I would appreciate it if the Minister could look into that situation, as well, that aspect of it, and see what might be done from our perspective.
I will follow up on how this all played out. This deal has taken longer than anticipated. We had hoped that all parties would be able to get together. We thought it was a very straightforward land swap but, unfortunately, it’s taken two years. I will follow up on all the details of the situation and see how we can prevent this from happening again in the future.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently, of course, we were all elected to represent our constituents. Shortly after that we had an exercise that set the priorities and goals of trying to work together and trying to achieve some of the concerns and issues that our constituents have raised. Working together is a common survival instinct, especially for us here in the Northwest Territories. This government is founded on that very principle that we need to work together, we need to work out our differences. This process that we call consensus is a unique feature of this government. We pride ourselves that the system can work. I’d like to believe that this is a unique system that can, indeed, work in terms of sorting out our differences. My question is to the Premier today. I want to know in terms of what his vision is of building consensus with Aboriginal governments.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the approach that we’ve been taking is to reach out to all the Aboriginal governments to find a way to establish better working relationships by finding common ground. We think the best way to do that is to go out and meet with them and to identify what the basis of our relationship should be and how we should work together, and if there are any interests to formalize that arrangement, we’d be prepared to look at that as well.
I thank the Premier for that. Recently we witnessed two processes. One of them was the Aboriginal Summit in terms of bringing all the Aboriginal groups together from the Mackenzie Valley, at the same time ensuring that the governments were involved through the Intergovernmental Forum. That process basically put forth some key elements in terms of what we call devolution, at that time. What is different about this devolution process than that initial process back then?
I think the Aboriginal Summit and Intergovernmental Forum, I think both of those processes at the end were dismissed and disbanded because they weren’t fulfilling the objectives that they were set up for. We’re taking a much more careful approach this time.
My final question to the Premier is: At what point – I understand there’s negotiations and there’s also process ability consensus – can we have to step back and say how do we consider conflict resolution? How do we perhaps bring a sense of mediation in terms of bringing groups together? At what point would the Premier call into those conferences to ensure that we do indeed have consensus at the end of this process?
Our intention was, in follow-up through the Caucus meeting that was held in Detah with the seven Aboriginal government leaders, that it was our intention to pull together what we feel that we’ve heard and what we’ve discussed with the Aboriginal governments and that we would all sit together and put forward some indication of what we had heard, what the government would be proposing and use that as the basis for a follow-up meeting and for further discussion with the Aboriginal governments. Our expectation was to look at doing something in the next two to three months, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to continue my Member’s statement with some questions on the issue of a territorial addictions treatment centre that is much needed in the Northwest Territories and as and I’ve talked to the Minister of Health and Social Services on a number of occasions. I’ve talked about although it would be nice to have one here in Yellowknife, the fact is if you’re behind this issue, which means you want to support this issue, a territorial treatment centre could happen in any region in the Northwest Territories. It doesn’t have to happen here. I mean, the criteria comes down to, really, is it accessible and can it be managed well.
My question to the Minister of Health and Social Services continues to be: What action is being taken by him to lead on this particular initiative to establish, or I should say re-establish a territorial addictions centre here in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious issue across the North, especially in the small communities. They need to address the addiction issues. Right now the Department of Health and Social Services has out-of-territory placements where when they cannot be treated in the one treatment facility that does exist in the Northwest Territories, on which the department spends about $2 million. The department spends $6 million annually in supporting all of the various health and social services authorities targeted to addiction treatment and mental health. The department also spends, specific to Yellowknife and the regions that the Department of Health and Social Services provides services to – that’s Lutselk'e and Fort Resolution – $1.1 million on addictions and mental health services. Thank you.
What’s stopping the Department of Health and Social Services from finally taking up action on this particular problem, getting their focus correctly on the issue and start planning for an addictions centre here in the Northwest Territories? It could be in any region, and the planning and execution of this plan could start in this government and be a hallmark by the end of this government. Thank you.
Use, lack of use. Right now there’s a treatment centre in Hay River and it’s 49 percent occupied. The use is 49 percent. For some reason or another it’s not being used. Although the department has gone out and talked to the people, the people are saying what we need is on-the-land treatment, on-the-land addictions and mental health treatment. The department is trying to move in that direction. That is what is preventing us from building another treatment facility in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
The Minister and I have spoken at length regarding this issue that the Northwest Territories requires a detox centre. As I’ve spoken to him, and sometimes I think he even agrees, that Stanton itself, by virtue of its design, is not a detox centre for people who have addictions. That’s the type of focus I continue here, and relentlessly want to pursue and see the government take on that challenge. Nats’ejee K’eh, with all due respect, does not suit that type of need.
When will the department start planning for an appropriate treatment centre, as I’ve discussed here today? Thank you.
That’s correct; detoxification and treatment are two different things. Detoxification sometimes occurs in the hospital for several days in order to prepare someone for treatment. Detoxification is sometimes used when somebody is coming into the hospital for detoxification, or it’s the withdrawal management system that is run by the Salvation Army here in Yellowknife. There are two separate issues. Are there enough facilities in the Northwest Territories to provide detox services to everyone? Probably not, but that’s what we have at this time. Thank you.
Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
It’s no reason to give up, just because we don’t think we can solve the whole problem. I mean, that’s part of the reason why we’re here, to keep fighting this problem until we get it solved or we get the problem moved forward to a solution. One of the Sally Ann representatives talks about the types of addictions being treated here and he calls it, sort of, the stage two portion of the problem. We’re not focusing in on the root cause or the root solutions to the problem.
As many of us all know, due to research that I’ve done, the territorial addictions centre, the last one that closed down closed down strictly because of financial reasons, not because it wasn’t needed. It was struck down because of that singular failing. Again, not because addictions problems had been solved in the North.
Would the Minister be willing to look at drawing up a plan so we can work towards the future in our budgeting process with all Members about designing a detox centre solution here for the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
At this time the Department of Health and Social Services is going out to the communities. We recognize that this is an issue. We recognize that alcohol is an issue. We recognize that in small communities across the North and the part of Yellowknife that sometimes 90 percent of the small community issues pertaining to health are related to addictions. We are prepared to work with the communities. We are asking the communities what do they feel the solutions are. The communities are coming back and saying we need treatment on the land. We need to get our people out on the land, and that’s what we’re pursuing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to follow up on my Member’s statement on the federal government revisiting the Canada old age security and reforming it. I’d like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment about what is the Minister and our government doing today to protect the NWT seniors from any negative impacts resulting from the federal changes to the old age security system. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. We are closely monitoring what the federal move is on the old age pension. That’s been a controversial issue at the national level. We, as the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, do provide assistance to, as the Member indicated, income support clientele. If the move goes forward as we’ll probably see, we need to prepare our department. We need to prepare the GNWT on the repercussions of the decision that is going to be made. We will be closely monitoring what the decisions are going to be. Mahsi.
I would like to know, has our government made any contact recently to make sure that we have some input at the federal level. I would like to know what changes are likely to be needed in our own support of seniors when the federal government changes the old age security rules. Thank you.
There is ongoing discussion with the federal counterparts, with our colleagues out there, and we do stress our concerns as well. But at the end of the day, the decision is the federal decision, and again, we have to be prepared for the decision that will come down and if we need to make changes to our policy, then we definitely need to look at those that will impact the two-year span that we’re talking about from 65 to 67. Again, we will monitor the decision that is coming down from the federal government. Mahsi.
I would like to know what is the likely cost impact on our government of the changes to the old age security system. Has the Minister taken the time to assess what the changes will really mean financially to our system? Thank you.
This is a real recent decision that is going to be coming down and we haven’t really figured out the repercussions or the impacts in the Northwest Territories. We will be working on the potential impacts and we can share that information with the Members. Mahsi.
I think the real impact is that the rest of Canada, they do have, the seniors have the ability to continue working if they wish, and I think that was one of the biggest concerns of the federal government. However, in our remote and small communities, seniors don’t have that option, yet they will be impacted the same. So they’ll have to wait an additional two years is the concern. I’d like to ask the Minister if he will raise this aspect with the federal government that once again our needs in the North are unique.
Yes, most definitely we will be raising our concerns. As the Premier has met with the Prime Minister and Miltenberger met with the Finance Minister, both are discussions we continue to have with the federal Ministers to raise our concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much there, Mr. Speaker. Just, once again, the financial aspects will be huge for our government. What is this government doing to make sure that we have money to take care of our seniors in the future? Thank you.
If there are changes, we will definitely come back to the standing committee and talk about potential impacts and how we can deal with that in due time. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I just enjoyed a nice glass of water before me here and I know many Members did the same thing. The reason why I felt comfortable drinking this water is I know it was tested. I knew there was some decorum in the water. I knew there was some scientific value in the water that I drank. Unfortunately, upon review of MACA’s 2010 GNWT Report on Drinking Water, which I made reference to today in my Member’s statement, my spidey sense in terms of my chemistry background, a lot of warning bells went off. I was very much alarmed to know that we weren’t, as a government, enforcing the very set of guidelines and standards for our testing.
As I mentioned in my Member’s statement, many communities, upon forensic review, haven’t been tested, some of them since 2009 and some of them haven’t been tested since 2011. That said, I have a question for the MACA Minister in terms of what happened to these missing test results. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if there are missing test results. If there are no test results there, these may not have been done to begin with and that’s something we will work with the communities on.
There are four departments involved in this and we do try to work with the communities very closely to ensure that they do the testing. Under the terms of the water licence that they apply for, they do have to send a yearly sample to the federal government for the lab testing. If they fail to do that, then the environmental health officer would issue a boil water advisory; not because the water is unsafe to drink, because he doesn’t know what’s in it, but because it hasn’t been tested. So we continue to try to work with the communities to ensure they have quality drinking water in the communities and we work with the other departments to ensure this happens. Thank you.
