I’d like to ask the Premier if there have been commitments made by Ministers to particular communities on issues. I was with the Minister of Health in Tsiigehtchic. They’re trying to get a nurse as the community hasn’t had one for four years, and they’re also looking at a mental health physician for that community.
I’d like to get some assurance from the Premier that if there are any commitments made by Ministers to communities, to try to ensure they fill those vacant positions, that they don’t come back now and say, “Sorry, we’re not committed to that.” I’d like to get some assurance that those commitments will be lived up to.
Mr. Speaker, again, as we begin laying out the plan we have for the 16th Assembly, targeting areas where we want reinvestment, areas that we want to re-prioritize, those activities will occur. Ministers who make commitments need to align their commitments with that plan. I would say if Ministers are making commitments that don’t fit with that plan, they’re going to have to justify to this House and Members why that commitment was made and not honoured.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier if he has a system in place to notify affected MLAs if there are going to be any vacancies in their ridings by way of positions. Then we can be informed ahead of time, and we will be able to react to our constituents when they find out there are notices given or that positions are going to be removed from our constituencies.
We’re going to work in a way that is respectful for Members as well as for employees when we do make decisions on what positions may be affected. We’re going to work in that environment, where we’re working in a transparent forum. We definitely don’t want Members to walk back to their communities when a decision has been made and you’re approached by people who you’re not aware have been affected. We are going to try to do business differently. Even with that, we’re coming back to this House, to Members, for input, so you’ll be aware of the changes that are going to take place.
Mr. Speaker, I’m getting really tired of talking about the Deh Cho Bridge. I think the Premier is probably getting tired of talking about it too. So I’m going to start asking my questions of the Auditor General, instead of him.
But just one more set of questions for him, first.
Laughter.
Mr. Speaker, does the Premier support and will his cabinet co-operate with a whole disclosure to the Auditor General of Canada of the correspondence and documents related to the Deh Cho Bridge project for an independent review?
Mr. Speaker, we are co-operating with the Office of the Auditor General. This issue came up as a result of the review of our public accounts, which happens normally between January and February. This loan guarantee was asked about, and they’ve asked us different questions. We’ve been working to provide additional information, and we’ll work co-operatively with her office.
Mr. Speaker, since that information won’t be received and reviewed and dealt with overnight and there’s going to be some time lapse here, I’d like to ask the Premier: are there any other significant dates and milestones related to our government’s participation in the Deh Cho Bridge project that are still yet to come and that we should know about?
Mr. Speaker, the significant time frames for our government have come to pass in the sense of the extension that was granted through the banking institution on the loan guarantee, as well as the lending of the dollars for the bridge corporation. The one aspect is, as we are informed, the lawyers are doing their work to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. If it were to come back to this table and require any change, then that’s when it would come back to our table.
If any deficiencies are identified by the legal review and the dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, as the Premier has said, and any decision comes back to our government, could the Premier share with us what his reaction would be, at that time, to a request for an extension or any other kind of concession regarding this project on behalf of our government?
Mr. Speaker, we’re entering the area of “what if something happened.” My position, as I put out to Members, is that with any changes to what we are involved with — for example, the requirement for an extensive loan guarantee, a change to a concession agreement — I would come back to Members and seek their input prior to making that decision. I stand by that commitment.
Back to my question about any significant dates or milestones. Is there a time frame around that final scrutiny of that legal document? Is there a date by which it won't go any further?
We've been informed by the parties that the lawyers require until the third week of February — February 22, in and around that time frame — to sign off the final document. And again, if there are no changes that affect our side of the equation, it’s a go. The only reason it would come back is if they try to renegotiate a portion of that. Then it would come back to our table. If they go ahead and sign the deal, as do the banks and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, the process is underway.
In my Member’s statement I talked about morale and the $135 million in budget reductions. Since the announcement has come out from the Premier that there will be $135 million in reductions and staff cuts, we have all had staff come to us and ask us, “Is my job going to be gone tomorrow? Do I need to start looking for another job?” As indicated in my statement, I think cutting jobs is the last thing we should be doing. It should be the last course of action with respect to bringing our spending in line.
I'd like to ask the Premier to commit to work with staff and to assure them that if any job cuts do occur, they will be as a last resort, and that we as the government will make every reasonable effort to reduce our spending without cutting jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask one thing for the record. In his Member’s statement the Member referenced the fact that we would be making cuts on the backs of employees. That is not the process we are using. The target isn't whether we are going to take out a certain number or percentage of employees. It’s just a matter of process.
The target we're working with is looking at the programs we deliver and whether they are providing or delivering what they were identified to be delivering, or what they were structured to deliver — looking at those programs and reprioritizing that money or using it in other areas or initiatives.
There are a number of factors that would end up being in process. We would work with the frameworks that we have in place — for example, transfer assignments for moving employees over to where they may fit with a reorganized unit. There are a number of factors we would put in place before an employee is left to the last resort where that position can't be redeployed some place, or even in another community.
But for the record, this exercise is not about just taking a target percentage of employees and removing them. We're looking at a program-based approach, and unfortunately there will be some effect to employees where programs are being relocated or reprioritized.
I’m glad to hear that. I'd still like to hear that job cuts will be a last resort and that this government will make every reasonable effort to find creative ways of reducing our spending — such as items mentioned yesterday about energy efficiency and those types of things — before job cuts.
On October 17 I asked the Premier “How will he work toward strengthening the public service and improving the morale of staff within the G.N.W.T.?” According to the unedited Hansard from October 17, the Premier indicated that “we must treat all employees — it doesn't matter at what level — with respect as an individual.” He went further to say: “We need to talk to those at the front line to say what works for you in how you deliver your programs.”
Directly related to that, I'd like to see a commitment from the Premier to actually work with staff, get out to the staff and talk to the staff at the lower levels. They often have a lot of good ideas on how to reduce spending and streamline programs that would be a lot more effective and may not be presented to you at the higher levels.
I would like you, as Premier, to commit to getting out — not necessarily you — or getting your department out and talk to the staff and listen to the staff. They have a lot of good ideas; they’re the ones who deliver the programs. If you get to them and you get the information from them, they might be able to help you streamline and reduce costs without cutting their own jobs.
So a commitment from the Premier.
What was raised yesterday was about trying to look at other ways we can do that. The Member is correct: I myself would not be able to touch base with all of my employees, but I would pursue that through our departments. We need to seek those that are directly involved.
I recall even from my own days as a public servant in the Government of the N.W.T. that you see things at a community level that you know can be addressed, and there can be some savings identified. We should not turn a blind eye to those that are on the front-line and who might have some ideas for us. We’ll look at ways of trying to do that. I gave an example yesterday — a potential way of getting ideas on the Premier’s web site. We can look at a number of other ways of doing that as well.
Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services.
It’s not a new issue; it’s one that was raised during the length of the last government. It has to do with space utilization at Stanton Territorial Hospital.
As I mentioned in my statement, morale has been an issue. There’s been an HR plan that’s in the works. There have also been some questionnaires that have gone out to employees. One of the main themes that has come back is space utilization and the fact that health care professionals at the hospital are having to deliver services to patients in crammed and often inadequate space. I’m wondering why, if this is the case, does the hospital insist on turning patient lounges into office space? I’m wondering if the Minister could provide an answer to why that is the case today — that they’re looking at turning more space at that hospital into office space.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for the question.
There is no question that Stanton Territorial Hospital is under a lot of pressure with respect to capital needs. It’s a 25-year-old building, and there has not been a lot of work done in that regard. Space has been an issue. Like all other capital funding processes, work is underway to review those needs and to try to meet those needs. There are not a lot of studies going on, but there is work in place to look at seven of the most critical areas, those being emergency, medical day care units, ICU, the diagnostic imaging place…. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to do that, and the hospital is using its resources as best it can until any major changes are done.
My point is that the hospital is in fact a hospital — it is not an office building; it is not an administrative building; it is a hospital — and it should be used as such. I find when the hospital and its departments make decisions to turn patient lounges — and, I’ve heard recently, the nursery — into office space, that causes me a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker. The administrative staff should be relocated out of that hospital so the hospital can in fact be a hospital.
I’d like to again ask the Minister what plans she has, and the department has, to address this, so we can take a look at getting the administrative office staff out of that hospital, so that the health care professionals that work in that hospital and the patients who need it have the required space to conduct the work that’s needed there.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is aware, as well as all of us, that the option of moving the admin office staff out of there has to be part of the capital plan. All of us work together on our capital needs and where that money should go.
It is true that the facility is about 25 years old, and it has not gone through mid-life retrofit. But it is in line with all the other facilities that are looking for attention.
I could advise the Member that we will be look at the possibility of moving the administration office out of there as part of the plan for looking at the seven critical areas. That would be discussed in the upcoming capital plan process.
You have to look at all of the programs and services and recognize the fact that the hospital is being used in a very different way than it was meant to be a long time ago when it was built. It was supposed to be an acute-care facility, but it has turned into doing lots of other things it was never meant to do, and the space has not caught up with that. That is part of the process, and I expect to have some of that work included in the next business plan session and capital plan session.
Mr. Speaker, I know the capital planning process — I believe it was $27 million that was earmarked for Stanton over the next few years — is one issue. The issue I’m getting to is that if you have a morale problem and you have an issue there with not enough space to conduct the services that our residents require, why would you exacerbate the situation by continuing to make decisions that turn patient lounges — and now, it looks like, the nursery — into office space? It pokes a red hot poker right into the eye of the health care professionals who work at Stanton when the departments make decisions like that. I think the public deserves better, and the health care professionals who work at that hospital deserve better.
I’m going to ask the Minister: is the decision to turn the nursery into office space a done deal? Is that going to happen?
It’s their authority as to who is responsible for making their internal decisions about how to use their space in the most practical way possible with the resources they have. A means of doing anything larger than that, such as moving administrative offices out of there or reorganizing their work and units, would include planning on the part of this Assembly. The department is reviewing the space used there as a part of a human resource review plan that is being worked on.
I am aware of the fact that the space issue and the work safety issue were identified as some of the major issues. I look forward to reading to the Members, in the next business planning cycle — which is the proper way for us to do it — to see what options we have available, including the possibility of finding other spaces for administrative offices if we can’t do anything else.
I’m just having a bit of trouble understanding how the department and the hospital could make decisions where money is going need to be spent on renovating a patient lounge, the nursery and washrooms into office space. I think that money could be better spent taking the office administrative staff that are in the hospital and putting them in another space, perhaps downtown in other office buildings around Yellowknife. They don’t need to be in the hospital, Mr. Speaker. That’s the type of work I want the Minister to commit to today.
I don’t disagree with the Member with respect to the best use of the hospital. I’m trying to remind the Member that the resources that we put into all health care authorities, including their facilities, are decisions of this Assembly. It is my job to come up with the options and make sure that we have the right information for the Members to consider. I’m telling the Member again that this will be part of our discussion. Members know also that this is our first chance to make those kinds of decisions in the upcoming review process.
A point of clarification. At this time, in his position as Premier and Minister of Finance, is the Premier aware of any mechanisms we could use to put the Deh Cho Bridge before this House for a go–no go vote?
Mr. Speaker, the fact is the will of this House trumps my initiatives or cabinet’s initiatives or even initiatives of past government. There is an avenue that is always available to this House. The Deh Cho Bridge project is on the books, and Members can decide if there is continued support for that. We would have to have a debate about the risks of doing that at this time.
The other avenue, which Mrs. Groenewegen asked about earlier, is if, through the final work that is happening on signing off through the lawyers, they were to come back and request any changes through the concession agreement or what would be required through the FMB, that could bring it back to this floor. Then we’d have that discussion as well. Thank you.
Again I want to continue with some questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I didn’t get an answer to the question of whether, in fact, the nursery on OBS at Stanton Territorial Hospital will be turned into office space.
I can categorically advise the Member that the nursery at the hospital is not turning into office space.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister about the patient lounge on the medicine ward at Stanton Territorial Hospital. Will that, in fact, be turned into office space?
Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that information, and I’ll be happy to get back to the Member regarding that, but I am not aware of that unit being turned into an office.
I am really glad that I didn’t say the last sentence that was at the end of my questions about the Deh Cho Bridge project, because we have a few minutes, here.
The Premier raises the issue of liability. This issue did come up before. I wanted to get a sense of what kind of opinion had been sought on liability. I think we got to the point that no real legal opinion had been obtained. I reread Hansard, and it sounded like what the Premier was saying was that in his opinion, we would have extensive liability. And you know, although I really respect his opinion, I don’t respect it in regard to legal matters, maybe, in quite the same way.
I would ask the Premier: does the G.N.W.T. have in their possession any legal opinion which would speculate on this government’s liability if we did anything which could cause the Deh Cho Bridge project not to proceed?”
Mr. Speaker, we have not asked for an opinion in that area. I would again, looking at the file and seeing where we are at…. We made an assumption. Looking at the contract, a concession agreement has been agreed to and the builder has been offered a guaranteed price. If we were to back out now, in my opinion — I shouldn’t offer that, I guess, as I am not a lawyer, thankfully; stick to the business I do know — we would be challenged. We’d have to look at that.
The Premier refers to a contract that has been signed with a contractor to build the Deh Cho Bridge. That contract is not with the Government of the Northwest Territories, to my knowledge. That contract is with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. It seems like we use the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and our government interchangeably when it is convenient. If we want information, it is the Deh Cho Bridge project that we hide behind. But when we talk about liability, it is the government. Who is the contract with? Is it with the Government of the Northwest Territories or the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation? Who would incur the liability?
The fact is the liability issue for us isn't directly tied to the contract. The contract was a guaranteed price. That work has been done through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, with the builder of the bridge.
Our piece, our liability, is tied to the concession agreement, and if we were to affect that with our own decisions outside of their process or what work they were doing, that's the reference I would be making to it.
When we talk about significant dates, obviously September 28 is a significant date, because somebody signed a concession agreement on behalf of this government on September 28. October 1 was a significant date. That was Election Day.
January 31 was another significant date. What happened on January 31? That was only a week and a half ago. We passed another date of some sort. I'd like the Premier to explain: What was the significance of January 31?
The January 31 date is a date where it would have been a go–no go on the concession agreement if the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation hadn't met the requirements. They informed us by letters, and showing letters from the bank that holds the…. We would, for example, have to initiate the loan guarantee on our part. They have provided letters from their lenders that the money will flow after the lawyers dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
For our piece, the January 31 date was for meeting the requirements in the concession agreement — that is, their equity portion — and having the lenders signed on, on this.
It doesn't sound like January 31 was the go–no go date, simply because, in fact, there was another three-week extension after that to clarify the legal documents around that date.
It’s curious to me that that was such a go–no go, as the Premier described it. That was a go–no go date, January 31, but “take another three weeks.”
Who’s got the liability here? We have the liability here. If it’s a no go, our $9 million loan guarantee gets called, and the government steps up for $9 million. I don't see any liability on the other side.
I want the Premier to describe to us that February 22 date, prior to that. If this government… That's an “if” question. I have to think of a question that's not hypothetical. Thank you.
From everything that's been said and what we're hearing in the media, I'd just like to ask the Premier: it seems like we're focussing on trying to reduce our costs, but is there any way we're trying to increase our revenues by looking at areas such as taxation?
We had a debate in the 13th Assembly on developing such a thing as a resource tax, and I believe if we'd put the tax in place then, we probably wouldn't have the financial problems we're facing today. With the reductions that we're looking at now, we're looking at the possibility of future generations and ensuring that we're able to sustain programs and services for future years.
I'd like to ask the Premier if he has considered looking at the options by way of tax revenues as a means of being able to offset some of this debt by bringing in new revenues by taxation.
The appetite for revenue for expenditure purposes is almost unquenchable by this government. We've just looked at — and we can show examples from past governments — a corporate tax adjustment of $50 million that got swallowed up by the system. The problem is, those are short-term, so that is something we have to look at.
The Member has talked about “sustainable.” As a government we have to be able to provide a sustainable level of service to the people across the Territories, so that is one of the exercises we're going through.
The other side of it is to ensure that we have revenues enough to keep the programs going. We are looking at revenue options. We’re looking at existing revenue options as well as looking at those that would require new acts that would have to be approved by this Assembly. So we are looking at the options that are available to us.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we do have to take a close look at this. If you look at the profits of these mega-companies such as Exxon Mobil, which announced a $40 billion profit, and you look at the diamond companies, which are making billions of dollars of profits a year, they’re taking diamonds and oil and gas out of the Northwest Territories but not leaving anything behind to the real residents who should be benefitting from those resources.
I think, as a government, we have to seriously take these industries up on this matter. I know, Mr. Speaker, during the argument for the pipeline, we had to reach some concessions to not raise royalties, to not raise taxes for the pipeline from Imperial Oil — which is a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil and which made $40 billion.
I’d just like to ask the Premier if he’d like the government to seriously look at this alternative. Bring it back as an option that we can look at to maybe consider a way of increasing our resource base for revenues by looking at the resource sector, which has the ability to act right now.
I believe I said that as a government, we are looking at our tax options — those that we have on the books as well as those that would require a legislative initiative if brought back to this Assembly.
As we know from past practice, when governments make adjustments, even adjustments with existing legislation, it can have a lag time of at least a year to two years before you actually start to see the net results of any change — in some cases, sooner.
For example, one of the avenues my past government practised was to raise the corporate tax. It didn’t take very long for corporations — and even our aboriginal corporations — to look at their net impact and decide that they’ll put their money in other areas outside of our Territory, which has almost an immediate impact on lost revenue in the Territories. So we have to work out that balance.
But yes, as I stated, we’re looking at new initiatives to bring this back to this table for input.
So, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier if maybe he could bring forward the legislation that was drafted, I believe, in the 13th Assembly. I don’t recall the tax, but there was legislation put forth, developed, that was ready to come forward — by way of looking at this alternative in the 13th Assembly.
So I’d like to ask the Premier: would you consider bringing that back to the table and allowing the Members of this House to take a look at that as an option?
Mr. Speaker, as we develop our overall plan for the Government of the Northwest Territories, we’ll need to, as I’ve committed, go back to the Members with our options for the savings we need, the re-profiling that we want to do, the reinvesting we want to do in priority areas as well as some of our capital in our communities and the revenue options that we have identified. That’s all got to come back to Members. And we’ll share that as we put our plan together. Thank you.
