The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The quality of life and the safety of the Northwest Territories as a whole is a top priority not only for the Department of Justice but also for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Yes, I will be introducing the legislation to this Assembly during the life of this Assembly. Mahsi.
Those are excellent words. I’m really appreciative of the fact that this Minister is willing to lead this initiative, although it has had some bumps and grinds on the way. The fact is that it’s an important element of protection. When can we expect something like this to happen?
I would like to propose this legislation to this Assembly during the life of this Assembly, taking into account that there needs to be consultation with the Members. It also has to be a made-in-the-North model, not just something that came from the south and changed to our name. I want to meet the needs of the 33 communities we serve. As long as it meets their standards and our standards, we’ll be satisfied.
I appreciate that answer. I respect that. We certainly want to be very inclusive on specific legislation like this, because it’s very important to us. When can I expect that type of communication and consultation to come out to the general public?
As the Members are aware, this legislation was brought forward in the 15th Assembly. There was some consultation that took place. Our plan as a department is to continue with the process of dialoguing with our colleagues, the Regular Members. We were hoping to sit down this fall and start talking on this particular proposal. That’s our initial discussion.
I appreciate that. Would the Minister commit to making sure my office is informed? I don’t sit on the Social Programs Committee, but would he commit to keeping me informed of all steps and developments of this, whether it’s in regard to consultation with committee, the general public or other jurisdictions? Any information he can make available to me I’d appreciate.
I think it’s clear that the Chair of the Social Programs Committee will be sharing that with the Members. Our office and our department are willing to do that as well with the Members who are not on the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Today I talked about municipal services infrastructure needs in small communities like Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e. I’d like to follow up with questions to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. Can the Minister tell us how the department allocates money to the communities during the budgeting process?
The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We provide money to the communities through a number of key programs in three key areas. Those areas, of course, are operations and maintenance, community/public infrastructure, and water and sewer services. Eighty per cent of our budget in Municipal and Community Affairs flows to the communities. On top of that, we also have a number of federal programs that we have joint, co-management agreements with. That is the gas tax program, and we’re still working on the Building Canada Fund, of course. That comes in at around $82 million that we provide to the communities on an annual basis.
Does the department have a long-term plan to improve standards in smaller communities during the budgeting process?
Historically, a number of governments have worked on improving the standard of living in the communities and the programs to the community governments. I can recall being involved in a committee in the 15th Assembly, the Committee on Non-Tax-Based Community Affairs, and we made several recommendations at that time. Whenever we work with the communities to develop formulas, we take into consideration the unique circumstances that face, especially, the smaller communities. Our O&M formulas include the northern cost index. We have a commitment to review programs on a five-year basis. We certainly take into consideration the special needs of communities.
I thank the Minister for part of the response. I was looking to see if they actually have a physical long-term plan that Municipal and Community Affairs works out with municipalities. I’m asking the question: does the Minister have a long-term plan for the communities?
As I indicated earlier, we do have reviews built into most of our formula funding and most of our program-delivery funding that require us to review the allocation dollars. We have more recently embarked on an initiative to have all communities provide us with long-term sustainability plans. These include a number of different areas where they would provide us with information on their capital needs. For example, rather than us as a government providing a five-year infrastructure plan, the communities would compile theirs, including how they plan to finance it. Energy plans are part of that. Capacity-building plans are also part of that. It’s a more comprehensive approach than we’ve taken historically, and most of the communities have embarked on it. A number of communities have completed portions of it. A number of communities, for the most part in the capital area, have identified their priorities, and we continue to work toward getting all the communities done.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Will the Minister agree to have his department do a comprehensive evaluation of programs and services, the budgeting process and infrastructure needs in small communities?
I think we’ve been doing quite a bit of that over the last couple of years as we have undertaken the New Deal initiative. We would certainly be happy to share our information with the Member. If there is anything he feels we’ve missed, we certainly can look at providing that information. It’s difficult to say that we would embark on another complete review of all the communities at this point. It’s something I would hesitate to do.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Subcommittee on Infrastructure, Mr. Michael McLeod. It’s in relation to my statement earlier with regard to the Business Incentive Policy. More importantly, we have these policies, and we have the ability as Northerners to receive preferential treatment on different types of contracts in the North and also to be exempt from certain federal and national implications such as free trade. There is also the trade agreement between the provinces and arrangements in land-claim agreements. I think as government we have to realize that sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. It might be that in the long run we’re looking at saving money, but the problem I see is that under the free trade agreement we have certain exemptions because we’re grandfathered with the policies we have in place.
I’d like to ask the Minister: have you looked at the legal and political implications of making these changes through NAFTA, through land-claim agreements and other agreements we have in place that give us preferential treatment?
The honourable Minister, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I’m not sure if it’s a perception that’s not quite correct out there, but there seems to be an assumption that we’ve eliminated the BIP. At this point our recommendation to Cabinet has been that we suspend a portion of the BIP and that the BIP policy will stay in place. We are recommending that a portion not apply, and that is the portion that affects the capital projects. ITI will be taking that out for further discussion. We intend to have further discussion on all our recommendations with committee, and there needs to be a further involvement from the aboriginal governments. At this point it’s a recommendation to which we expect response. Looking at the issues regarding NAFTA and MOUs with the aboriginal governments and land-claim agreements will all be part of that.
Mr. Speaker, I think that whether tinkering with it or making major changes, we have to know what our footing is when making these changes. If there are some legal implications by making these minor changes, is that going to be perceived as an overhaul of an existing preferential policy that’s in place in the NWT? So again, have you got a legal opinion from Justice in regard to these changes, and is there a possibility we may be watering down our rights that we have by way of preferential treatment under NAFTA?
Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the aboriginal governments would certainly let us know if they perceived this to be a watering down of their rights. Actually, I will do further exploration on it. There’s no intention to step away from any of the agreements or responsibilities. That information has yet to be compiled.
Mr. Speaker, again, I believe we do from time to time have to look at the different policies and procedures we have in place. If they’re not working, let’s tinker with them and try to make them work. But let’s not totally eliminate programs and services because they may not be meeting our objectives. At the end of the day the goal is to build capacity. We are having some major problems out there, especially at the community levels and even in regard to the regional levels, where you only have one major contractor in the Northwest Territories. I think we have to do a better job of inviting people to get into these businesses. I’d like to ask the Minister exactly: have you spoken to the NWT Construction Association or aboriginal organizations in regard to this change?
Mr. Speaker, I haven’t personally spoken to any of the associations. ITI has talked to a couple of organizations. The Premier has also, I believe, had some feedback from organizations and businesses. It was mentioned in the previous address, and it’s something we feel we need to do. We need to visit, at this point, the way we’re conducting business. It’s really providing a lot of challenges. In our infrastructure committee we have provided, I think, 14 recommendations. This one’s getting a lot of attention.
Having said that, we have to recognize that just about 80 per cent of our tenders that go out are receiving less than two companies bidding on them. In fact, about 15 to 16 per cent of our tenders that went out received nobody bidding on them. We have to really look at how we’re doing business. We’re making a number of recommendations. Some things have to be further explored. ITI has been directed to go out and come back with some options on how we can revisit the BIP. The FMB and we as a committee will be talking further on looking at how we can change the capital-approval system within our own government — giving us time to have the tenders go out earlier, providing that information to potential contractors earlier — so that we have better timing meeting all the delivery schedules and everything else that’s required.
Thank you Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my 13 years here this item has been on the agenda for every Legislature I’ve been a part of and has always been. We’ve had committees; we’ve had special committees. This thing has been worked over probably more than most public items in the Legislature. So I’d just like to ask the Minister if, before we take too many giant steps, we can maybe revisit some of that information, some of those reports, and see what those recommendations are before we make any major expenditures or capital investments going off into another area. I’d just like to ask the Minister that they look at the history of this and bring something back and also keep the committees informed on this side of the House so we can also have input into the process.
We certainly concur with the Member’s recommendations. We intend to look at all the information provided up to now, and a number of us would agree; we’ve looked at this a number of times now. However, we have to face the reality that there is a cry out there to deal with this issue again. There are a number of companies and organizations that don’t feel it’s time to do this, but we have to review all the information — review and hear what people have to say. We have to share it with the committee and provide all that feedback to our own infrastructure committee to look at and make the final decisions. We certainly will keep the Members of this House informed.
The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my colleague Mr. Krutko’s questioning on BIP. I’m unsure, though, whether I should ask the Minister responsible for the BIP or if I should ask Minister McLeod. I guess for today’s sake I could ask Minister Michael McLeod. If the government has made this decision to move forward on the application on capital projects, I’m wondering when that will be effective, if the Minister could answer that question for me.
The honourable Minister, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you. That is a very good question and a difficult one to answer. I guess it would depend on how much consultation is going to be required. Our target, from our committee, is to have a lot of these things come into play next year. We wanted to have some very good discussion with the committee about our recommendations, and we actually had hoped we would have the possibility of agreement to move our capital-approval process —that has been mentioned by the Premier — to the fall, which would allow us to start planning approval of capital projects in our fall session rather than in February or March. Some things we’d like to see happen sooner than others. For the BIP we don’t expect to have a decision for another year or so.
If it’s going to take a year, then I’m wondering why the Minister would stand up in the House yesterday and announce it if we are going to go through the consultation process and get out there and talk to stakeholders and talk to Regular Members on this decision to effect capital projects. I’m wondering if the Minister can answer this question: has the department or the government done any type of economic analysis to suggest what losses the government would have in the area of corporate taxes and the out-migration of people? There’s a big impact by making a decision like this, and I’m wondering if they’ve done any work in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, the Member knows full well that’s a very difficult area to measure. We will do some analysis, but whether or not we can measure the out-migration and take our best guess — I don’t know if we can go that far. We will do the analysis; that’s what we’re embarking on right now, and we will have ITI do some of that work.
As my colleague Mr. Krutko alluded to, there have been many studies. There have been lots of reports done and efforts made to find out the cost of this and the benefits. I don’t think we need to reinvent the wheel. What I want to find out is: is this a decision to save $245,000 and a couple of positions? What’s driving this decision? I’d like to ask the Minister that question.
Mr. Speaker, our fiscal reality, of course, is driving this. We have a huge infrastructure deficit. I think at last count, general estimations were well over $1 billion. As Members look at our capital budget of $140-some million, along with carry-over debt, it comes out to $200 million. It’s going to be tough to deal with that infrastructure. We have to do our business more efficiently. We have to have checks and balances in our capital process. BIP seems to have caught everybody’s eye and ear. I think we have to really look at what we’re planning to do. The Premier said fairly clearly in his budget speech that we would look at the BIP and its application to capital projects, but we’d also look at maintaining our commitment to local and northern purchasing. It’s those things we have to keep in mind. We need to have that discussion, and that’s what we plan to do.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As long as the cost-benefit analysis isn’t done after the fact, after this comes into effect — like the Deh Cho bridge, for example.
I’d like to get some reassurance from the Minister that before this becomes effective the government will come back to Regular Members and sit down with stakeholders in this area so we can work on this together and come up with solutions together rather than it just be implemented by the government.
The over-a-billion-dollar deficit I mentioned didn’t include the Deh Cho bridge or the Mackenzie Valley road. I would commit to the Members, and I think all my committee colleagues would commit, that we would share the information with the Regular Members on where we plan to go and the decisions we’re moving toward as the information comes in. Through ITI or with our work with the FMB we will commit to doing that and provide it to the committee and keep them updated.
The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement today I raised the possibility that the reason the law bursary program failed to encourage any recipients to return north to article and practise law may have been related to the lack of attention the department paid to the recipients and the program in general. Can the Minister of Justice inform this Assembly whether, once the department realized the law bursary program wasn’t meeting its intent…? Did the department examine the program with a view to improving it so it would meet its objectives?
The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi. Mr. Speaker, this particular program was introduced in 1999–2000. We have had limited success with this program. That’s one area we looked at as a department as part of how we can improve in these areas. That was an area we looked at as part of the reduction that has been brought forward. Due to the fact that we haven’t had much success in this area.... Part of that introduction was to increase lawyers in the Northwest Territories, specifically aboriginal lawyers. But there had been a limited intake in the program. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I have a constituent who is currently in their second year, who is in law school because of the bursary program, and has not heard back from the GNWT Department of Justice about articling or summer employment opportunities. It just seems ironic that we’ve had limited success so therefore let’s just pull the rug out from under the whole thing. What about the students who are currently enrolled in law school, who are depending on the law bursary program to conclude their studies?
