Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, indeed, we have, when we talked about the services, the vision and goals of the 16th Legislative Assembly. One of the areas we look at is strategic action supporting small and sustainable remote communities. We’ve had a number of discussions flowing throughout a number of initiatives that we’ve highlighted, whether it’s Reducing the Cost of Living, Building Our Future, Refocusing Government. There are a number of factors in each area that we want to put some energy into and focus on through the life of this Assembly to reduce those gaps the Member has highlighted.
I’d like to ask the Premier: has the Premier initiated any discussions in his Cabinet on the requirement to have a needs assessment to determine the current gap in determining where the small communities are and where they should be?
Mr. Speaker, as we begin the work of the 16th Legislative Assembly to get through this budget cycle, we’re prepared to move into these areas and look at that work. There has been much work done; for example, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, when it comes to their funding formulas; Education, Culture and Employment; Health and Social Services. There are different frameworks out there when it comes to the level of service in communities. We want to bring those to the table, as we’d had the questions in the House by the Member regarding a role with the committees and Members of this Assembly. I think that’s the area we can get into. A number of these approaches we can take through that joint committee.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to setting up a joint committee to address these issues, would the Premier put this project or this initiative on the Cabinet agenda so that this does not lose its focus during this Assembly?
In fact, this morning we were talking in Cabinet about pulling together the information that we can sit down with Members on and come up with a joint process of dealing with these issues. So yes, it will remain on our roles and strategic actions as we work through this Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to seek the Premier’s opinion. I’d like to ask the Premier if he agrees that the level of service to our citizens is not balanced between small communities and larger centres. Thank you.
I think it would be fairly straightforward for us, as Members, whether we’re representing small communities or larger centres. When we travel throughout the North, we can clearly see there are differences in our larger centres that have a healthy economic sector versus the small community that could be traditionally based.
There are large gaps; we recognize that. That’s why part of our strategic action is supporting sustainable communities. That is looking at the level of service we provide and the delivery methods. We can also bring to the table the fact that as a government we’ve recognized these when it comes to trying to put more resources into those communities.
Unfortunately, the smaller we go, the harder it is to come up with the right balance when you talk about investment in our communities and the cost per capita. We recognize that, and we’d like to sit down with Members and bring all of the information to the table.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement today I talked about the way in which the market disruption policy was interpreted when approving applications for business development funding. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment what process his department uses to assess the potential for market disruptions when they’re receiving and reviewing funding applications.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.
With regard to the business programs we deliver, market disruption is one of the principles that is at the foundation of all of our programs. So for any applications we receive, we ensure that we do due diligence to ensure there’s no possibility of market disruption.
I think the Minister is aware of the situation I brought to his attention, where one business is producing something in a community and getting business development funds to bring that product into Hay River to compete directly and head-on with existing businesses in Hay River. Now, this may be a bit of an anomaly, but it has happened. What could the Minister tell me to assure me that that type of thing would not be accepted — that it would be part of the application for the applicant to tell where they’re planning to market their product?
As we develop programs — and programs have been in place for some time — we evolve with regard to our policies.
Under the current policy the example the Member outlined is perfectly within our policy, whereby there’s no market disruption because it’s limited to the community where the assistance has been requested and provided. I’d like to advise the Member that we are changing our policies. We are introducing our new SEED program — Support to Entrepreneurs and Economic Development — which will be rolling out sometime this month.
Mr. Speaker, since we’re on the verge of a new SEED fund and setting up policies to go with that, would the Minister commit to undertake to ensure that if someone is applying for that funding to operate a business, which they then plan to operate on a regional basis, you would ensure that regional activity would not be impacting on existing businesses competing with them, causing market disruption?
I guess we don’t want to be presumptuous; we want to make sure we follow all of our consultation requirements and provide early notification and so on. I think that probably within a month or so our new program will be out, which much more clearly identifies and defines market disruption to address exactly the situation the Member raised.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
I’ll be happy to inform my constituents that they may be able to have some input into that consultation that will set those policies in place.
Mr. Speaker, under the current Business Development Fund process and in the upcoming SEED program, will it be possible for businesses to apply on a consecutive-years basis for those business development funds? Would it be possible for a business, for example, to apply every year and get those funds, or will there be something in the policy that will preclude that from happening?
This is an area we’ve been trying to address for some time. We haven’t been able to work it out, principally because for contribution funding, we have to come to the Legislative Assembly every year for our budgets to be approved. I guess until such time as we find a way to deal with that, only at that time will we be able to address the Member’s question. It’s certainly an area we would want to try to achieve.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier, and it comes down to a question of fairness. Over the years, as long as I’ve been here and as long as the Premier’s been here, I’ve been asking questions about developing road connections from Aklavik to the Dempster Highway, and also trying to find ways we can do that. I was always told that the only way you’d be able to do that is to be part of the Highway Strategy in the Northwest Territories. In order to make that grid, you have to be part of the strategy.
Yet I seem to see a lot of initiatives that aren’t even in the strategy, and also new initiatives that are coming this way. I find there are projects in place where communities have roads being built into their communities — communities which are not part of the NWT Highway Strategy.
I’d like to ask the Minister if this government is being fair when projects that are not part of the NWT strategy are being put into place without developing around the strategy this government has in place and which is fair to everyone.
The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
As the Member has highlighted, the fact is that we do work around our Capital Acquisition Plan, the strategies that are in place. There have been quite a number of them laid out. From time to time we do update them, or the focus becomes around communities instead of territory-wide initiatives.
We will work with communities as we have in the past. Some communities, for example, have gone out and done their own studies or cost-benefit analyses and even some design work, and then we sit down and have those sorts of discussions.
We’re prepared to sit down with communities and do some work together, whether it’s cost sharing or looking at some of these new initiatives that may come forward, and at that point — once we have that type of information — look at how we can put it into our Capital Acquisition Plan.
The point I’m trying to make is that we have all these different programs. In the case of my community I was told the only program out there is the community access road project, which is about $50,000 a year and capped at $450,000. You can’t really do much with that, yet you see communities where you’re building roads in excess of $4 million or $5 million that are basically being paid by this government. I’m being told that in order to get your project, you have to come up with half the money.
I’m just wondering where the consistency in this government is with regard to fairness for communities. You have roads being built into communities at no cost to the communities but are being told that if you want the road, you have to come up with half. Where’s the fairness in that?
There are a number of different initiatives, whether within our own government or agreements we end up signing or that flow through with the federal government. For example, the Building Canada Fund has a cost-sharing process that we have to match, or the project has to match, going forward.
We have some initiatives within our own policies of cost-sharing arrangements with communities. It depends on which project it actually aligns with — whether it’s the Building Canada Fund or our own Capital Acquisition Plan. There is no hard and fast line, for example, to say every project has to have a 50/50 share. I’ve spoken with the Minister of Transportation to come up with a cost-sharing arrangement with, for example, the community of Aklavik on a study they can do to come up with the actual financial analysis that’s needed to move this to the next stage.
Again, the point I’m trying to make is that there are projects in place right now in the capital budget where they’re going into communities. You’re building roads into communities, and basically, the government is paying 100 per cent of the cost. I’d just like to know exactly why it is that communities are being treated differently where now, in order to get a road built, you have to come up with half the funds, but in the capital budget right now before this House we are paying to build roads into communities.
In the tight financial frame we’re in, one of the processes that allows us to move projects ahead would be if there’s a cost-sharing arrangement. The only project where we talk about a 50/50 arrangement is, in fact, one that was discussed in this House, which is the Yellowknife bypass road. We’re looking for cost-sharing arrangements, and in fact, there’s been that discussion with the gravel-source 177 discussions with the community of Tuktoyaktuk. This one here, as the Member has highlighted a number of times, has been raised politically a number of times, but there hasn’t been that cost-benefit process. We’re prepared to sit down and share with the community on putting that one in place so we can move it to the next stage so then it can come into the plan.
We also have to recognize that the Building Canada Fund, for example, that’s triggered a number of these projects…. We’re waiting for the final agreement to be signed with the federal government. They’re having a say as to what actually goes or doesn’t go as part of that package.
It is a seven-year process. We’ll have an opportunity to continue to work with that process as we proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The road from Aklavik to the Dempster Highway…. There’s a motion passed by the Beaufort-Delta leaders going back to 1991. I believe I’ve moved motions in this House and have supported motions on the floor in regard to this. This item has been on the radar for quite a few years, yet I don’t know if we’ll ever see the light of day under the process we’re using where the rules change every time you try to do something. One group gets it free and the other group has rules attached to getting something.
I’d just like to ask the Premier exactly what we are doing to connect communities, which is a priority of this 16th Assembly, to improve access to our communities.
Again, for clarity, the fact is that some of these communities that have pursued initiatives have spent their own money on coming up with their plans and cost-benefit analyses and so on. We realize that in other communities, they don’t have that flexibility, so we’re ready through the Department of Transportation to look at an arrangement where we can help get to the next stage.
The fact is that when we talk about connecting to our actual highway system from communities, we know from our estimates, and we’ve been using these for quite some time…. It’s an estimate that at least starts the basis of our discussions — for example, on the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We’re looking at a highway-level road at about $1 million per kilometre. That has a huge impact as to what we can actually proceed with. But we’re prepared to work with communities and some arrangement…. We’re cost sharing on some of the initial studies so we can advance to the next level. We’re prepared to do that with the community of Aklavik as well.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe in practical approaches to everyday problems. I believe we have a solution before us about this plastic bag problem, which is to use cloth bags or recyclable bags. In my household I try to lead by example. I have a six-year-old who often reminds me about stuff like that, because it’s the young kids who know all about this problem. They seem to be teaching us older folks.
We need some leadership from the Department of ENR on this issue. I’d certainly like to know and get some details as to where this government is on working toward eliminating, in a gradual sense, the use of plastic bags.
The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to point out that I think ENR has provided fairly significant leadership. If you think back a couple of years, when we first rolled out the recycling program, it was with considerable consternation, because the plan wasn’t complete enough. We forged ahead anyway, and now we have a very successful program. We continue to work on that program. We’ve been doing consultations, and we plan to come forward here in the next number of weeks with a plan that will look at some fairly significant improvements to the waste reduction and recycling program. On our list are going to be things like plastic bags.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister taking the time out of the day to give himself a pat on the back. I mean, my issue really is what are we doing with plastic bags — not to make the Minister feel better about himself.
Mr. Speaker, what support programs are we going to provide for our citizens and our businesses to make this happen? You can hardly go to a store without them having a special little rack of recyclable bags. So what support programs and ideas is the Minister bringing forward to this problem?
Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to acknowledge and point out the fact that in reality, ENR has been fairly progressive in terms of how we move on this type of issue, and we’re going to continue to be.
We’re going to come forward with a plan in the next number of weeks. We’re going to work with the committee. We’re going to lay out a fairly, I believe, ambitious plan that’s going to allow us to address things like plastic bags and expand on beverage containers. We’re going to look at cardboard. We want to look at electronic waste. We have the unresolved issue of tires.
I agree with the Member. I’ve been across every community in the Northwest Territories, and plastic bags are a blight on the landscape, literally. There’s no place that you walk in or around communities, from the 60th parallel, where I live in Fort Smith, or Ulukhaktok and any place in between…. If you look at the dumps, in the bush — no matter where you go — there are plastic bags. I agree that they’re a blight on the landscape. It’s time for us to take action on that.
Well, you know, it’s funny. When the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, or government as a whole, says, “We’ll take action,” it could mean years. But when citizens like my constituents Adrian Bell or Paul Falvo, or I should mention Diavik, which will be now known as Rio Tinto…. I mean, when they decided to help clean up the streets, they could make a decision in that day and then run out there and start cleaning up the streets on these types of problems.
Mr. Speaker, what’s taking this problem so long? When can we see some real action on this? Because it’s not a difficult problem, to move forward on this initiative.
Mr. Speaker, we have about 1,200 days left, so we’re not talking years here. We’re going to be moving fairly quickly. When we do, I look forward to the Member’s support to push this forward and help us deal with all the potential obstacles.
While the Member may think it’s relatively simple, it does take time. If we stood up today and said we’re going to get rid of plastic bags, we have to plan how you’re going to do that, how much lead time, and make sure you have it laid out very clearly. You want to make sure we consult with committee and do this right. We want to do this so that it will succeed, not just give a knee-jerk response and a poor plan.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
As the Minister says, when government moves…. Well, I’d better make sure I don’t miss it, because I’ll tell you, it takes a long time waiting for it.
Mr. Speaker, when can we expect this initiative? The Minister says, “Well, we have 1,200 days, yada yada yada.” This is a simple process. We could move on this initiative sooner than later. You know, the people expect some type of leadership. All I’m hearing is, “Let’s find ways to talk longer; let’s find ways to plan longer.” The problem is out there. The solution is out there. If the Minister wanted to do something, he could.
Mr. Speaker, in short, can the Minister guarantee that we’re going to move on this initiative in some direction, in some step, before Christmas this year?
Mr. Speaker, now, for the third time in this set of questions, I will say that in the coming weeks we are coming forward with a plan that will lay out how we intend to move on this particular issue.
If I stood up and just unilaterally and arbitrarily announced we were going to do certain things, the first question I would be asked is, “Why didn’t you consult us? And why did we have to stand up…? Why are we hearing about this in this Legislature and not through the committee process?”
I am very respectful — we are very respectful — of that process. We want to continue to be. We will be coming to committee. It is going to be an ambitious plan. It’s going to address the issues this Member raises, and not just the little narrow issue of plastic bags but the broader scope. I hope that the Member will in fact think outside the box and work with us to make this a reality.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask some questions to the Minister of Finance in reference to my Member’s statement.
He should have received the e-mail that I referenced in my statement. I’d like to thank the sender of the e-mail for taking the time and the initiative to act and to forward a suggestion to us. I hope that the Minister has read the e-mail. I’d like to ask whether or not he agrees with the sentiments expressed in that e-mail — that we are wasting money, that this is a cost-saving opportunity, and if he is intending to act on this particular suggestion.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did receive the e-mail. We’ve had a look at it. In fact, I do believe it is something that we have to put some attention to as we go forward — whether it’s limited copies where we go, or if it is just sending out the disk, as we see that become more and more used. Wherever we attend, there always seems to be a backup along with the document. Maybe we can get to that point where we just do a summary and then have the full package on a disk. So that is something that…. We will go down that path and start to make it happen as the Government of the Northwest Territories.
I appreciate the Minister’s answer. I would hope we could get to a point where we’re not using paper at all. I don’t see any need for it. Maybe a few copies, as the Minister said, but I think we need to totally limit what we’re putting out there.
I’d like to know from the Minister when we might expect to see some sort of plan, suggestions or ideas that might be coming forward in relation to this problem.
