Mr. Speaker, the Minister has some very talented staff working on this project here and I want to commend him for the hard work as with the Aboriginal groups that have signed on with the PDRs. I want to ask the Minister, in his discussions with the federal Minister, why isn’t there such a priority from the federal Minister to ask Mr. Harper, let’s get some money into the construction phase of the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We do appreciate the PDRs. Why doesn’t Mr. Harper say, okay, we’re going to put the dollars that need to be built for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, just as the recent announcement such as the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline?
Mr. Speaker, the concept of a highway down the Mackenzie Valley has been around for many, many years, even from way back as far as the Diefenbaker days. The idea has been brought forward from the Government of the Northwest Territories on many occasions. Almost at every Assembly there’s been strategies developed over the years and they have included the concept of a highway, and we’ve indicated that there is a desire to see this move forward. Documents such as Corridors for Canada were drafted and included highways and to really no avail. It’s our interpretation that maybe we needed to do more work to build a business case, which includes the economic analysis, project description reports that we’re moving forward on.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t want the Member to start thinking about going west when we should be going east to get further investment. I’ve seen and tracked the Member’s ventures on the CANOL Trail over the last three years. He’s been trying to walk that stretch of the highway. He’s shared some of the pictures and he seems to be riding a horse every time.
---Laughter
Mr. Speaker, there is a real need for the federal government to invest in this highway. We have taken every occasion that we had to bring the case forward. We have tried in different formats. We tried to bring it forward as a sovereignty issue. We brought it forward as a P3 concept. We submitted every project budget that came available from the federal government. Our last several discussions, the Minister has indicated that we just needed to wait and see if there is anything in the budget, so that is where we are at at this point. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I think I rode on the horse for about five minutes. The rest of the 222 miles I walked on the CANOL Trail.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask again, within the life of this government I know this Cabinet is working hard with its different counterparts, can somehow the message get to the federal government in a short time with the Premier, with the Cabinet Ministers on different fronts and maybe let them know the importance of the construction of the Mackenzie Valley Highway to the people in the North? The reason why I am asking is I think that the rest of Canada should come up and discover the beautiful Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to make every effort to bring the message forward to the federal government that there is a real need for a Mackenzie Valley Highway. We will continue to take the opportunities, whether it is myself as the Transportation Minister or the Premier or the Finance Minister or any other Minister that sits for this government to make the arguments. Mr. Speaker, it may warrant further trips to Ottawa. It may warrant involving other people. We will have to look at that. There are other considerations, of course, in terms of elections and things of that nature, but we are looking at all different opportunities that we can use to impress to the federal government that we need to get some investment on this highway. It may be for portions of it, it may be for a section of it, but I think this whole initiative is going to move forward. We certainly had that formal motion from this House and want to keep it a priority. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of ENR and having to do with the Wildlife Act. Hopefully, we will be moving this bill into the House, but it is a huge bill and there are big changes...
Mr. Bromley, the Wildlife Act is coming up for second reading. That will be the time for debating the Wildlife Act or asking questions about it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not debating the act itself. It is about consultation, Mr. Speaker.
You can ask your question. I will decide then whether it is allowable or not. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To help consultation on the Wildlife Act, will the Minister be able to put out a table of concordance that shows where the changes have been made and the most recent draft to assist people in making their comments? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I am going to rule that question out of order. There will be the time to ask that when the bill is coming before the House in the second reading.
---Ruled Out of Order
The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions today for the Minister of Justice. I wanted to ask him about smoking by employees at the North Slave Correctional Centre. Obviously being a corrections guard is a very stressful occupation, Mr. Speaker. A year ago they did away with smoking at that facility and now, if you are a corrections guard, you can’t smoke on the property at all, even though shifts are eight hours in duration and sometimes folks work double shifts. But other staff are allowed to smoke. If you look downtown, other government employees are allowed to just simply go outside and smoke. I am wondering, I guess, why it is that we are treating corrections guards differently than we treat other government employees. I would like to ask the Justice Minister why that is the case. Why are corrections guards not allowed to smoke outside in a designated area by that correctional facility?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about staff, they have different professions. We have security guards there that monitor the inmates on a constant basis. They are required to be at the centre. We have other staff that may come and go, such as secretaries or clerical or administrative. They go downtown and do their lunch and they may come back. They may pick up a smell of smoke to some degree. Mr. Speaker, those securities need to be at the corrections. That is a big difference where they are required to be at the centre. We don’t allow smoking at the centre, as well, on the premises. Mr. Speaker, this is a safety and also the health reason for our inmates as well and also the staff at the corrections. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I will just correct the Minister; they are not security guards, they are corrections officers. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to be treating our corrections officers in the same way that we treat other government employees. I know that they are there. They are captive employees for the period of time they are at the centre. Why is it that we can’t come up with a solution? Maybe it is a little ways away from the building, but a designated smoking area outside for use for employees, the corrections guards specifically that can’t leave that building, they can’t have a cigarette if they so choose on the premises outside of the building. Why is that not the case? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, these corrections officers need to be at the centre. They are required to monitor and also look after those inmates in case there are any issues that may arise. There is a constant issue that may be conducted at the centre as well. They are required to be there. Other staff may come and go, as I indicated before, administrative staff, but at the same time, these corrections officers need to be at the centre. That is a big difference. They can’t leave the premises to go for, let’s say, a smoke outside the premises because they are on duty eight, 10, 12 hours as identified by their supervisors or regular work hours. Mr. Speaker, we have to keep that in mind that those are the corrections officers that are required to be at the centre. That is the reason why there is a big difference between administrative staff and corrections officers. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister is making a good case for my argument. They can’t leave the facility. That is the problem. They can’t go on a coffee break downtown. They can’t go on a lunch hour downtown or to their home to have a cigarette. They are captive employees. They are at that building for eight and sometimes 16 hours in a row. I just want to ask the Minister why can’t we set up an area on the property away from the building where, if corrections officers have a short break, they can have a cigarette. It is a stressful occupation at the best of times, Mr. Speaker. Why can’t we accommodate those folks that wish to have a cigarette? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, again, it comes down to a health hazard to the inmates. The corrections officers, when they go for, let’s say they are allowed to go for a smoke, they come back and deal on a constant basis with the inmates one to one. They are always with the inmates. Second-hand smoke is even worse. That is what we have heard over and over through health discussions. Mr. Speaker, that is the very reason why we have stopped smoking at corrections premises. That is the very reason why we are not allowing those individuals that are on guard with doing their job and looking after those inmates. Mr. Speaker, it is about health issues as well. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The corrections officers aren’t the ones that are locked up. They are there working. They are doing their job. They are performing a function, looking after the inmates that are there. It’s the inmates that are locked up, not the corrections guards.
Again, I haven’t heard an answer from the Minister on whether or not the Department of Justice can try to address that issue that’s at the North Slave Correctional Centre in that... It’s close to 50 percent of the corrections officers in that facility that are smokers. They’d like to have an area where they can have a cigarette, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
This is an area of concern if the number is correct. We have to work with those inmates. Those corrections officers, again, they work closely with the inmates. We have to keep in mind the health hazard they may impose on those inmates, not only inmates but other staff members that do not smoke. Mr. Speaker, that’s the very reason why we don’t allow smoking on the premises due to health hazards. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other day I had a constituent come forward to me with concerns regarding income support and the ability to have a telephone as an allowance expense that income support can help them with. Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment why the policy of income support does not allow a person to have a telephone as an allowable expense when we consider that we provide expenses for daycare, shelter, food, clothing but when health and safety concerns could arise, a telephone is very important and that’s not considered an allowable expense. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The income security is for basic necessities of life where food, shelter and clothing are required. So we provide those services to those individuals that are on income support. A lot of clientele do have telephones in their home units. Some just have local calls, which of course is very cheap. Mr. Speaker, this is an area where we need to focus more on what we could provide as a shelter, food and clothing. That has always been the mandate of this government and we continue to deliver that same messaging as we roll out the program. We made some changes to the program in 2007; same thing, we increased those areas. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Time for question period has expired, but I’ll allow the Member a short supplementary. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The person talking to me has high blood pressure, probably other heart-related problems. I’m not a doctor, so I’m not going to try to diagnose him, but they said what would happen in this particular case if they were starting to have a health attack in some manner that required immediate assistance and urgency. What do they do? They have no one to call because they have no phone. So they find it seems to be more than a luxury item. Why does the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, namely income support, define a telephone service, even a strapped phone that does not allow long distance calls, why are you defining it as a luxury service and not a necessity in this modern day? Thank you.
Again, we provide services and funding through shelter, food and clothing. Those are required necessities. So we continue to enhance those programs specifically to those areas. With the surplus that individuals may have, they can purchase phone services if they wish to do so. Mr. Speaker, we provide the basic necessities. That’s the very reason why we have income security, to provide those services in the Northwest Territories, the 33 communities that we service, to provide those basic necessities and we’ll continue to do that. Mahsi.
In many cases income support provides the cost of power at any cost, which runs into hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for that department. Again, they provide rental costs, actual costs which again run into hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Mr. Speaker, this is a health and safety lifeline which could help many families ensure that they are protected if something arises, whether it’s a health and safety issue due to personal health as I highlighted as an example, or what if there were domestic abuse problems? What do they do? Do they have to wait until somebody else finds them? Mr. Speaker, would the Minister be willing to investigate and do a cross-jurisdictional survey to see if this is a reasonable expense? Because I feel strongly that it is. Thank you.
Throughout the Northwest Territories we serve over 40,000 people, 33 communities. Not everyone has phones per se. As indicated in the past, where there are individuals that are working, they don’t even have phones sometimes, can’t afford it. It’s not only income support clientele. There is a variety of people who may have phones, but some don’t have phones for various reasons. Again, to reiterate, our program is for basic necessities: food, shelter and clothing. That’s what we’ve been providing over the years and we will continue to provide those services to the 33 communities that we service. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Income support is supposed to be the backstop of public policy if you are down and out due to whatever reason has brought you to that point. It’s to ensure you have the basic necessities and I agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but one of the programs in income support is to encourage people to get out there and get work. I’m quite curious on how a person on income support could make that type of contact with a potential employer without a phone call or to be waiting for that opportunity and to say that they have extra money, I would assure you that at least 80 to 90 percent on income support would say that there is no extra money, especially when you have children and certainly there would be no extra money for Internet again or a cell phone. So, Mr. Speaker, times have changed and I’m asking the department to change with the times and certainly recognize that. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister be willing to re-evaluate this particular case, take a look at cross-jurisdictions and recognize that the phone has become an integral part of basic service that we need as people, whether it’s getting jobs or staying in contact due to health and safety concerns if you ever had to call an ambulance? Would the Minister look at that?
Mr. Speaker, we can list a variety of areas where there are additional costs. There are not only phones; there are cell phones, TVs and others that are not really a necessity. I am glad the Member agrees that income security is an overall necessity that we provide services to.
Mr. Speaker, we have those clientele that have clientele service officers working closely with them. We know who the clientele are and we contact them through the clientele service officers and if there are issues or questions and concerns that are brought to their attention, there is a discussion. Communication is ongoing. So, Mr. Speaker, again we will continue to deliver those main essential services to the clientele. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Colleagues, before I go on with the orders of the day, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank a couple of Pages from Hay River North that have been here all week working with us. We have Skylar Constant and Logan Gagnier. Logan happens to be my oldest grandson. I’m very proud to have him here.
---Applause
I’d like to acknowledge a constituent of mine, Mark Stephens, in the gallery, who has been here as a chaperone all week. Great job, guys.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier of the Northwest Territories.
What is the total cost to date of radio, print and other media advertisement on devolution since the signing of the agreement-in-principle?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To govern this Territory properly the GNWT and Aboriginal governments need to work together. Devolution is not about transferring controls, it’s just not about transferring controls over land and resources, it’s nation building.
Devolution will play a critical role in the GNWT’s ability to provide citizens with adequate and sustainable programs and services. Devolution will play a major role in determining how the Government of the Northwest Territories shall share powers with the land claim and self-governments that represent the treaty and Aboriginal rights of 50 percent of NWT citizens.
We must recognize that any final devolution agreement will affect the Aboriginal and treaty rights due to the devolution deals with jurisdictions and management over the lands and resources. Along with the devolution AIP final agreement there is a proposed deal on resource revenue sharing. That deal will also affect how the Government of the Northwest Territories will certainly affect how self-government will be governed.
Like I mentioned earlier, devolution is not just about transferring control over lands and resources from Canada to the GNWT. Many questions have been raised about how this transfer of power will be funded. The funding will come from two sources: the money from Canada that will be spent on the transfer of responsibilities from the resource revenues flowing to the GNWT as a result of the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement.
In 2007 the GNWT walked away from the settlement offer of $65 million a year to support the staffing programs that will be transferred from Canada to the GNWT. At that time the GNWT said the $65 million was not enough to run the programs. Yet here we are in 2011 and the GNWT has changed its mind. This is in spite of the fact that Canada has offered $65 million in 2005 dollars. This means that the funding will not account for the inflation that has occurred since 2005. So the GNWT now has settled for less than what was originally refused.
In 2007 the GNWT argued that a fair level of yearly funding would be around $85 million. This is puzzling. Where will the additional $20 million come from each year?
This leads to the issue of net fiscal benefit. The GNWT has signed on to proposed resource revenue sharing agreements with Canada. That deal says that the GNWT can have 50 percent of the Northwest Territories resource royalties up to an amount that equals up to 5 percent of the GNWT’s gross expenditure base. The gross expenditure base is in the amount that the GNWT would have to spend to ensure that everyone in the Northwest Territories can access the same quality of public service no matter where they live. Right now the gross expenditure base equals about $1.2 billion per year. In this scenario the GNWT would at most get an extra $60 million per year from the resource revenue sharing agreement. Considering the GNWT will likely have an annual shortfall of $20 million we need to take on its new land and resource responsibilities, it makes sense that the shortfall will come from the $60 million provided by the net fiscal benefit. But we must remember that it is optimistic to assume that the GNWT will receive $60 million in resource revenues each year.
As a result of the $20 million fund shortfall, the GNWT will really be left with $40 million, and the $15 million that will go to the Aboriginal governments to share, so really under this resource revenue sharing deal the GNWT at best-case scenario will benefit to the tune of $25 million. The situation will not be good either for the GNWT or the Aboriginal governments.
The Gwich’in Tribal Council did a comprehensive review of the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement and a net fiscal benefit. The Premier quoted that report as supporting the proposed resource revenue sharing deal. The Premier’s reading misconstrued the report’s finding. The GNWT reported simply, note that it stands, it would be better for the Gwich’in Tribal Council to get at least some resource royalties rather than none at all. Specifically, that getting some of the resource royalties would be beneficial but not optimal. That observation does not constitute support for the proposed resource revenue sharing deal.
The same report goes on to take a closer look at how the formula was arrived at for this revenue sharing deal. Canada says that this revenue sharing deal is consistent with the principles of governed equalization formula for the provinces. The Gwich’in analysis shows that this is not the case. The GTC analysis shows that this revenue sharing deal bears no relationship at all to the approach taken to the rest of Canada.
When we look at this agreement closely it seems that a more reasonable arrangement, one consistent with equalization principles and convention, would see a cap of about 15 percent of the gross expenditure base. That would see the GNWT cap of resource revenue sharing amount to about $180 million per year. The report notes that neither Canada nor the GNWT have provided calculations to justify how the proposed resource revenue sharing formula was determined. My view is that the GNWT is selling itself too cheaply to the federal government that’s looking to offload programs and services and the costs and risks that go along with resource development and still retain far more from a fair share of the profits of the resource revenues.
Canada set the royalty rates for the Northwest Territories resources and these are too low to support sustainable and effective government and environmental stewardship that is essential to our well-being. The Gwich’in Tribal Council notes that the monies that the GNWT gains from any net fiscal benefits will not adequately address the social costs or sustain the public expenditure requirements that resource development will bring boom and bust population and other economic scenarios and increased demands for the range of programs and services that this government provides. Some of these programs and services will be provided not only by the GNWT, they will be provided by the self-governments across the Territory.
The resource revenue sharing deal that is currently proposed would see the Aboriginal governments divide at least seven regions sharing at most $15 million each year. In my own region of the Sahtu, once the Sahtu receives its share, which would then be divided amongst the five communities, some of them self-government. In three districts the net fiscal benefit for them is as would be maybe in the range of a few hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. In my region, communities such as Deline are close to reaching a self-government deal and are concerned about devolution. Deline negotiators do not yet know whether Canada and the GNWT will claw back those resource revenues under the self-government financing arrangements. The question for them to whether such funds were reviewed by Canada and the GNWT as own-source revenues, in which case a self-government would see little or no benefit. Because this question is unanswered, Deline is facing a situation they may be straddled with the growing cost of government, will have additional responsibilities related to post-devolution resource management systems, and they do not know how they will be resourced for that work or whether the community will actually be better off as a result of signing on to the devolution deal.
These kinds of questions require a person to take into account so many factors all at once that without having solid answers or facts about important variables are mindboggling. There are many such questions and the GNWT is asking the Aboriginal governments to sign on the devolution AIP without having the answers to these questions. The fact that we have clearly shown that in some important respects this deal is not a good one for the GNWT, it is not a good one for the Aboriginal governments, and this is before the Aboriginal governments even considered the potential impacts on the treaty and Aboriginal rights which are required, considering the whole other set of factors.
It is easy to understand why the Aboriginal governments had asked for more time to consider this AIP and why they’re so concerned about whether there is any potential for changing the AIP and the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement.
This brings me to the issue of treaty and Aboriginal rights in relation to the devolution. At this time none of the Dene leaders have signed on to the devolution AIP. Dene leaders have told Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories they have outstanding issues with the agreement-in-principle. Chapter 4 of the AIP is proposing changing land claim implementation agreements to accommodate the transfer of authority from Canada to the GNWT. It is my understanding the land claims implementation requires the consent of all the parties to this agreement. To implement the land claim, the Aboriginal parties’ government and Canada will meet together to determine what actions need to be taken to ensure the land claims are effectively and meaningfully implemented. Clearly, Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories will need the cooperation of the Dene leaders for a devolution agreement to work.
In addition, the Dene land claims contain provisions that say the Dene must be involved in the development and implementation of a Northern Accord or the devolution agreement. The Dene leaders say that between 2007 and 2010 they were not meaningfully involved in the development of the devolution AIP. They say that when they raised concerns, these concerns were not considered and no real effort was made by the GNWT or Canada to accommodate these concerns.
The Premier has insisted in this House that the devolution AIP does not affect Aboriginal and treaty rights. It is true that the AIP says it is not a legal, binding document, but the GNWT and Canada have, by signing the agreement, made the fulfillment of their land claim obligations to embroil the Dene in the devolution negotiations contingent on the Dene first signing the AIP.
Specifically, the AIP says that in order to be funded, to be part of the final devolution agreement negotiations, Aboriginal governments must sign the AIP. That applies to the Dene governments such as the Tlicho, Sahtu and Gwich’in, who have provisions in their land claims saying that they will be involved in the development and implementation of the devolution agreement.
Why is GNWT taking such a strong-arm approach? Why is the GNWT insisting that the land claim governments have to sign an agreement that they don’t agree with before the GNWT will fulfil its land claim obligations and provide the land claim governments with funding to participate? This amounts to the GNWT and Canada requiring Dene leaders to breach their own land claims and surrender their land claim rights. How is such an action supposed to inspire confidence in the Dene leaders that the GNWT will respect these land claim obligations in the future?
Aboriginal leaders have clearly stated that they are not against the devolution. What they object to is their involvement was not, over the last three years, meaningful. They object to the fact that their concerns were not taken into account when dealing with the deal being developed by Canada and the GNWT.
Similarly, in putting this deal together, the GNWT did not take it to our citizens and ask the people for their input. When the AIP was released to the public with only access through a leaked copy of it through the CBC website, after signing the deal, the GNWT decided to make the deal public. Only then did they begin to take steps to inform the citizens of its details.
The vision needs to stand on basic principles. By signing the devolution agreement, this government indicated that it’s not willing to put any effort into ensuring northern governments moving forward together. The devolution AIP is no longer an agreement about the transfer of power between governments. The devolution AIP has become a symbol of what results when fairness and democratic processes are not valued. It has become a symbol reminding us that this government is willing to use strong-arm tactics instead of using other tools such as collaboration and democracy.
Actions have consequences. Relationships with the Aboriginal governments are not damaged by just this AIP being signed. The damage continues and is felt within our other processes. It has eroded trust and confidence in this government. To ask Aboriginal leaders to sign on this AIP should not be...(inaudible)...in terms of collaboration. Even if leaders sign onto this AIP, it is not because of the spirit of cooperation or collaboration with this government. The reality is that leaders may choose to sign on, but in doing so to have the responsibility of safeguarding their interests against the possible actions of the government. They have yet to gain trust.
Division for the Northwest Territories must be based on the principles that include justice, fairness, democracy, and respect the rule of law in the form of government observed in the contractual and fiduciary obligations to indigenous people. The actions of a government must convey that vision without exception. With respect to devolution, the actions of the GNWT do not embody these principles. I encourage the Cabinet to consider revisiting the issues I have raised today, not just to address the concerns of the Aboriginal leaders but to take a good, hard look at what we’re dealing with and what we should be aspiring to instead. Imagine a principle of what this government and Territory can become.
The people of the Northwest Territories do not deserve a devolution agreement that, as the Premier has called it, is not the best deal. The people of the Northwest Territories deserve better. Our children deserve better. This is the conviction and vision of the Aboriginal leaders that have had the courage to stand up to defend. They have demonstrated commitment and consistency in the pursuit of something better for their own people and all people who live here. The Government of the Northwest Territories should strongly consider following their lead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Microphone turned off] transportation report to the Legislative Assembly for 2010 on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1990. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I wish to table a summary of Members’ absences for the period February 2, 2011, to March 6, 2011.
