Debates of March 16, 2004 (day 1)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. Mr. Speaker, everybody seems to be referring to newspaper articles today. I have an article here from the Yellowknifer, November 12th, 2003, and the headline reads, “Handley says RWED will be Split in Two: Potential Premier Provides Commitment to Upgrade Tourism.” I’d like to ask the Minister, Mr. Bell, what is the status of any kind of a plan or a study or anything to undertake such a thing as splitting RWED? Thank you.

Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 5-15(3): Plans To Divide RWED Department

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to assure the Member that no decisions have been made at this point. We’re simply reviewing options internally. I’ve asked the department to have a look at a number of options and come back and discuss them with me on a continuum to help us more effectively deliver services and programs which would isolate both the environmental and wildlife aspects of the department from economic development.

The Member knows that there are many things that are driving this discussion, not the least of which is the immense development going on in the Northwest Territories at this point. As all Members know, I’m working on this internally and once those range of options have been presented to me I’ll be coming back to all 19 Members so that we can have a discussion. Certainly nothing will be done prior to that discussion with all 19 Members. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 5-15(3): Plans To Divide RWED Department

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m aware that there may be some very real merits to something like this being undertaken, that there will be a lot of considerations of things such as costs. Can the Minister just perhaps summarize some of benefits? He made reference to wildlife and environment versus the economic development side. Could he just articulate some of the benefits that might be achieved by seeing these two activities separated? Thank you.

Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 5-15(3): Plans To Divide RWED Department

Thank you. As the Member has indicated, cost will be a factor. I think we’ll need to strike a balance. Obviously if we’re going to make any substantial change, it may cost money initially. I believe it will cost money initially, but this has to be about improving program and service delivery. I think this government has always said that one of our priorities is the protection of the environment, the protection of our wildlife. I think what may inevitably happen is that as a government we’ve been so focused on economic development, the need to train people, the need to make sure that northerners are able to take advantage of economic development, I think that is of critical importance. But we can’t lose sight of the need to also protect the environment, protect our wildlife and make sure that this pristine North is here for future generations. Will this cost money? Potentially it will, but we’ll have some discussion about that and I hope Members will be prepared to sit down and look at a range of options. I think we need to strike a balance that’s going to be about the most effective program and service delivery at the end of the day. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 5-15(3): Plans To Divide RWED Department

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has made reference to consulting the 19 Members of this House and I very much appreciate that and would look forward to having a look at those options once they’ve been generated. He did mention that these options were coming from within the department, so they’re internal options that are being brought forward and I’d just like to know if he’s had any early responses from any of the stakeholders in these areas as to how they would receive this change. Thank you.

Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 5-15(3): Plans To Divide RWED Department

Thank you. As the Member indicates, there are a number of stakeholders and many people who will be concerned and will want to know what we’re proposing to do, not the least of which are employees of this government who may be affected. We will certainly keep all of these stakeholders and all of these folks in the loop, but as preliminary at this point we’ve simply asked, I’ve asked the department to go back and have a look at a number of these considerations and discuss a range of options so that we can sit down with the Members of this House, all 19 Members. At that point, after getting some sense from the Members as to what their priorities are, we are proposing that we’ll then engage the various stakeholders and make sure that everybody understands where we’re proposing to go. Thank you.