Debates of May 17, 2010 (day 12)

Thank you, I call Committee of the Whole to order. We have on our agenda Tabled Document 4-16(5), Tabled Document 30-16(5), Tabled Document 38-16(5), Tabled Document 42-16(5), Tabled Document 43-16(5), as well as Bill 7. What is the wish of committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Jane Groenewegen

Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee wishes to deal with Supplementary Estimates No. 1, Supplementary Estimates No. 3, followed by the Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is committee agreed?

Agreed.

Agreed. All right, we’ll do those documents in that order after a short break. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

We’ll now call Committee of the Whole to order. We’re reviewing Tabled Document 42-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 1, 2010-2011 (Operations Expenditures). Does committee agree?

Agreed.

Okay, I’d now like to ask the Minister responsible, the honourable Mr. Miltenberger, to make opening comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to present Supplementary Estimates No. 1, 2010-2011 (Operations Expenditures). This document outlines an increase of $3.274 million in operations expenditures for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.

The major items in this supplementary request include:

$1.093 million for the additional costs to be incurred as a result of the collective agreement between the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

$1 million for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to fund the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Partnership Program with Wilfred Laurier University.

$405,000 for the Department of Transportation to carry over funding from 2009-10 to continue research and development projects funded as part of the Building Canada Plan. An offsetting amount was lapsed in 2009-10.

I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Would the Minister like to bring witnesses into the House?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Does committee agree?

Agreed.

Okay, thank you, committee. I will now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Please introduce your witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Margaret Melhorn, deputy minister of Finance; Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the FMB. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will now open the floor to general comments on Tabled Document 42-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 1, 2010-2011 (Operations Expenditures). Any comments? Mr. Ramsay.

David Ramsay

Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question on the first one and that’s $1.093 million for additional costs to incur as a result of the collective agreement between Hay River Health and Social Services Authority and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I’m just wondering if the government has any plans going forward to bring those employees under the authority of the Government of the Northwest Territories. Currently they are outside of the other employees and I’m just wondering, seeing as we’re spending another over $1 million, I’m just wondering if anybody has a time frame on when that might happen. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are no imminent plans that I’m aware of. The money that’s here is, of course, I think patterned on the agreement that was signed with the UNW and subsequently had to negotiate an agreement with the staff in Hay River. Thank you.

David Ramsay

Kam Lake

I guess there are a lot of complexities to the… You don’t just bring these employees under the GNWT’s banner overnight, but it’s been something that’s been talked about for a number of years and I think the government probably should be taking a look at it. I’m just wondering, from a budgeting perspective, wouldn’t it be easier if these employees were Government of the Northwest Territories employees? Thank you.

From a program point of view, there are benefits to having everybody under one bargaining unit. From a fiscal perspective, our estimates are that it would cost in the neighbourhood of up to $11 million additional to transfer all the employees into the bargaining unit and deal with all the related issues such as pensions and superannuation. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Krutko.

David Krutko

Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on similar questioning, I would just like to ask if there are any legal ramifications from doing this by way of being a separate health board. I think that, if anything, you know, we talk about taking all our mental health, alcohol and drug workers and bringing them into the government so that everybody’s treated fairly and everything else, so you don’t have the disparity between one group over the other. So I’m just wondering, is there a legal hold-up to doing this or is there the possibility of a legal challenge, or is it just that we don’t want to do it?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The main consideration or impediment would be coming up with the up to possibly another $11 million in addition to the money that’s now before us. So it’s a monetary consideration. Thank you.

David Krutko

Mackenzie Delta

Mr. Chairman, in light of the situation we see in the different health boards around the Territory, I think that we have take hold of this situation because it is getting out of line by way of deficits and situations that we’re running. I think that, for the life of me, I don’t understand why it is that we continue to allow one health board to be operating independently of the rest of the system. Again, I’d like to ask the Minister, for $11 million, I think it’s better that we get on with it. Also, put everybody under one roof so that we can control the expenditures systems and not have one group doing one thing in light of everyone else trying to… So I’d just like to know exactly why is that.

I’d just like to point out that it’s two different bargaining units, but all the program standards, all the other health programs and criteria are all consistent. The issue comes back very simply to, especially given the current recession and the circumstance we have been managing our money, of not having the… If we had $11 million free that we could do things with, would this be the issue that we would all collectively agree, of all the list of things we have to do, that this is where we want to put the money? So the issue comes back to having the availability of the necessary resources. Thank you.

David Krutko

Mackenzie Delta

So, Mr. Chair, from what I’m hearing from the Minister, if the Gwich’in wanted to have all their health boards and that in the Gwich’in Settlement Region operate independently, they can go right on and do it and come under a different system and follow what they do in Hay River without having to follow the rules we expect every health board to. So basically we’re endorsing independent boards to operate independently from the system by not doing anything.

We’re not endorsing independent boards, Mr. Chairman, we are building the system where we’re going to come up with, for example by next year, one contribution agreement that all boards will have to sign so that it is a consistent document that lays out all the expectations, responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities.

What we have is basically an anomaly in our system where in Hay River they had a different setup a number of years ago. They unionized differently and when the health board came under the direct responsibility of the Government of the Northwest Territories, it was kept in place, once again initially for financial reasons. We looked at this back in the 15th Assembly, I believe, and it was for the same reasons deferred.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to add a little bit to this discussion. I’m wondering if, well, obviously the costs are going up. I think earlier on in this Assembly we raised this pretty straightforwardly and the estimated cost there was $4 million to $5 million at that time. So this is something that’s going up in cost. I’m also very sensitive to the Finance Minister’s recognition of our current fiscal situation. Is there any room for managing this to the point where the one-time cost of finally getting it done would be more modest? Are there some time-related leave sorts of issues and so on that might be negotiated over a period of time to come to zero at the point when we’re actually going to do the transition? I thought I’d investigate the possibility of innovation in trying to spread the costs over a few fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two issues. As we bargain the collective agreements, of course, there’s the issue of parity on those pay and benefits. The single biggest issue where the largest dollar figure is attached is the superannuation pension benefits, because they’re two different programs, significantly different, resulting in that’s where the majority of the up to $11 million would be required. But we are working, on an ongoing basis, I mean, they’re watching very carefully between the two bargaining units to make sure that they are as close as possible in terms of those types of day-to-day benefits. Thank you.

I’d like to move on to our second item. The $1 million to fund aquatics ecosystems research with Wilfred Laurier University, obviously it’s not very often that we do this sort of thing. I’m wondering if the Minister could give us a little background on what we’re getting for this substantial investment. Thank you.

First, I’d just like to point out that what we are doing with this particular fund is leveraging about $8 million or so over the life of this project for our… The million dollars that we’re talking about for this year is already third-party funding, and we will be looking for the subsequent years of a quarter-million dollars a year or $200,000 a year, sorry, over the subsequent five years to similar third-party funding. What we’re going to get out of this is all the things we’ve talked about in terms of monitoring and better understanding our water and aquatic ecosystems up in the Northwest Territories.

The Wilfred Laurier has made a presentation to us and I have a project description that I would be happy to share with the Members. Oh, sorry. I understand you already have the project description. It lays out all the scientific research they’re going to do, working with ourselves and the aboriginal governments, to look at all the varied aspects of our aquatic ecosystem that we’re trying to better understand. Thank you.

It sounds like a pretty reasonable investment: $8 million in return for a million of somebody else’s money. So I appreciate that.

On the final one, the Department of Transportation looking to carry over funding. I’ve heard for two years about research that’s supposed to be done related to climate change and highways. I’ve never seen any results on that and I’m wondering what have we learned so far for the research dollars we have spent. Is this additional money or ongoing money going to be also dedicated to the climate change research with regard to highway construction maintenance? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, to date we have two projects that work has been done on for the estimated cost of about $240,000. Those are the access roads to the Willow River gravel source in Aklavik and Highway No. 3 vulnerability assessment, and what we are looking at for 2010-11 is the risk assessment of NWT Transportation system using Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Adapting to Climate Change, a risk-based guide for arctic and northern communities. We want to do consultation of stakeholders in communities and all levels of government on the findings of the risk assessment. We are looking at some roundtable workshops on the impacts of climate change on winter roads and marine ferry operations. Some of the resources will be put towards a Department of Transportation’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan and work will be done on airport runway embankment and sub-grade classification and monitoring study as well as the Dempster Highway permafrost monitoring study. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can get commitment to see the results of that research on Highway No. 3. I believe that was climate related and the things like things that are diverging quite a bit from what I was initially told on the research direction of these research dollars. Perhaps we can mostly get a briefing at some point on what we are doing there in terms of climate change related research relative to the initial commitment of one or two million dollars for that research. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would refer that question about commitments and program briefings to Minister Michael McLeod from Transportation.

Minister Michael McLeod.

Michael McLeod

Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to provide the information as to our summary findings to the Members, including any potential projects that we have lined up for this coming year.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Ms. Bisaro.

Wendy Bisaro

Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one comment and then a question. I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in terms of moving forward on bringing the employees of the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority into the GNWT workforce. I support particularly Mr. Bromley’s suggestion that there are little things or small things or bits and pieces that we can do working towards a final solution. I would encourage the Minister to certainly look at that and advance us as far as possible before we have to spend the $11 million twice over that he is referencing.

I do have a question in regards to the costs of the Collective Agreement increases for the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority. I note in the background material that we were given that the Collective Agreement was ratified on May 21, 2009, and yet we are now seeing the request for the funds for this increase in the Collective Agreement costs. I ask this question often; I am going to ask it again: why was this increase not able to be included in the main estimates which we only passed in February of 2010? There is quite a bit of time. That is a year ago pretty much from now that the Collective Agreement was passed and we are only seeing the expense now. I would like to know why. Thank you.