Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In follow-up to my Member’s statement today about youth at risk, I’d like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services does this government have any way of determining what the magnitude of this problem may be in the Northwest Territories. Is there any data on that that would help us develop solutions and response to this issue? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member responsible for Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our best information, of course, is for those that are children in care that come under the Child and Family Services Act. The gap between, and I think the Member for Kam Lake acknowledged that and mentioned that gap for those teenagers. Our information is relatively weak. Thank you.
Thank you. When the Minister spoke the other day, I believe in Committee of the Whole, saying that this government cannot possibly have enough money to address all of the social concerns once they have advanced to the point that trying to achieve and address these solutions is so costly that this government doesn’t have enough money for that, and he stressed the importance of working on the front end on preventative measures. Mr. Speaker, I see a lot of opportunity where we as a government could bring programs, services to bear early on when these young people first begin to encounter some of the problems that we see playing themselves out before us today. I’d like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services what kind of programs right now currently exist to support parents and youth that are going through these difficult times where the attraction of drugs and alcohol and other things are setting some of our young people on a course of destruction. Thank you.
Thank you. This is a community issue of which there are many roles for people to play, and governments. The role that we play, we have resources on the ground with social workers, with child protection people. We have probation officers, we have teachers, we have nurses, there’s some youth centres, there’s recreation centres that we have. We work with communities to build their community recreation complexes. For those that need specific counselling, we have access to some psychological, and more difficult, but we have also access to some psychiatric services, though the psychiatric services out of Yellowknife.
So we do have some services across the North in just about every community in one form or to one degree or another. Thank you.
Thank you. I’d like to ask the Minister if he feels that the seriousness and magnitude of this problem perhaps would be worthy of a specific dialogue with these organizations and communities that he’s referring to. I’m very concerned about this particular age group where it seems like we lose some of our young people where all these things that he’s referring to, somehow children, which is what they are, young people, are still falling between the cracks. Does the Minister think that in an attempt to come up with more specific solutions and specific programs that the situation would merit a dialogue on this very particular issue? Thank you.
The Member raises a good suggestion and there is and has been over the years and in some communities there is an ongoing interagency type of arrangement where the involved departments and agencies get together to discuss some of the issues where the elected leaders in the community get together as well as part of the process to deal with issues. Usually, unfortunately, sometimes spurred on by a crisis or some tragic event that has happened in the community.
But I agree with the Member that there is a tremendous amount of community resources. It takes something to bring them together to do that type of planning. There’s a significant amount of resources, both human and fiscal at the community level, and there’s also, with our type of government, an enormous amount of capacity for communities and the regions to be able to design programs that meet their needs with the funds that they have down there. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would very much like to see the safety net around this particular age group strengthened through cooperation between teachers, educators, social workers, families, communities, churches. I would very much like to see this safety net for this age group strengthened, and I would ask the Minister if he would consider a specific dialogue and discussion with people who are in this field going forward and perhaps include it in a transition plan for the 17th Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you. The Member for Hay River South and I have a history going back on this issue, a shared history to a certain extent, going back probably over 20 years on dealing with children in care, teenagers. I would be more than happy to sit down as a good starting point with the chair of the Social Programs and the Social Programs committee. I agree that this could be one issue that’s identified in the transition plan that’s going to need attention, given the events that are happening around us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got questions today for the Minister of Transportation getting back to my Member’s statement where I was talking about the possible realignment of Highway No. 4, the Ingraham Trail, past the former Giant Mine site.
Back in November of last year the Minister and I had a bit of an exchange on some question about where the government was at with the realignment. Back in November the Minister stated that options would be narrowed down, and engineering and environmental reviews would be done, and that that would be done in short order. That was seven months ago and I’d like to just perhaps start with getting an update from the Minister of Transportation where that realignment sits with his department today. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I have to thank the Member for being patient on this project, something that all of us had to do as we waited for the remediation team to put their plans together.
A lot of that work has been concluded. We’ve taken the opportunity over the last while to meet with the various organizations, including the remediation team and the Public Works and Government Services Canada to look at the different issues that needed to be addressed. We’ve also been meeting with the Aboriginal governments in the area, and we now have a schedule, and that schedule involves planned construction for this coming fall. That means there is a lot of work to do.
We want to conclude some of our final discussions on the route, we want to be able to put the business plan together for all the stakeholder requirements and to have construction move forward. The different routes have been narrowed from three down to two, after we had the remediation team reject one of the routes as it wasn’t suitable for what they needed. So there is work that is happening. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in the next six months, but we would like to meet the schedule, have the construction start, have a construction period and have the realignment open by the fall or early winter of 2012. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for the update on the realignment, and I guess moving from three options to two in seven months isn’t such a bad thing. It’s down to two options. Maybe the Minister could let us know what those two options are and whether or not the option to bypass the mine infrastructure and with the possibility of including a possible expansion at Fred Henne Territorial Park is in the mix in all of these discussions. Thank you.
I certainly can confirm that option three corridor has been discontinued. It does not meet the needs of what the team requires. We have recognized that this is a remediation project but it’s also the Ingraham Trail Realignment Project that has to fit along both the group’s needs or both the project needs. We are not looking at this point to deal with any additional camping space for Fred Henne Park. That’s not something that’s part of this project.
I think if we’re not thinking about possible opportunities from the road realignment that we’re missing the boat.
As I mentioned earlier, back in 2003 there were studies, reports on the need for more RV space in Yellowknife for both local residents and the travelling public, the tourists that come north. If we aren’t even having the discussion with ITI on the possible expansion at Fred Henne Territorial Park because of a realignment, again, I think we’re missing the boat. Is it too late? The question I have for the Minister is: is it too late to not have a look at that possibility?
The Giant Mine Project and the Ingraham Trail Realignment Project are not on the same boat as ITI and Fred Henne Park. Those discussions have been taking place. Right now it would be a different initiative. It would not be part of the dollars earmarked for a realignment that we’re looking at.
This is something we need to confirm as to what route we’re going to use. Right now we are looking at two possible routes. We’d like to narrow that down to one within the next little while, within the next month or so. A park is not part of that.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government will be paying the lion’s share of the capital costs to realign the Ingraham Trail. As I mentioned earlier, if we are not looking at every possible opportunity to advance the interests -- and in this case it would be another department, it would be ITI, it would be Tourism that would be expanding Fred Henne Territorial Park -- again, we are missing the boat. I didn’t quite hear the Minister say it’s too late, but why is it too late? Why aren’t we looking at that possibility? I think it’s a real possibility, given some of the maps I saw three years ago when this was first brought up; almost four years ago.
The realignment will be funded by the Federal Remediation Team and from the GNWT Giant Mine Liability Account. There is no avenue to tie in a park with those types of resources. There has been discussion with ITI. I believe the department was not able to come up with the capital dollars for any type of camping services or camping facilities along this road. They may be able to do that at a later date; however, at this point we have not made any allowance for camping as part of this.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are directed to the Premier and are in regard to my Member’s statement. It’s a crying shame that in this day and age we can’t sit down with our Aboriginal partners and come to an arrangement on the devolution talks. As I mentioned, this was an issue during the federal election and I believe it will be an issue during the territorial election. The Aboriginal assembly is coming up this summer. I’d like to ask the Premier if it’s possible to look at some mechanisms we can use to try to bring the parties to the table and try to find a mediation or mitigation to resolve this issue. Either go through arbitration or mediation to resolve this issue. My question is: what is the Premier doing to advance talks on devolution with the Gwich’in and other Dene governments, and trying to find a solution to our bypass?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are working to continue to try to improve the outlook as to Aboriginal participation in the agreement-in-principle stage. Since signing the agreement, we have corresponded with all of the leaders to have them come back to the table. I have also corresponded with them in that same communication about going into their region and communities to go over the agreement-in-principle, much like we did up in the Sahtu when we met with the community representatives of Deline, Tulita and Norman Wells. We’re awaiting the next response as to another meeting. I’ve just received correspondence from the Akaitcho that they would like me to be at their Assembly this summer to discuss a number of items. I hope at that point we’ll be able to address the issue of the agreement-in-principle.
The door is open. We have communicated. It’s pretty hard to have additional communications if there’s no response to that offer of meetings. We continue to have it out there. We continue to be open to requests to come into communities to go over that. One of the things we’re doing over and above that is the letter that will be going out soon on the work plan and inform all the groups of where we’re at, at that stage.
One of the issues that the Dene leadership have issue with is why does the federal government still retain one-third of the Norman Wells oilfield in which the Dene-Metis claim clearly identifies the Norman Wells Proven Area as their land claim package.
The other area of contention is this 5 percent cap that’s in place. I’d like to ask the Premier what areas the government is willing to push to improve the devolution package that would satisfy the concerns of the Dene governments.
On a couple of items that the Member has mentioned, he would be familiar since he was one of the negotiators both at the Gwich’in table and the Sahtu table that looked at that one-third ownership of the federal government in the Norman Wells oilfield. In fact, it was the Sahtu that agreed with an out-of-court settlement on that one-third ownership that has sort of set the stage for us.
We have continued, even in the initial discussions around Norman Wells, that that should be a part of the package. We continue to push that forward and would do so during the negotiations phase.
As for the 5 percent cap, let’s be really clear here, the 5 percent cap is not a piece of the agreement-in-principle. In fact, the 5 percent cap is involved in the formula financing big picture. All jurisdictions face some form of a cap.
The three territories are treated somewhat differently in trying to mirror the cap on equalization. That formula financing agreement is up for renewal every five years and we continue to address that through those discussions.
My question is: what will the Premier do to ensure that the government meets the obligations as set out in land claim agreements and ongoing negotiations on devolution?
Right from the earliest days of the first discussions between the Government of the Northwest Territories, the federal government and Aboriginal parties that established working relationships through the Aboriginal Summit and through the Intergovernmental Working Forum, through providing resources and dollars and people to help repair, in fact, I would say the agreement-in-principle is an example of those type of resources. That document was improved by Section 6 of the agreement that would put a government-to-government relationship and how we work together going forward in these matters. The language throughout the agreement talks about protecting the rights that are already established, that this agreement cannot take away from that.
We recognize that in a number of these areas in the claims there needs to be discussions. We’re open, we’ve offered, and we’ve asked them to be a part of the working groups and negotiations as we go forward. We cannot make them come to the table. Their choice. In fact, when you look at the signatories, it was at those tables that it was felt that the Aboriginal groups wanted a different process of signing the agreement and not to be as it came forward between the GNWT and the federal government. That was accepted and has gone forward on that basis. That’s also why we’ve included the additional process of having the parties come to the table throughout this process. It wasn’t a matter of you have to sign it to start it and you’re always out. The fact is, the door is open to come to the table.
I hope when we send out the correspondence on the work plan and they see the work being done, that will encourage them to come to the table and influence those discussions.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the last point that the Premier mentioned, the work plan, apparently you have only two Aboriginal groups developing a work plan, which you have six groups outside the table who have to follow a work plan developed by two groups that are going to have an impact on their region. I would like to ask the Premier how you explain the lack of Dene participation in the Devolution Agreement to the other parties and to other Canadians.
The process we have used has been open. It has been inviting to ask the groups to be a part of this. The two groups that are involved in this have signed the agreement-in-principle, and by signing that agreement-in-principle have taken their spot at the table. The table and chairs are waiting for the other groups to sign up to come in and affect those discussions.
Again, the door is open, the invite is there, and resources would be made available. In fact, this Assembly discussed the resources we require within Executive to help them in preparations for negotiations. So we’ve made offers, both formal in the sense of being at the table and resources that would help them in preparations for negotiations.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I talked about the issue of dust in the communities of Tu Nedhe. I’m going to ask the Minister of MACA some questions on that. Does the Minister of MACA have data or information on the hazards of breathing in dust?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I don’t have that data but I’ll try and gather it and have a look at it.
I can say that there are a lot of hazards to breathing in dust. I’ll just ask the Minister another question in relation to the dust. Will the Minister of MACA direct his staff to engage the Community of Lutselk’e in developing the project to apply dust suppression on the roads within the community?
With the community’s invitation, we’d be glad to go in there and provide them with some technical advice and assist them in seeing how they can best budget their money for applying dust suppressant.
Seeing that the Department of Transportation, I believe, has probably the greatest amount of expertise in this area, would the Minister ask for DOT, technical support in determining exactly what is needed to complete a dust suppression project in Lutselk’e?
We’d be glad to have discussions with DOT and take advantage of the expertise that they have. Along with MACA, we’ll work with the communities and see how they can best apply it to their roads.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will MACA staff play a lead role in completing the dust suppression project in Lutselk’e?
We’ll play a secondary role and the Community of Lutselk’e will play the lead role as they have the funding to allocate to applying dust suppressant to their road. We’ll be more than happy to work with the community and identify the best ways possible to make sure they get their roads done.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of Human Resources questions on the Member’s statement I spoke about earlier in the day. The question was raised in the House last week, Mr. Speaker, and I’d just like a current update about the number of summer students hired to date as compared to last year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Human Resources, Mr. Bob McLeod.
