Again I say to the Members, through our research and development fund and the Building Canada Fund, we will look at the gravel source request from Aklavik in terms of an all-weather road.
We’ll do a cost-benefit analysis. We’ll look across the Northwest Territories and see if it makes any sense to put money where we think it’s needed in terms of our infrastructure, or new infrastructure. Some of the communities don’t even have roads into the community. Some of them have other requests. We’ve got to look at them and prioritize them and see that they fit within our goals of connecting communities.
When we continue reviewing the list that we have, we’ll see if it fits the criteria in terms of future funding. For now, we’ll continue working with the Member on this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
I may be older but you’re obviously wiser, so I will try this again.
Laughter.
Considering the very tight rental market in Yellowknife at the moment and considering the rent increases that constituents are facing, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not there is anything in current legislation that limits the amount of a rent increase by a landlord.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.... Or Justice, I guess.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The rent has been an issue in the community. The community has addressed that with us, and we have met with the committees as well. There have been some requests that came in, so certainly, that is one of the areas that we are looking at.
With the current legislation we are working with, there are areas that we’re looking at where rents increase once per year, but they’ve got to be given three months’ notice. Those are in discussion, and we're working with our department on this specific area.
We are doing what we can to deal with those rent increases in the communities, specifically on those communities that have high rent. Mahsi.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that there is nothing in the current legislation that can limit a rent increase, except that there can only be one in any 12month period.
I’d like to know whether or not the Minister can advise if the department, in previous years, has ever considered rent caps.
Mr. Speaker, a rent cap has been talked about in the past government, but at the same time, it is costly to initiate that process. So it has been talked about, but the department hasn’t pursued it because of high costs for our jurisdiction, the Northwest Territories. Mahsi.
That was, unfortunately, the answer I expected. I know that rent caps are a very controversial issue. The landlords don’t like them; tenants do like them. But it also creates a diversion in the marketplace, and I can understand why they’re not currently in place.
However, to my suggestion of an ombudsman, I think there needs to be some sort of appeal for tenants. I’d like to know if the Justice Department has considered creating an ombudsman’s office to hear appeals from residents where no other avenue of appeal exists. Thank you.
We do take suggestions into consideration from Members. That’s one area that’s been brought to our attention in the past. And certainly, we will work with it, the suggestion that’s brought forward.
There needs to be ongoing consultation with the community, the renters, the tenants, and rental officers, and with our department and with the Members as well. This is one of the issues that’s been addressed to us, and we’re discussing it within our department. Mahsi.
Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think I heard the Minister say that he’ll consider the idea of an ombudsman’s office, so I’ll repeat the question. Will the Minister agree to look into establishing an ombudsman’s office for the next fiscal year?
We’ll look into those options. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
The number of layoffs concerns myself, as well as a number of people in this House. Furthermore, it certainly has hit the radar of the union out there, with approximately 135 potential layoffs coming out there. I want to seek some clarity as we go forward in this process as to what’s happening, so I’ll have some questions directed to the Premier.
The Premier has announced 135 layoffs. As I understand it, some people have left, due to separation, in the context that they’ve taken other jobs. There’s been some further paring down as other people have taken other opportunities. I want to know today: what’s the actual number we’re dealing with, as in potential layoffs? Could the Premier provide clarity on actual numbers that could be at risk at this time? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, I’ll have to redirect this to the Minister of Human Resources. He would have the most up-to-date information on this file. Thank you.
Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government of the Northwest Territories presently has 4,753 full-time indeterminate employees and 1,051 casual employees. At this moment, we have 118 potentially affected employees. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, of the 118 potential employees being laid off, what is the Human Resources Minister doing to make sure that number gets pared down even further before this final decision? My fear is we’ll pass the budget, and then they’ll be shown the door.
Just for clarity, are we working out any deal with these folks? Have we pared it down? Have any packages been prepared? What is the situation, so that we get that number as low as possible? Thank you.
The Department of Human Resources and the home department of these 118 potentially affected employees, which is less than 2 per cent of the whole Government of the Northwest Territories’ workforce.... We work very closely with the potentially affected employees under our Staff Retention policy. And I emphasize “staff retention,” because it is our objective to keep as many of these potentially affected employees on the workforce.
Departmental HR staff and departmental management meet with those potentially affected employees that request a meeting. We work with them to make sure they understand the process and the options that are available to them. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, I don’t see it as 2 per cent. I see it as 118 families, and that’s the way I see it.
My issue really is, out of this 118 that we’re talking about, how many are up for potential reassignment in other positions? That’s what I want to know. Ultimately, I want to know — and I would hope other Members on this side of the House want to know — how many people are we really talking about that will be ultimately impacted, once this process is jigged out and finalized?
It’s difficult to determine, because we have to take into consideration the individual needs or preferences of potentially affected employees.
We have set in place.... Through the Staff Retention policy, we make all the competitions that are coming forward available and known to the potentially affected employees.
We have received at least 50 résumés. The remainder, I assume, are waiting to see what transpires through the budget process. Our expectation is that potentially affected employees will probably have a better option. We are certainly encouraging our managers of the different departments to actively review the list on the Staff Retention policy so that we can, hopefully, find placements.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know there will continue to be a number of empty positions out there. My issue is: are we trying to make sure that those 118 people will be provided not just the first opportunity but the real opportunity, in the context of “We've got empty positions — can we get them into those?” to make sure they can have some stable transition?
The issue, furthermore, goes beyond that. We have a number of these people potentially affected, the 118 people, who could go off to retirement. I want to make sure today; I want to hear about those types of numbers and situations. Are we working with them to make sure they can retire, meet their superannuation requirements, so that the impact ultimately boils down even smaller? I want to make sure we're getting to that. That’s the impact I’m talking about.
We’ve had the opportunity to meet with the 118 potentially affected employees. Through the Staff Retention policy there are a number of options. One is education assistance, separation assistance or severance priority.
With regard to early retirement or potential retirement, that is, I guess, a decision that would have to be requested by the potentially affected employee. We’re prepared to look into that, and we're waiting for direction from the Members as well.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to go back to item 7, please.
The Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions. Are there any nays?
Nay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This written question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Can the Minister of Health and Social Services provide me with statistics on the number of people in Tu Nedhe, specifically Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e, who are suffering from asthma and other lung diseases that can be affected by dust?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to the opening address. Item 11, replies to the Budget Address, day 2 of 7. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to seek unanimous consent to go back to item 7, oral questions.
The Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions.
Unanimous consent granted.
The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Premier. In light of consensus government motions that have passed unanimously in this House, and also items and issues that Members raised in committees and in the process that we have to have inclusion of all Members of this House when a budget’s being developed....
In light of what we see here, I’d like to ask the Premier exactly how he sees motions being passed in this Legislative Assembly about matters which are brought before a Minister to deal with an item which is critical to their constituents — to be able to work with all Members of this House, to be able to develop something that’s universal for all communities in the Northwest Territories and not just a few.
I’d like to ask the Minister exactly how seriously his Cabinet takes motions passed in this Legislative Assembly on matters that are basically unanimously supported by Members in this House.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Motions that are passed in this House unanimously, or obviously any motions in this House, are paid attention to as we do our review. Those that are specifically directed at departments, when they start their business plan process, are taken into consideration. We also have to look at the long list of backlogged capital items or O&M requests that we’ve not been able to fund, and that gets part of the discussion embedded as we prepare for that. I think in this situation there’s been a commitment to move with one of those projects the Member spoke specifically about: a motion moved for the Aklavik and Tuk access roads.
As well, the Minister of Transportation has committed through the Building Canada Fund portion on development and review — research, I believe — to take some of those funds and do the work that’s needed for the department to see if this project can move along the track of going through this process.
I must also say the Building Canada Fund.... The list the Member talks about has been shared with committee, shared with the federal government, but is still under review by the federal government. It’s not our final list. We have to keep that in mind.
As we know, this government has just restructured itself to have ministerial committees look at the different initiatives that the government wants to move on. Yet there seems to be a missing link there by way of inclusion of Members on this side of the House. I’d like to ask the Premier.... I know it’s been suggested or recommended to find a system and that we try to get unanimous endorsement of those initiatives by all Members of the House before we submit anything to the federal government. Is the Premier open to revisiting that and finding the system that works for all 19 Members of the Legislative Assembly?
I think the scientists are still looking for the missing link. The fact is, as we progress in our work, there is a process established. We are at one level in the sense of the first filter. Then we go to committee and put that on the table, and we react to the recommendations. There have been times when we’ve changed what we’ve presented based on committee recommendations and information. We’ll continue to do that.
This process, this Building Canada Fund, worked out of a number of other initiatives, and we’re still trying to get the final piece of that in place. Again we’re being told by the federal government that we can’t bank on that piece until we get the funding agreement signed. It’s the first year of seven years. So this other project, as committed to by the Minister of Transportation through the research and development portion of that Building Canada Fund, will be looking at that access road, and it can work its way through our business plan process.
We as the 16th Assembly have set a list of priorities that we’d like to achieve. There seems to be some misinterpretation of how we see it as Ordinary Members. When you talk about building capacity or trying to reduce the cost of living, I think people have different opinions on it. I think it’s appropriate that all Members have a choice to voice their opinions. When we look at these projects, where we have access to some $270 million of federal funds, where we can really make a difference to the Northwest Territories, it’s awfully hard for Members to try to illustrate what we mean by reducing the cost of living in communities. Every one of us lives in different types of communities. We all have unique ideas that I think have to be looked at.
I’d like to ask the Minister that before we take that next step of looking at the business planning process going forward or whatnot, we have a system in place, have a caucus or have a meeting, so that we really explain what we meant as Members of the 16th Assembly in setting our priorities and going forward. Will the Premier consider that in light of the problem we seem to have today?
Mr. Speaker, as I have committed to, as we begin our normal business planning process, that input, that back and forth is going to happen. It needs to happen as we proceed. We’ll present that, hear back, and go back and forth on that as we get back into our normal cycle. Not a first-year budget after an election. We’re ready to sit down on that basis.
As well, I’ve sat down with the Ministers to say that we need to get the committees on these initiatives. When the Building Canada Fund package was brought forward, recommendations were made. We looked at some of those changes, and we reacted to some of those as well.
We’re ready to sit down and go through that and make some changes, but as we all know around this table, even sitting together as 19 Members, rarely do we get 19 Members agreeing with everything. That’s something we also have to take into consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to our priorities and where we all come from, being here for 13 years, I think we have to improve our consultation, our dialogue, realizing that we all represent people in the Northwest Territories, regardless of where we’re from or what role we play. It’s important, as government, that we find ways to improve that.
The reason that I raised the issue with regard to our priorities is, you know, when you talk about safer communities, for me the basic thing for communities is they want to have policing and nursing and things like that and ensure they have security. When we talk about chipsealing a highway to make communities safer, I find a problem with that. We have to ensure that those priorities are really what we mean when we set our priorities.
Again, is there a chance that we’ll have to illustrate our priorities, but also make sure that maybe we have a better definition of how those priorities were set and what we really meant? Can the Premier consider looking at exactly how these reasons have come about and also at what we mean, or define what we mean?
Mr. Speaker, when we prepare our business plans and go to committees to get responses back — recommendations, input on how it’s being put together — in the end, when we sit down, Ministers, specifically, will have to explain the priorities and the criteria set. We’re continuing down that road in the sense of making sure they’re prepared and have the information and justification as to what happened.
The example the Member has used on chipsealing Highway No. 5, that’s not part of the Building Canada Fund; that’s a different fund that’s been in place for quite a number of years and was also in partnership with the federal government.
