Debates of May 26, 2004 (day 13)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are waiting lists, I would suggest, in every community for housing. If the Member has a specific suggestion in terms of some creative partnerships and financing that could be done that’s not going to require capital, then I am sure, as a government and as a Housing Corporation, the Minister would be very interested in hearing what those suggestions are. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Justice. Recently it was brought to my attention that the RCMP detachment in Fort Simpson is considering a reduction in staff. This is a huge concern to me and my constituents. Here we have a riding, my riding, that is poised for economic growth and, of course, the negative affects that come with it. Of course, the Fort Simpson detachment services four satellite communities of Nahanni Butte, Jean Marie, Trout Lake and Wrigley. I would just like to know if the Minister is aware of the RCMP in this regard in reducing the staff of the Fort Simpson detachment.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 134-15(3): Reduction In RCMP Complement In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been advised that there is one vacant position in the Fort Simpson detachment that the RCMP is not planning to fill at this time. I have been told that this is based on the workload that they currently have in the detachment. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 134-15(3): Reduction In RCMP Complement In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is well aware of how budget and budgeting cycles work, especially when you reduce or take away a position. I would just like to ask the Minister if it is possible to keep that position resident and not really take it away from the budget, because once we take away a position it’s so much harder to replace that position and to justify it again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 134-15(3): Reduction In RCMP Complement In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The total staff complement for the RCMP would not be reduced. The contract that we have with them pays for a certain number of personnel, but the RCMP often make decisions about where to place staff and as demand changes, the location of staff will change. So if the need increases in Fort Simpson, I would expect that the RCMP would make sure that that position was then filled in that community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 134-15(3): Reduction In RCMP Complement In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to request the Minister to speak with the RCMP, of course with whom we have a contract, to get some kind of commitment that certainly they won’t staff that position now, but at least they won’t remove that position. We are going to grow and that’s going to happen soon in light of the pipeline and the activities that are associated with it. It’s certainly trying to pick up speed. We are looking at filing the application this year, so a lot of things will start to happen. Lots of people will start passing through the communities and we will certainly experience unwanted negative effects like drifters and people passing through. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Justice.

Further Return To Question 134-15(3): Reduction In RCMP Complement In Fort Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly commit to the Member that I will discuss the staffing issues with the RCMP the next time I meet with the chief superintendent, but I will remind Members that it’s always an RCMP decision as to where staff are located and they make their decisions based on the volume of work. There is no intent for us to reduce the total staff complement with the RCMP. In fact, I am hoping that we will, over the next two years, be able to increase the level of staffing in our contract with them to respond to the request that they have submitted to this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, each of the communities have local housing authorities and subsequently they have boards which govern their activities. I would like to know how much say or how much input the Minister or the NWT Housing Corporation has into the rules applied to tenants living in and applying for public housing in the communities. Thank you.

Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Return To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In most of the communities across the Territories, we are working with the LHOs to develop a partnership agreement. Our approach from the corporation’s standpoint is that we work together as a team. For the most part, under the partnership agreements, the social housing program delivery falls under their authority. Although we set the general terms of what the requirements are, we also try to work so we give some room for those partnership agreements to incorporate some of their loan standards. We also have some communities that we work directly with under management authorities. It’s fully…(inaudible)…However, it’s more in the management of our programs and their delivery. So we do have some say and authority with how the requirements are set, however, we give flexibility for most of the LHOs to make their own decisions. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So then for example, the six-month residency requirement that I referred to in my Member's statement today, would that be something that is a rule that is developed at the local level or is that something that would be put in place by the corporation? Thank you.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have the historical detail as to how the six-month rule came about. I believe it’s an NWT Housing Corporation rule that we requested the LHOs to follow. I would have to double check that, however. In every case we try to ensure that the rules that we put in place are consistent, although I can’t say with any certainty whether that’s something that came directly from the corporation or LHOs. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister be able to relate to the problem that we have when somebody moves from one NWT community to another? So if they are living in Fort Resolution in public housing and they move to another location and apply for public housing, that six-month residency may create a problem. In another instance I referred to is a single mother who goes south or goes to another community to upgrade their education, comes back to the home community for the summer, is ineligible now -- they’ve left that public housing unit -- for public housing. Does the Minister understand the problem as it relates to mobility of NWT residents amongst different communities? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points with regard to the question raised by the Member. First of all, the students who are required to leave their community to attend school still retain their principal residence. The six-month requirement only applies to social housing programs. Social assistance also assists people who move to a new community or require housing in a community, and there is no residency requirement on income support. We have to recognize that there is a shortage of housing in all the communities. Our core needs assessments tell us that. It’s not really fair for us to allow people to move from one community to another or move to the head of the line or if there is a waiting list, they get in front of somebody else. We can take a look at the six-month requirement, as the Member has requested. However, we also have partnerships dealing with this issue. I would say that it’s something that was put in place for a reason. It does serve its purpose. If there are situations where people have fallen through the cracks, I will certainly take a look at it. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could see where the six-month residency criteria would be very valuable if it was addressing people moving from the South or from other jurisdictions into the Northwest Territories. Of course, you shouldn’t be able to land in town one day and move into public housing the next. I can see that. But I am more concerned about the availability of housing on a short-term basis on the understanding that housing is available. I understand that if there is a long waiting list and every unit is full, that’s one thing, but I think there is something that should be looked at for emergency housing and for waiving the ability and the discretion to waive the six-month residency requirement when there is housing available. I would appreciate it if the Minister would look into that and report back on that. Thank you.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 135-15(3): Public Housing Decisions In Communities

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will look at that. It’s something we continue to review. The availability of units is an issue that we are always looking at ways to try to address. We’ve tried different things over the years and will continue to do so. We will review the situation raised in Hay River and report back to the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question this afternoon is a follow-up to my statement and it is directed to the Minister of Finance concerning the upcoming review of the Liquor Act. I wonder if the Minister could give us an outline of the process that the government is planning on undertaking in its review and rewrite of the Liquor Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, some work has been done by a company that was contracted by the Department of Finance to begin the process of looking at what can be undertaken in a review. We have yet to make a decision if it will be a full-blown review or if we would look at segments of it, but we are still in that process. We should be making a decision soon as to what degree we will go. If we, for example, put a panel together to look at all the issues and make recommendations on what avenue we should take, or if we would just use our normal process of getting some input and then going forward with developing legislative proposals, we haven't got to that point yet. Potentially if it is a full-blown review, it would be quite a lengthy process as well as quite an expensive process. What we're trying to ensure we do is that we have the Liquor Act process review done and new legislation brought in in the life of this assembly. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those sound like very constructive steps, Mr. Speaker, and I won't press the government on which one or how to go yet. I will be quite happy to leave it for some time, and come back with a thorough recommendation. But I would like to pursue, Mr. Speaker, one aspect of this that I believe deserves some attention and should be considered right out front, and that is the approach of saying that we should have two acts; one to administer the liquor on a business basis, and the mandate of the government's social responsibility. I'm wondering if Mr. Roland would advise us as to whether this approach to creating two acts to manage liquor would be a viable approach that we could consider. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated earlier, the work that has been done hasn't given us enough information right now if we should, in fact, look at splitting the act and look at one, for example, truly on the business side of the liquor equation, or if it continued along the same lines with some strengthening of areas and updating of the old legislation that is there today. We are in that process. The first phase, in a sense, has been done with the contract that was let and a report that is coming forward. It is actually in draft stage now, I believe, in the final stages. From a departmental point of view, we need to decide if we in fact do the full-blown process as well as take work that has been done in the past, because there was a substantial amount of work done in 1994 that we would like to look at and see how that can be incorporated in there. We expect it would be a controversial piece of legislation. There will be people on both sides of it that would affect how we look at this and to what degree we proceed with it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This too is something that I hope the whole idea of going and looking at two different acts takes some time. But I would put to the Minister to consider that I think we already have a very strong precedent for that in our government, and this is in the area of tobacco legislation. I think it is the Department of Finance that looks after taxation and administration of cigarettes, but, yet, the Department of Health has demonstrated, I think with extraordinary vigour and good results, that we are making headway on the reduction of tobacco and its impact on society. I venture that the same can and should apply to alcohol. So I would like to ask him if that scenario, or that precedent that already exists in our government, is one that he would look at. Thank you.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if that would require two acts to do what is being done presently through the example used of Health and Social Services. We do have, through Health and Social Services, a drug and alcohol program. On the finance side, the sales side and the taxes received through the sale of tobacco comes through the Department of Finance. There could be work, and I think the Member may be heading to this; the fact that we do have some issues that have caused us some concern and we recognize that. It's in the jurisdiction that the Liquor Board does have in the existing act. There can be separation in that. That is one of the things that we're looking at, to ensure that the legislative side, the enforcement side, is very clear and concise as to how that part of the business operates. The addictions side and drug and alcohol awareness side is something we need to continue pursuing as a government overall, and how we deal with the addictions side. I'm not sure that would require two pieces of legislation to be developed though. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to a process whereby the public can get involved with this, whether it's a panel or a committee process. But we all know that the degree of input, the quality and the calibre of the input will certainly improve when people get access to some resources. So I'd like to ask the Minister would the non-government organizations, or frontline service agencies, be factored into this and be able to access funding or other assistance to help in their involvement in a review of the Liquor Act? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Minister of Finance.

Further Return To Question 136-15(3): Liquor Act Review

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again in how we would go about dealing with the Liquor Act review process, we would have to look at how we got that input; if it was in fact allowing for funding to go out to agencies to come and make presentations or, in fact, if we do a process where we go out and get their input. So we have to look at it. Cost is one area of concern that we have to look at for this whole process, but at the end of the day we want to ensure we have a Liquor Act that is up to date, that works for both sides of the equation in the sense of managing the sales and taxation area, as well as making sure, overall as government, we continue to work on the prevention side and dealing with the effects of alcohol. So again, I think this is two processes. One is to ensure we have an up-to-date Liquor Act that is functional and can be used in the Territories to provide clear direction for all those involved in the sale of liquor products. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member's statement I indicated the importance of the community freezers in the communities, as voiced by the residents of Paulatuk and Holman. They are concerned about the storage of their wild meat and their wild game this spring and summer if funding is not made available. My question is to the honourable Minister Brendan Bell, Minister of RWED, on whether he will direct his department to dig half way into their pockets to find the necessary funds for the continued maintenance and operation for the 2004-2005 season? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Return To Question 137-15(3): Community Freezers In Paulatuk And Holman

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me first preface my comments by saying that this government supports and recognizes how important the harvesting of country foods are to small communities, and we're supportive of traditional lifestyles and we recognize and acknowledge in past times it was very important to have this critical piece of community infrastructure, community freezers, in our more remote communities that weren't accessible by highway, Mr. Speaker. Times are changing. We've looked at divesting ourselves of these pieces of infrastructure, and we've done that through Public Works and Services. They have essentially been turned over to most communities. Most communities have had a choice to either take the freezer at no cost and continue to pay for the O and M, but that's not our advisable choice. In most cases the other option that has been presented is one of providing chest freezers to all members of the community. Most communities have taken us up on that offer, and we think that that is the most prudent course. Community freezers are very expensive to operate, they're old pieces of infrastructure, they aren't efficient, and there are potential health concerns because of the age of the freezers. We know that the situation, I believe, in Holman has been rectified. They have chosen to carry on with the O and M of the asset themselves. If that's their choice, then we support that. But I would ask again and make the offer again to the people of Paulatuk and hope that they would be receptive to the idea of having us provide chest freezers. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Pokiak.

Supplementary To Question 137-15(3): Community Freezers In Paulatuk And Holman