Debates of May 26, 2005 (day 2)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that it hasn’t even gone out to tender yet or for an RFP, because I have had some concerns from some constituents living up there that they haven’t seen it yet. They are waiting for it. My understanding is that it is being awarded or given to the same company that is doing it now. This looks like backdoor sole sourcing. Would the Minister provide me a reason for this?

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 19-15(4): Status Of Inuvik Hospital Tender

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on this. I can assure the Member that there is no, as far as I am aware of it, backdoor sole sourcing. The information that I had, that I have shared with him, is this is to go to RFP. I saw information today that indicated that, but I will go back when we finish session and I will just double check that. I will let the Member know. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

Supplementary To Question 19-15(4): Status Of Inuvik Hospital Tender

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister comes across this information, he said he would share it with me, so I am looking forward to seeing that because that is news to me. I was of the understanding that it had not gone out yet. There is no question there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was interested today in the Minister’s statement related to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I guess I will address my questions most appropriately to Mr. Bell. We have been following the activities of some of the Cabinet Ministers and the Premier as they have traveled to Ottawa to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister to talk about money to address the socioeconomic concerns. This seems to have been precipitated by the announcement by Imperial Oil that they felt that there were too many requests to the access and benefit agreements. So our government responded, I believe, by traveling to Ottawa and meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Anne McLellan, to see if there was a way to relieve the industry of the complete responsibility for some of the social and economic issues that were being raised by aboriginal governments.

After the initial trip, which I believe included a meeting with Minister Goodale, the Premier had an opportunity again, I believe with his Minister, Mr. Bell, to meet with some of the aboriginal leaders in Calgary to talk about a domestic deal, as I like to call it, in terms of how federal money could be appropriated in a way that would take some of the pressure off of industry in negotiating with the aboriginal governments. When this amount of $100 million that we have heard about was raised after the Calgary meeting, was that anywhere close to the amount that was talked about in your…I understand it is under negotiation, but in your first meeting in Ottawa with Minister McLellan, was the $100 million a new number or was it close to what you had initially discussed? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Member has accurately laid out the chain of events. But I would say that when we first met with the Deputy Prime Minister with also Ministers Goodale, Scott and Blondin-Andrew, we didn’t get down to specific numbers. We identified the challenge. We indicated that we are aware of why Imperial Oil had gotten to this point in their assertion that what properly constituted access and benefit agreements was not all that was being requested here. We acknowledge as governments that we have a responsibility and a role here and the federal government has a responsibility and a role to fund this area because we don’t get the revenues that we need in order to make these investments. But we made the point very clearly at that meeting that we had a sense in terms of our own numbers from this government, the kinds of pressures that we were likely to see up and down the valley for the development, but that was an incomplete picture. The next step was for us to go and sit down with some of the aboriginal leadership and talk about the pressures that they were feeling and come back with a comprehensive number. It was really preliminary at that point to get into a negotiation around numbers without having input from aboriginal governments, which is why we didn’t do it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, whatever the number was initially or might end up to be at the end of the day, was this amount of money considered to be some kind of an interim payment or down payment on a tentative royalty sharing program with the federal government? Is it considered a bridge or an interim down payment? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. We had a long discussion around resource revenue sharing and the projected timeline for money to flow to northern governments. Optimistically, we were talking about probably 2007-08. Federal legislation would have to be changed in order for us to start to receive royalty revenues. What we were talking about was a way to bridge us to that point. We have pressing needs of communities up and down the valley now. We know royalty revenues can’t flow until 2007-08. We have a need now. We needed a bridge to get us there. That is why we entered into this discussion around the socioeconomic impact fund that would take us until the time that our revenues started to flow from that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about is if we take this bridge funding which is not a bad idea and understandable to take the pressure off of some of the socioeconomic issues, that without the existence of an agreement-in-principle on what the actual deal will look like for us down the road, I am just worried about them throwing us some money and then that will somehow take the pressure off of them to realize that we need an AIP. We need something with some specifics in it before we can see this actually proceed. I don’t want them throwing us some money and saying go away. Is this amount of money in any way, in the Minister’s mind, going to delay the progress on the AIP which will have the real meat in it for ongoing royalties for the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. Our Premier and Finance Minister were very clear with the federal Ministers and with the Deputy Prime Minister that these were really on parallel courses. We wanted to sit down with our aboriginal partners and negotiate some bridge funding to deal with social impacts, but our key priority and the priority of northern governments was to get a resource revenue sharing deal and an AIP by this summer. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister came out in public and articulated the government’s support for getting a deal done. I believe she used, I could check on this, by the end of June I think was the timing. So that was the time frame we were shooting for anyway. I could certainly check the press announcements around that, but there was an acknowledgement by the federal government that we needed to get that AIP done, as well. We are still moving forward on that. That involves not only ourselves and the federal government, but the summit and aboriginal governments, so it is important for us to work together to move toward that. Certainly, that is our priority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that industry representatives, i.e., the producers group, would be lead to believe that this fund, whatever it turns out to be that would flow to our government and aboriginal governments, is going to lessen their responsibility in terms of the negotiations on the access and benefit agreements that are being proposed by aboriginal governments up and down the valley? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. It is difficult for me to know what the producers believe, but my sense is that the producers are looking for a framework or a box that access and benefits can be negotiated in. They believe that there are certain things that make up access and benefits, an amount of money, essentially a rent for use of the land. That is the realm they would like to see this in. However, they acknowledge that there are all of these other socioeconomic impacts in communities that need to be adequately dealt with, but they believe they are the responsibility of government. I believe that is also the case. So they do have a responsibility, environmentally and to the people of the North, to make sure that we benefit from this project, but it is impossible for us as governments to simply close our eyes to some of the impacts in communities and try to put it all off on the project and the project proponents. That is why we have gone to the federal government to say you’ve got to step up to the plate with the funding. These services and programs that need to be delivered are ones that are in our mandate and the mandate of aboriginal governments. We are prepared to do that, given that we have the money. I think the producers group see it exactly that same way, but I don’t think they are looking to shirk their responsibilities in any way. I think they want to do a good project that is well received. They know they need grassroots support for this. I believe they are approaching that earnestly and with best intentions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final third supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you. So the trip to Ottawa then to secure this bridge money in the interim here was postponed because of the vote that was taking place around the budget in the House of Commons. What is next? What is the game plan on the part of this government? I just don’t want us to drop the ball on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

We agree that we need to keep the pressure up on getting this bridge funding. The voting in Ottawa and the uncertainty obviously impacted our ability to get a meeting, but we had some work to do prior to that meeting. We and the aboriginal governments had to sit down to quantify the impacts and be able to put enough detail and substantiation behind our ask that the federal government could move that forward and talk to the Treasury Board about that. There was some work for us to do. We have had meetings now and I believe going on this week in Ottawa with our senior staff and federal government senior staff possibly also in Calgary. We are now looking to next week or the week after to press for another political meeting to see if we can get a final deal on the table. We hope that we are very close, but we are certainly not letting up on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services and it goes back to the discussion we had yesterday in the House and some of my colleagues had brought up earlier. That is in relation to the proposal to relocate the Territorial Treatment Centre out of Yellowknife. I read through the Hansard yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I had trouble trying to ascertain how the decision was made. I am still of the opinion that a decision was made based solely on what it would cost to renovate a piece of infrastructure. That is all I have seen. I have to apologize to the Minister. Like I said, I am not on the Social Programs committee. I am not in the decision-making loop when it comes to decisions like this, so I am trying to understand how a decision of this magnitude is made. I know the Minister has mentioned that they have done some background work. They have done a little bit of research on the move and the implications on education of the kids, medical professional help they might need and things of that nature. I would like to know where it is. Somebody in his department has to have had a file on this. Why can’t we have a look at it? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I indicated and committed in this House yesterday, when the Member asked the question, that I will pull together a file of information, and I will make sure it goes to the chair of Social Programs and to the Member, that lays out the trail that got us to this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the Minister is when we might expect to see something like this, because it is certainly a big issue with many families here in Yellowknife, folks that work there, parents who have children there. I would like to ask the Minister when we might expect that report or that file. I still have trouble understanding why a department that would make a decision like this wouldn’t have a file readily available for Members. I wanted it yesterday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will commit to having it for the Member before the end of this session. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if the Minister could let us know if that report or file is going to be comprehensive in its scope. Is it going to look at the educational needs of the clients, what the impacts of the program are going to be on moving it, the professional side of things, and the availability of services in Hay River? Is it going to be a comprehensive report, or are we going to be able to poke holes in this thing? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a potential to poke holes in anything anyone does. I could tell you what the Member needs to know, is that the decision has been made to move TTC to Hay River to use the capital money that was in the budget to renovate Dene K’onia. That it is going to take about 18 months and we will be able to set up a program there that is going to meet all of the needs of the children that are going to be in that program. Hay River has the capacity with the services that exist there, the medical, the educational, the health, the social services are there or are readily and easily accessible by the children that will be taking that program in Hay River. Hay River has a history in the past of running child welfare programs that were, in fact, converted to young offenders, but they have a history and a capacity that has been demonstrated through history and the past to deliver that kind of program. That decision has been made. It is a contractual arrangement that is there. It is going to be moved. We are going to work with the contractor. That contract will be going out. Bosco Homes currently provides that and will be taking all the steps with the contractor to work with their employees to make sure that it is done in a sensitive timely way so that we minimize the dislocation and disruption that may be there for the folks that are here.

Mr. Speaker, this is a program. That is what the Member should know. The information there will show that that is a decision that has been made. Now should the Member choose to poke holes in that, that would be something that he is very capable at doing. He is very adept as he has demonstrated in this House. But, Mr. Speaker, that decision has been made and I will stand up and defend that decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for his response. I do look forward to the report, the file coming forward, so that we can have a look at it and can better understand how the decision was arrived at.

One of the things that I would like to see included in that -- I know we have been going through and it is no slight against Hay River -- we have been having a tremendously difficult time staffing up a pipeline office in Hay River. These are specialized professional people that work at treatment centres like this. I am wondering can we get the employees to work at the treatment centre in Hay River. We have had a heck of a time filling positions at the pipeline office. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 21-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out and reiterate a point I made yesterday, in that the Government of the Northwest Territories has also made the signal very clearly that they are interested and willing to look at decentralizing programs when they make sense and when it is the appropriate thing to do. In this case, this is one of those cases. Will the people be there? Yes, they will be. We have done it in the past. We are running a program in Fort Smith as well, delivering a high quality of care for children. It may take some work, but Bosco Homes has indicated that they are confident and that they are prepared to work with the department and the people in Hay River and will go through a hiring process locally and outside of Hay River, if we have to, to staff that facility up and have it up and running. They will also have the full backup resources that Bosco Homes has at their disposal, which we don't have as a government. Plus, there is going to be continued access to the specialized services in Yellowknife with pediatricians and psychiatrists that are there right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In talking about poking holes, I want to ask the Minister of MACA in terms of the dust control programs in the Sahtu communities, specifically the chipsealing programs. In terms of the chipsealing program, can he inform the good citizens of the Sahtu if they have to suffer another year with all the dust that is flying around in our communities and will the elders at least be able to breathe a little easier this summer in Fort Good Hope? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.

Return To Question 22-15(4): Dust Control Chipseal Program In The Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the main street chipsealing program has been an initiative of this government for the past couple of years now. It was initially budgeted at $1 million. As a part of the reductions required by this government, we reduced it somewhat. This year the program will be carried out in two communities. The communities of Fort McPherson and Tuktoyaktuk I believe are the two communities that the work will be happening in.

The Sahtu has communities that are identified as a part of this schedule. We are only able to carry out the chipsealing program in the communities as the budget allows us to and where our equipment is and where the communities have the streets prepared. There is a lot of work that is required to be done in terms of preparation. This year the two communities that are targeted are Fort McPherson and Tuktoyaktuk, and I believe Fort Good Hope is one of the communities that is targeted in the Sahtu. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Time for question period has expired, but I will allow the Member a supplementary. Mr. Yakeleya.

Supplementary To Question 22-15(4): Dust Control Chipseal Program In The Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that the dust has settled in the Sahtu, would the Minister of MACA advise the House, maybe there is a possibility that he could help with putting more money into the chipsealing program, because only two communities in the whole Northwest Territories are going to be chipsealed. Larger centres have paved roads, but the smaller communities are suffering with dust. It is terrible in those communities.

Hear! Hear!

It is a crying shame that in this day and age that we get money in and we want to make differences in the communities, yet the people in the smaller communities are suffering through another dusty summer here. I want to see if the Minister would commit to Cabinet to see if they can get more money into the chipsealing program, so the communities in the Sahtu don't have to wait another two, three, or four years in terms of getting the chipseal program in the communities. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 22-15(4): Dust Control Chipseal Program In The Sahtu