Mr. Speaker, today I will speak about the ongoing issue of Dene fonts. With the fast pace of computer technology and the loss of the ability to convert and print existing Dene language documents, aboriginal language communities have difficulty producing new resource documents, because the Dene fonts are not compatible with present-day software.
The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute as well as the government urgently need Dene fonts incorporated into the Unicode system. That way, everyone who opens any computer program can read and write documents with the Dene language and with the appropriate spelling.
Mr. Speaker, we are running out of time. This government urgently needs to deal with the technical problems and create solutions to solving this problem.
With the government seriously stating their support for aboriginal languages, it needs to demonstrate action by helping to maintain and revitalize our Dene languages. The time of lip service is over. If we want to save our cultural heritage and Dene languages, we have to do it now.
The Dene font issue goes back some time. In 2003 a Special Committee on the Review of the Official Languages Act included recommendations with regard to Dene fonts in its final report — and I was a member of that committee.
The Gwich’in cultural institute is recognized for its quality work and its dedication to saving and revitalizing the Gwich’in language. The institution has made appeals and recommendations, providing names of experts to assist the government with creating Dene fonts with compatible, up-to-date technology, but with no response.
The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute had hoped that finally something would be done during this week, in which a meeting was scheduled for yesterday and today, and were dismayed this government had cancelled that meeting until later on in the summer. This would have included government experts and regional aboriginal language coordinators.
These groups are very disheartened to see the government back off again with this commitment.
Officials are trying to reschedule a meeting….
Mr. Krutko, your time for the Member’s statement has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues.
Again, this shows how we end up year after year talking about an issue and saying, “Yes, it is important,” but at the end of it all you have nothing to show of success, achievement or results on these matters.
In the meantime, every day, technology keeps changing, and outdated existing Dene fonts become almost impossible for community organizations to use to develop resource materials.
I will be asking questions of the Minister responsible for official languages at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery.
It is my pleasure today to welcome four of my constituents to the gallery today. We have Roy Courtoreille, regional vice-president for the UNW. Dawna O’Brien, Pam Jones and Leon Nason are in the gallery today. Welcome to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I can see a number of people from my constituency of Thebacha: Mr. Al Dumont, Mrs. Lynn Dumont, Paul McAdams, Loretta Laviolette, Marilyn Napier and Ethel Chalifoux. I’d like to welcome you to the Assembly.
I’d like to welcome to the Assembly two constituents of mine down from Inuvik: Val Robertson and Rosa Kayotuk. Welcome to the Assembly.
I’d like to recognize my constituent from Fort Simpson, also with the UNW here in Yellowknife, Ms. Candy Brown.
It’s not very often I get visitors in the gallery, so I’d like to recognize a couple of people from Fort Providence: Loretta Landry, who’s with the Housing Corporation, and Peter Canadien, who works for the hamlet in Fort Providence.
Also, a number of people from Fort Smith. Pam Villeneuve, Marion Napier, Ethel Chalifoux and a former instructor, Paul McAdams, are joining us today. Welcome.
I’d like to recognize Sheila Laity, Gayla Wick and Paul Goldney, all Yellowknife South constituents.
If we’ve missed anyone in the gallery today, welcome to the Chamber. I hope you’re enjoying the proceedings. It’s always nice to have an audience in here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I was talking about an MOU. I thought that agreement was made between the Town of Inuvik and the Department of Transportation, but apparently, that’s not happening. This has been two, almost three, years in the making for a simple little MOU.
I’d like to direct my questions today to the Minister of Transportation. I’d like to ask the Minister if he’s aware of the status of the MOU as of today.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The Minister of Transportation.
Mahsi. Mr. Speaker, as the Member has alluded to in his Member’s statement, we had a meeting in Inuvik to discuss this issue with the mayor and the regional superintendent. One issue we did talk about was the issue of the long-standing MOU negotiations that happened in the previous government with the Town of Inuvik and the Department of Transportation.
My understanding is there were some issues that have been going back and forth. There were some delays, in terms of the change of the town council membership and the department’s commercial development staff.
The department recently received a letter from the town to respond to some of their concerns. We hope this agreement will be concluded within the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I admire about old-timers is that when they say, “We have a deal,” their word is as good as a piece of document.
My understanding in this case is that an agreement was reached. We sat at the table and we said, “We do have an agreement.” Whether it was on the whole MOU or that particular issue…. My understanding is it was the whole MOU.
I’d like to ask the Minister: was he under the impression that an agreement was reached on the MOU between Transportation and the Town of Inuvik?
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we had a deal to conclude the MOU between the Town of Inuvik and the department. There were issues we felt we could resolve in a short time and have a deal concluded. That was my understanding, and that’s the basis on which I’m going forward to see this MOU resolved shortly.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that the last outstanding issue was the setback of 100 feet from the road. That was the one issue that was holding up the whole agreement. Again, I say I was under the impression that we did have an agreement for the whole MOU.
I would like to ask the Minister: what’s the reluctance on the part of Transportation to have this MOU finalized?
Certainly there are some legal issues in terms of the transfer. The town wishes to have the use of the quarry before the transfer of the lands, and we are obligated to proceed this way.
There are also issues around the transfer of the lands with regard to MACA being somewhat involved with the issue with the Town of Inuvik, of course. NAV Canada has some issues. Natural Resources Canada also has some issues around the transfer.
We are proceeding to work with the town in terms of the use of the quarry and also proceeding with the transfer of the land. However, there are some legal issues that we certainly have to be cognizant of in terms of giving the final signature on the MOU.
Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was a simple memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Northwest Territories’ Transportation and the Town of Inuvik, and somehow the document is getting bigger and bigger. It started off with a few sections. The last count, I think, was 33 sections. Every time, it seems, it goes back to the department there are more sections added on. Pretty soon we’ll end up with a document this thick.
I would like to ask the Minister today — and he is the Minister of Transportation; he has the authority to direct his department to get issues resolved — to assert that authority and direct his department to expedite the signing of this MOU between Transportation and the Town of Inuvik. This is something that’s been going on for three years, and it’s just taking too long.
Would the Minister commit to directing — I repeat “directing” — his department to have this thing finalized within the next month?
Mr. Speaker, when the Member and I, along with the mayor and the regional superintendent, sat down in Inuvik…. I have asked the department, when the Member was there, to get this MOU dealt with, to see what we can do and what some of the issues are here.
I still maintain that position; let’s work on the issues. Those issues sometimes take somewhat careful consideration. We are in an MOU. We have to look after the interests of not only the town but the department.
I will give my assurance to the Member here and the Town of Inuvik that the department will do everything within reason to satisfy an MOU that the Town of Inuvik and the department can be happy with.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It gets back, again, to what I talked about yesterday and what I had mentioned earlier in my Member’s statement. That’s the fact that FMBS has been paying the payroll at Stanton Territorial Hospital for the past six months, and they’re into FMBS now to the tune of over $20 million.
I’d like to ask the Minister — and the alarm bells should be going off for somebody somewhere if this is the case, and it looks like it is: does the Minister know what the hospital is doing with the $4 million to $4.5 million per month that normally would be spent on or allocated to salaries?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Health, Ms. Lee.
Mr. Speaker, I want to state, first of all, that the payroll for all of the health authorities — not just Stanton but all government departments and everyone — are first paid by FMBS. That’s a regular procedure, so this is not new. Then the authorities have to pay back those amounts. Because of the cash-flow issues with Stanton Territorial Health Authority, they have not been able to pay that back.
As we know, the authority has been experiencing a deficit situation for about five years now and in the last three years more significantly than the previous two. Because they started with a deficit situation, they are falling behind in paying for their payroll. It’s strictly a cash-flow issue. As the Member stated, no employees should be concerned about their pay not being paid and such. It’s really a strictly cash-flow issue.
Mr. Speaker, we’re talking a little bit about semantics, whether FMBS pays first or Stanton pays. The bottom line is they’re not paying their bills. I’d like to ask the Minister again: if they’re not paying the $4.5 million to FMBS to address the salaries question, what are they spending that $4.5 million on?
Mr. Speaker, we should remember that we do recognize — and I agree with the Member — that we do have a serious situation with the deficit situation, and we have to work to resolve those.
The authority has a budget of about $88 million. Each payroll is about $2 million. Money comes in; money comes out. They have receivables in their budget, and they are having to pay for lots of things. It’s a cash-flow issue.
The accumulated-deficit issue is something I’m working on with the public administrator and the management of the authority.
Mr. Speaker, the problems at that hospital have been around for a number of years, going back eight years now. I don’t know how waving a magic wand and getting a public administrator in there for three months is going to address the problems.
There are some serious issues with management and the operation of that hospital that need to be addressed, and they haven’t been addressed to date. I’d like to ask the Minister: what are the plans to address the management at that hospital? That, to me, is where the problems lie.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure there is one black-and-white, short answer to that issue, and I would have to disagree with the Member that there have been major problems there for eight years.
We do agree there is an accumulated-deficit situation. The government has tried to figure out exactly where the issues are. That was the reason the zero base review was initiated last fall. When I came on board, that process was in the works. We have a preliminary report that came out in April that tells us the Stanton authority does not have the money to deliver the 53 programs as funded and running now.
For me as a Minister, instead of subjecting the authority to another extensive review of some kind, I thought it would be helpful to install a public administrator who is familiar with the operation of the hospital, who doesn’t have to study the institution for a long time. He will go in and look at the information we have now and see what structural recommendations he could make to me as a Minister so that I could make some changes as necessary and as recommended, with participation from the Standing Committee on Social Programs.
Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge, there was a public administrator there over the past number of years. I’d like to ask the question: what were the former public administrators doing, and what was the CEO doing? Why do we have to get another public administrator in there again to tell us what’s going on when we know what the problems are? It’s in management, and we have to take care of that. Can I ask the Minister that?
It is true the Stanton territorial authority has been under the oversight of public administrators, because there has not been a board since 2003. The law requires that, and we have had a series of public administrators.
What’s new about the new administrator is that he was given a very specific mandate, a very broad mandate, to go in and take advantage of his experience and knowledge of the operation as well as some of the studies we have done, such as the zero-base review, and to make recommendations to me about precise actions that need to be taken.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement today I talked about some of the problems that have been raised to me by constituents with respect to the way these position reductions were gone about. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for Human Resources: can he assure the House today that none of the potentially affected employees were singled out for some reason other than budget reductions on the part of this government?
The honourable Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the process that was followed is that departments made proposals that were reviewed by the Financial Management Board. Those decisions that were made were communicated back to the departments, and the departments wrote up the proposals in final form. The positions that were directed…. It’s my understanding that due diligence was followed and an orderly process was followed in identifying potentially affected employees.
So the Minister is saying the departments received their instructions to go and look for ways to reduce their spending, including positions being cut, and that he is confident those reductions came back in a well thought-out manner, and they did not target employees for any other reason than just the review of the program or the service that was being delivered.
In the instance, though, Mr. Speaker — I’m trying to represent my constituents — where a constituent comes and tells me they have substantial evidence that, in fact, that was the case, what recourse does that constituent have? I don’t know what to do for them. I could give them the Minister’s e-mail address — @email — and ask them if they want to send you an e-mail directly. But what recourse do these people have?
Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the Member knows my e-mail address.
Laughter.
The Department of Human Resources works very closely with all of the departments within the government. In developing the Main Estimates, we worked closely with the departments to ensure the process was followed so that all employees were dealt with fairly, and also, that the merit principle was followed in cases where there was a number of employees who were affected. For example, if there were five people who were eligible for four positions, we would want to make sure all of the employees who were affected were dealt with fairly.
If there are any cases where an employee feels they haven’t been dealt with properly, then I would encourage them to raise it with the Department of Human Resources. There is a process that has been developed with the UNW in which they can file grievances as well. So I think there are some avenues for government employees who feel they have not been dealt with fairly.
In this case that I’m referring to — and I’m not naming names — it’s particularly concerning because someone else within the same organization, with the same credentials, came forward and requested at the same time that they be granted voluntary separation. So theoretically, their application could have been approved and the person who was losing their job could have moved into that position. But the same manager who identified the person whose position was being eliminated denied the other employee from getting voluntary separation. It would seem this would have to go to some independent, outside higher authority for this kind of a situation to be managed. Is the Minister willing to hear from that constituent in which this incident occurred?
I’m quite prepared to hear from that individual. I should also point out that individuals who want to retire or are close to retirement…. We can’t be seen to be coercing them into retirement, because then it becomes a human rights issue. But our existing policies provide for voluntary separation for those individuals who are close to retirement and would like to see themselves replaced by potentially affected employees. Certainly, I would be very pleased to hear about it, because our existing policies do provide for exactly what the Member is telling me.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess what I’m speaking about is fairness and impartial decision making and analysis of some of these situations that have occurred.
To the issue of voluntary early retirement: I understand what the Minister is saying. They cannot be seen to be coercing people who have had many years of service into departing early. I understand that would be a human rights issue.
However, for those — I’m glad this is on the public record today — who would like to leave early, will the government approve that, even in the instance where it may cost some money? Because I think giving some people early retirement is going to cost less than the severance for some other people who’d like to stay.
And with the concurrence and approval of the rest of the Members of this House, I’d like to ask the Minister for the public record today if the government would be willing to expend the kind of money that would be necessary to allow people early retirement without any reduction or damage to their pension benefits, or added adjustment costs.
