Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask questions of the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. Since devolution seems to be the lynchpin of this government’s thinking, I’ll start by asking about the process and effects of federal environmental actions on our future ability to manage our resources.
While critical final negotiations are underway, the federal government is changing the apparatus used to evaluate and regulate development. The one-board proposal, imposition of unsubstantiated deadlines and so on. How are we being treated by the federal government? Are they working with us on this or are they treating us as regular stakeholders? Or are they recognizing that we are governments with pending authority for responsibility on land and resource management?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are at the table with the federal government negotiating devolution. This issue has been on the table, the regulatory reform issue has been on the table for some time. The federal government has made it clear they intend to make some dramatic changes. They’ve laid those out, as the Member has indicated. We have our own position that we have laid out that was public, it was on the website, that was dissimilar to the one put forward by the federal government. However, the federal government has indicated their intention to proceed.
Thanks for the Minister’s remarks there. I guess, how about the money as well? There are now dedicated budgets for a regional board structure. They may be minimal but they are still providing support for limited regional board operations. Devolution negotiations started on the basis of those amounts. Will that money remain in place? The amount? Is this government insisting that the budgets in place before the AIP or at the time of the AIP being signed will be protected for full transfer under the Devolution Agreement?
The numbers agreed to for the A-based funding, which the Member is referring to, which is to compensate and offset the cost of taking over all the positions and programs, is in the neighbourhood of I think $63 million. That is the figure that is enshrined in the agreement-in-principle and that is the figure that we are negotiating for that is part of that, as is the other part of that financial equation, which is the resource royalty sharing, which will be about $60,000 this year, which was up to 5 percent of our gross expenditure base, up to 5 percent of their gross expenditure base. Those figures are set and, as far as I’m aware, there is no change to that. What’s being negotiated is all the other detail related to devolution. Thank you.
I think the Minister meant to say $60 million rather than $60,000 there, but I appreciate those comments. At the time of the AIP we apparently accepted to take over mirror legislation, federal legislation. Obviously, this government has had a lot of problems with the federal legislation or we wouldn’t be after it to change it; we’d be happily going along our way. We do want to make changes that recognize the unique northern perspective. We have been told at the Premier level many times that we can and will be able to modify the mirrored legislation once it’s adopted and the final agreement is complete. But others in authority at the federal level have indicated that we will not have that option and we will be stuck with that mirror legislation. I wonder if the Minister can assure me and bring some clarity to this that we will indeed be able to modify this legislation. Mahsi.
My understanding is if there’s an agreement for mirror legislation, that once we take it over it becomes territorial legislation. If we, in fact, end up with a process where the federal legislation stays in place and we accept the role of delegated authority from the federal legislation, then clearly the federal government would have the final say since it’s their legislation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could just get the Minister to repeat the last part of that. It sounded like the federal government retains the ability to require that that legislation be unchanged. Maybe I could get some clarity on that one.
My last and final question would be: Given the announcement that we’re going to do a public consultation on a land use and sustainability framework, what funds are available to carry out that consultation and how will it be done? Thank you.
In regard to the initial question that the Member asked me to repeat, there are basically two tracks when it comes to the regulatory reform. What’s happened in the Yukon is they just accepted delegated authority from the federal government, keeping the federal legislation in place and they just administer that legislation which, of course, makes any type of amendments very difficult.
The other track is one where there’s mirrored legislation where there’s an agreement to develop northern legislation that would mirror the current federal legislation, a similar process that was used when division between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories happened, and then it becomes territorial legislation but mirroring the federal legislation. That way there would be, over time, if there was a decision in the North by Northerners that amendments were needed to that mirror legislation or other mirror legislation, it would be a process that Northerners would engage in.
In terms of the money that’s available for the consultation, I don’t have that information. I haven’t yet even seen the consultation schedule, but I will commit that that information will be provided to Members when we have it available. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice. I want to ask the Minister of Justice, when we had our meeting in Colville Lake, the people in Colville Lake wanted to ask the Minister how can his department, where can his department find some creativity to work with the people in Colville Lake on the reintegration program. They have young inmates that are incarcerated, that come back to the community, and they want to do more than just ship them back to the community after they’ve done their time at the correctional facility. When or how or where, what can the Minister do to talk to the people or meet with the people to introduce a new or some exciting reintegration program with the community of Colville Lake or any other community, as a matter of fact?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I visited Colville Lake with the Member, the community members did indicate that they’d like to work on some sort of reintegration plan to have inmates from Colville Lake transition back into the community. There wasn’t a lot of talk about the detail, but since then I have received a letter from the chief and council of Colville Lake and we are in the process of drafting a response to that letter saying that we’re very interested in actually finding some way to work together, or actually just working together to develop some sort of reintegration plan in cooperation completely with the chief and council of Colville Lake. Thank you.
Could I ask the Minister when can the community of Colville Lake and the Department of Justice sit down together and look at a community reintegration program and have them come forward possibly for the business plans to look at where there’s going to be some dedicated resources and dollars put to work. Maybe this could be a pilot project for the other communities in bringing back the communities to a more responsible role other than just being a disturbance to the community.
I believe the draft response to the community’s letter is actually in my signing book up in my office. We, obviously, would like to have some representatives of the department meet with the representatives in Colville Lake to start discussing exactly what they mean by reintegration program, finding out what the community can contribute or offer as far as resources or what their ultimate plan would be. We have to make sure that all safety and security issues are dealt with. But I’d like to get the department working with Colville Lake sooner rather than later, so I’ll talk to the department and get some specific dates and share those dates with the Member.
I look forward to the day where the community and the Department of Justice can sign a joint letter saying this is what we want to do and this is where we could help our people.
In the letter it talks about the inmates coming back from the institution and coming back to the communities and ending up doing nothing. They want to do a program on the land, because they believe that there they’ll learn about responsibility and respect through the community. I want to ask the Minister when, between now and the business plans, that the community of Colville Lake can see his officials going to Colville Lake and start hammering out together a joint process where they could both say yes, this is what we want to do and bring it towards the government here for approval of the business plans.
What’s in the letter is exactly what I heard when I was in Colville Lake, that they want to have some sort of reintegration plan that maybe starts with a bit of an on-the-land program and then bringing them back into the communities. I want my department to meet with representatives of Colville Lake, the individuals who sent the letter, sooner rather than later, but I think we need to have a conversation with them as to when would be the best time for us to go and meet them. I think some of the initial discussions can start by distance, but there’s definitely going to be a need for them to get together and sit face to face. I’d like to see that done this summer or in the fall, for sure. I can’t confirm a date because we need to have that conversation with the chief and council in Colville first.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about the need for some type of regulation over tanning equipment, whether it’s beds, booths or even lamps that people use for cosmetic purposes. The risk out there is not only well known but it’s certainly proven. My question for the Minister of Health and Social Services today is: Is his department aware of the types of risks associated with indoor tanning and if they are, what are they doing out there to protect our youth? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the department is aware of the dangers of sun tanning on a tanning bed, and the department is currently developing regulations under the Public Health Act. Thank you.
When is it anticipated that the regulations will be coming forward for some type of dialogue, whether it is through MLAs or certainly out to the public? There is public out there who do want these types of things. They would certainly find that this is good news that this is something being worked on by the government. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the regulations will include banning the use of tanning beds by minors and also requiring an establishment to have health warnings posted, and those regulations are expected to be done early this summer and enforced within six months. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, that is certainly good news by all accounts. When can we expect some type of public dialogue on this change of thinking? I don’t believe that tanning is a good thing, but many people will want some type of public discussion on this, at least information on the issues and changes coming forward. Quite simply put, is there a public component to the shifts in policy thinking? How does the public get more information? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure we are going to do public consultation on the changes to the public act concerning sun tanning, but we can provide other methods of communications to the public on these changes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn’t want the Minister to mix this point up, which is I am certainly in favour of the regulation change. But wouldn’t legislation be more of a smarter approach, as well, as it almost seems as if the public is going to be told this is not allowed anymore as opposed to be informed or given a little bit of information in advance? It seems counterproductive for the style of government we would normally have. It seems as if the public component is being left out. I am happy with the direction but my point has been made. Thank you.
I think that it’s going to be like banning minors from using the beds and there will be warnings posted for others who continue to use it. Individuals for that will be advised that they are not allowed to use the beds or just warn that using the beds could be an issue. We will be communicating that through a press release or something of that nature as opposed to taking this legislation on the road. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As much as I would like to continue questioning the Minister of Health on some of these questions, this is a bigger issue. It comes down to the Business Incentive Policy. My question today is for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. I just want to know, when RFPs come through to the government, who scores the BIP process of that RFP. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for that question. I’m glad to have an opportunity to talk about the Business Incentive Policy. That is a policy of the GNWT. We certainly have that under our mandate of ITI, but when it comes to evaluating RFPs, it is left up to each department to oversee the implementation of the Business Incentive Policy. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, so I guess it is kind of safe to say that when the BIP process is being scored, they are not scored the same from department to department or person to person or committee to committee, so there are some discrepancies on how this BIP policy actually works in all the departments within this government.
How can the Minister justify that a local company loses a contract to a southern company when the whole objective of the BIP process is to allow our local contractors a greater chance of securing these contracts and keeping the money in the North as well as creating jobs for our northern people? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member. I think that is first and foremost with the Business Incentive Policy, is to keep money in the North, to keep jobs in the North.
Back in 2010 there was extensive consultation with the business community in the Northwest Territories on some revisions to the Business Incentive Policy. One of those revisions back in 2010 was the definition of NWT content which allows bid adjustments. In the case of services, one of those changes was NWT resident labour. In this case, that was applied to the RFP but we have to remember that was only 20 percent of the overall RFP. There was methodology, past relevant experience, contract schedule fees and expenses. It is certainly something we have to pay attention to, but that change was brought into effect to help protect jobs in the Northwest Territories.
In this instance, it would appear that, yes, it is protecting jobs because the contractor is going to employ local people, but if you follow the dollars, that contractor is located in Red Deer, Alberta, and the contract money would be going south. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about being transparent and this government preaches transparency. Would the Minister be willing to look at making all contracts that come through this government and through the departments and the process of the BIP, when those scores come out, if he is willing to make those public so that all contractors and the public know where their tax dollars are being spent, and how this government reviews the BIP policy, and whether or not they are being effective and efficient in awarding the contracts to the right people? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Business Incentive Policy is a policy of the Government of the Northwest Territories. If Members of this House want to revisit the Business Incentive Policy, is there a loophole here that allowed a southern company to get a contract in Inuvik? If that is the case, then if Members of this House want to have another look at the Business Incentive Policy, it is under the purview of this Assembly to do that.
I understand the Member’s concerns. I want to let him know and other Members know that we are willing to work with Members to try to shore up the policy so that situations like this don’t arise again. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad that the Minister had mentioned that. In speaking with my constituent, all he wanted was fairness. He wanted fairness for all northern contractors and he wanted to be a voice to say look, there is something wrong with this process. He wants any northern contractors who lose a contract within this government to seek answers and not just accept it for what it is. That is a message to all northern contractors to look for answers and know why they didn’t win the contracts.
With that said, I would like to ask the Minister if he is willing to do an overall training within departments on how this Business Incentive Policy is scored. Is he willing to do that training so that all departments know how to score a Business Incentive Policy and we don’t go through this again in the future? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that level of training already happens across government, but certainly in questioning my colleague Minister Beaulieu earlier, Minister Beaulieu had committed to a post-mortem on this situation.
Certainly from ITI’s perspective, the department responsible for the Business Incentive Policy, we will be taking an active role in that post-mortem and sitting down with the Members to examine this situation and going forward to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got one written question today.
Would the Minister of Transportation please provide details for all negotiated, sole-source or similar types of contracts which are being arranged or have been entered into since he became Minister of Transportation? Please include specific details such as prices, location, scope of work and successful contractors for the past three years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
