Debates of May 31, 2004 (day 16)

Mr. Speaker, my information now is that the stabilization funds that we have in the Power Corporation have adequate flexibility to be able to accommodate for the higher prices for the time being, so we don’t have to pass it off to customers. Mr. Speaker, at some point, when the maximum stabilization funds are reached, then we may have to go for what’s called a rate rider to increase power. At that point, then we would have to look at issues like the Member is referring to, but it’s not a decision the Power Corporation would make itself. It would to take this to the Public Utilities Board. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 181-15(3): Rising Fuel Prices And Power Rates

Mr. Speaker, given that the NWT is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have a single pricing policy for electricity and given that the current situation with rising fuel prices is making inadequacies inherent in our policies painfully apparent, does the government have plans to get in step with the rest of Canada and charge all of its citizens the same price for electricity?

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 181-15(3): Rising Fuel Prices And Power Rates

Mr. Speaker, no, at this point in time we do not have plans to move to a one-rate system. That’s something we may, in this assembly, want to look at. I am not sure. There are no definite plans to do it. In the longer term though, we would certainly want to consider trying to achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that we do, at this time, set the prices in all of the diesel communities based on the Yellowknife price or cost of power per kilowatt for the first 700 kilowatts for all residents. That is enough to run all but larger homes, so I would hope that residents would also be careful with the consumption in their houses if they find they are going over 700. But for the first 700, it should be and will be the same as the Yellowknife rates. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Final Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 181-15(3): Rising Fuel Prices And Power Rates

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just with regard to equalizing how communities are paying for power, three years ago when it was a problem to supply electricity to Yellowknife due to low water levels, all the people in the NWT were asked to subsidize people in the capital by paying higher rates. Today when there is a problem supply of electricity in smaller communities due to rising fuel prices, as in this case, will the government be asking the people in Yellowknife to repay the favour by charging them higher rates to offset the hardships faced by smaller communities? Mahsi.

Minister responsible for the Power Corporation, Mr. Premier.

Further Return To Question 181-15(3): Rising Fuel Prices And Power Rates

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, all of the rates for the first 700 kilowatts are subsidized back to the Yellowknife price. So if we find that the prices are going up in the diesel-generated power communities, then it will be the government who will be subsidizing through our power subsidy program, not Yellowknife, but the government will be subsidizing all those communities to bring them back to the Yellowknife prices. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services with regard to the coverage for drug benefits for seniors. Mr. Speaker, recently there was a change in insurance companies. I believe it went from Sunlife to Alberta Blue Cross, I am not sure exactly. The new insurer is Alberta Blue Cross. In the process of changing this insurance coverage, many seniors are finding that their pharmaceutical products that used to be covered under the old benefits are no longer covered under the new one. Part of it is just transitional problems where the pharmacies have not been given the new list that are eligible for insurance coverage that were available under the old one. I want to make sure that this is not a change in the coverage, but just a transitional hiccup. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not there have been any changes to coverage for seniors in pharmaceutical products. Thank you.

Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 182-15(3): Supplementary Health Benefits For Seniors

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this was an administrative change to hopefully improve how the system was administered, but there was no change to the drugs or the type of pharmaceuticals covered. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 182-15(3): Supplementary Health Benefits For Seniors

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s good to know, because I have some who are watching who wanted to know what is happening here. It’s good to know there has not been a reduction in coverage of pharmaceutical products. If there is no change in policies, it appears that it really is resulting from lack of complete communication between their insurance coverage office and the pharmacies around the NWT who usually just give pharmaceutical products to seniors without taking any cash from them, so there is no need to do paperwork on the part of the seniors. Can I ask the Minister to make sure that all the pharmacies in the NWT are informed comprehensively about the list of drugs that are covered? Thank you.

Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 182-15(3): Supplementary Health Benefits For Seniors

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that all affected seniors were given a direct mail-out as were all pharmacies, but I will commit here today to ensure that the information has gotten to its destination and ensure that the information of how the changes are to be implemented are in the areas where they are supposed to be. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a new question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It has to do with my Member’s statement earlier today with regard to the new program that the government has to put more mental health and addictions workers in communities. As I indicated earlier, the qualifications being asked under the contribution agreements are such that it really is sure to exclude most local people from taking on these positions. This raises two questions. One is not being able to provide employment opportunities that are available, but secondly these are important positions that really should have community attachment and this would have a potential for alienating some of the community people. So I would like to know from the Minister what is the rationale behind this sort of requirement? Thank you.

Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out a number of years ago now, the whole area of alcohol and drug addictions and mental health was an area that was not evolving as it should, that it suffered to a certain extent from begin neglected. The attempt here is to come up with a strategy and plan that would properly compensate individuals and get some new positions put in when it comes to mental health, to standardize qualifications and to bring the participants into working with the authorities and their other colleagues and have an integrated service delivery model. The intent of the mental health area, which his highly specialized, was to come up with a standard of qualifications and criteria for work that would be reflective of what the expectations were in dealing with a whole host of very significant issues in the mental health area in the communities, working with the community wellness workers and the social workers, as well as doctors and nurses and other professionals. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say that the answer that the Minister has provided is a very good “let’s stay in the box” answer as we were warned against in our Circle of Northern Leaders meeting in Hay River. Mr. Speaker, I must state clearly for the record that I do support this program. My questions are in terms of how they are being implemented. Second of all, I do also agree that in all these positions, we need to have people who are properly trained. I am not questioning any of that. It is irresponsible of the government to roll out these programs and require these job requirements when they know, with certainty, that there will not be people in communities who can do this job. I believe getting out of the box is making sure these programs are available in our educational settings or somewhere so that people can be trained for those positions. Why hasn’t there been any thought given to that sort of an option? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, part of this process, which was supposed to be a good news story, was to recognize it. In many cases, there were incumbents in positions and incumbents who had been practising for years, incumbents with an often wide array of different training, education and skills. We want to recognize that. If my memory serves me correctly, I made a commitment in this House last week that the intent is not to lay people off. We would have a grandfathering or arrangement here, as well as doing past learning assessments on incumbents. We are in the process with the community wellness workers, as well as the mental health workers, to look at those assessments and ensure that the incumbents are given the opportunity to upgrade and that their service, experience, their northern background and community experience is recognized in this mix. So, Mr. Speaker, there has been an intent to recognize that we have to be careful how we view this, and it makes no sense to bring in or try to find people from the South when the key to delivering these programs is going to have trained northerners to do that. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister brings up a few valid points. I guess if some of these positions are going to be grandfathered, there are no further issues with respect to those incumbents who could benefit from that. But as the Minister indicated, those people who are under community wellness worker training, that’s one of the examples where it’s working. My point is there is no training available to implement this program currently in place, and the suggestion being proposed by authorities that are responsible for implementing this is if you had someone who could do this job but doesn’t meet the qualifications, bring us a proposal. My point is that that is a backwards way of doing it. I think the government should have looked into who is available out there, how many positions are we looking for, and how do we fill the gap? So I would like to ask the Minister if he has done any studies. What has the department done to look at what the needs are and what are the current incumbency rates and how does the department propose to fill the gaps? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have developed a job description. It has been classified both in terms of the criteria for the qualifications, as well as the pay. We’ve also recognized that there is work to be done at the community level we’ve attempted to tie in to the broader strategy. We know that there are incumbents. We’ve been working through the authorities, and in a majority of areas this program was rolled out successfully. There is still work to be done and we are committed to working with the authorities and communities to ensure that we do that in a careful way of recognizing that there are people with communities in those positions who have provided a very valuable service all these years. It’s not a type of service that you can just arbitrarily do away with. It should be recognized for what it is, which is a very valuable asset. We are going to work with the authorities to set up the trade. We’ve managed to develop the criteria for the community wellness workers’ training. There is training in other jurisdictions and other post-secondary institutions for the mental health side, and we are going to work to see what we can provide in the North. Thank you.

Final Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s long answer without the information I was asking for. Mr. Speaker, I need to know from the Minister if he could provide me, inside or outside of this House, information as to how many mental health and addictions workers are going to be hired under this program. How many of the incumbents would need extra training and what specific training proposals are being considered to bring in the new people? Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Minister that we approved the budget already in March. It’s high time that the department has a plan in place to implement this. Thank you.

Minister of Health and Social Services, supplementary plus one more.

Further Return To Question 183-15(3): Mental Health Addictions Program

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide the Member, through the Social Programs committee, with all the information we have as it pertains to the alcohol and drug and mental health strategy, all the information she has requested both as it applies to the community wellness workers and the mental health workers. As well, I would be happy to extend the offer for a briefing to the committee to discuss the situation and any other concerns that they may have resulting from the review of what has been implemented to date, which is now in year two. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to table, for the record, the Members’ Conduct Guidelines for the assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS discussions on devolution and constitutional reform have been ongoing for several years with little or no change resulting;

AND WHEREAS the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada continues to have authority and control over many aspects of the Northwest Territories and the operations of the Government of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS the Northwest Territories deserves a seat at the Confederation table on an equal basis with provincial governments;

AND WHEREAS there is an urgent need for the Northwest Territories to gain control over its resources and a share of the associated revenues;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that the Premier immediately signal to the people of the Northwest Territories, to this assembly and to the Prime Minister his intent to pursue provincehood for the Northwest Territories;

AND FURTHER, that the Premier begin immediately to seek the support of provincial Premiers for the Northwest Territories to become a province;

AND FURTHERMORE, that the Premier report back to this Assembly on his progress during the fall session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to speak to the motion that I put forward. Mr. Speaker, the bill of intent is an alternative to devolution. The Premier has clearly advocated to the northern leaders and in his travels, and I want to state some of his replies to a number of questions back in the early part of the session. I am just going to paraphrase a number of statements he made. He is clear about…(inaudible)…”We are looking for arrangements similar to what the provinces have where the people of the North are responsible for the land, the resources of the North and we have a fair resource revenue sharing agreement.”

He points out also that how negotiations are split between the Department of Northern Affairs who is handling the devolution of powers and the Department of Finance, which is looking after the royalty issue. This is a fatal flaw in the view of Handley who insists that the territory is not interested in seeing more responsibilities and costs without an agreement for resource revenue sharing. In finality, he says this has been going on far too long, let’s get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Inuvik Twin Lakes, as I stated in my reply to opening address, in which I stated very emphatically they want political transformation and it’s discouraging to them the time it takes the Government of Canada to make a commitment to devolution and resource revenue sharing.

I want to point out that this motion states that people want political transformation and this is one method of achieving it. The procedural format is fairly standard, Mr. Speaker. What is important in the context of this statement is that it is time to get ownership of the lands and resources and control as a Premier. There was a statement several months ago that it takes 30 to 50 years to assume ownership, but that was 100 years ago, Mr. Speaker. In today’s high tech era, it shouldn’t take that long with the way information flows back and forth. I think it’s incumbent upon ourselves as legislators in the Northwest Territories to really emphasize the need to gain ownership, otherwise we are going to be like the other two territories where they will take out the minerals, have a tremendous amount of resource revenue and at the end of the day, which could be 30 to 50 years after the lands are depleted of their wealth, we will assume the liabilities. I think that has occurred in the past with Giant Mine and perhaps this year with Con Mine. There are a number of other gold mines that are laying dormant that have environmental issues relating to them that extend not only into the Territories, but other provinces as well.

So we need to look in the context of this motion at our place in Canada that goes beyond resource and revenue sharing, but also addresses our sovereignty issue. I don’t think we are any different from Quebec. Quebec has often called for referendums to secede from Canada. I don’t think we want to go that far, but we certainly want to have the public interest of Canadians to support our ongoing initiative to try to work through to provincehood.

We also need to address the essential points, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that we need to plant a seed. Currently we sit under the federal statute. Let me cross-reference a number of issues in terms of our Legislative Assembly. The two major differences between the legislative powers of the territories and that of the powers of provincehood are the powers of the provinces to amend their constitution and control the management and sale of public lands.

The Constitution of 1982 grants each province the power to amend its own constitution. The constitution of the Northwest Territories is the Northwest Territories Act, which is a federal statute. Therefore, only the Prime Minister of Canada has the right to amend the constitution of the Northwest Territories.

That’s why it’s important, Mr. Speaker, in trying to redress our constitutional issue that we ask the Premier to take this and work with the federal government and also the Premiers to see if we can garner support for the Northwest Territories. Hopefully the Yukon and Nunavut will embrace such an undertaking and initiative.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, other addendums are in effect as well, and each province has the sale and management of public lands. Those lands in the Territories remain Crown, which is federal land. Aboriginal governments who settle land claims are also large land owners. Unlike a province, the three territories do not have the power to deal with the lands within their boundaries. That’s a key issue, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to promote and work with industry and we talk about partnerships with aboriginal governments, I don’t think we have the constitutional framework to do that. I think it really translates into a meaningless way in how we govern ourselves. We don’t want to deal in the past tense, Mr. Speaker.

We want to deal with the future, what the future of the Territories evolves into. That’s important. We need to realize that as long as we remain under a federal statute, we have no methodology to develop a way we can generate revenues outside of what is given to this government through federal/territorial transfers. I sympathize with the Minister of Finance who goes down to Ottawa and other major cities across Canada and tries to negotiate a fair financial arrangement and yet come back with approximately $3.5 million to enhance our ever-growing budget demands.

I see us working more closely with aboriginal governments and also being beneficiaries of land claim agreements, and the study of the way the process works and the transfers between the federal government and the aboriginal governments indicate strongly to me that much of the transfers circumvent the Government of the Northwest Territories. I think that’s not fair to the NWT as we often have to administer the funds through to aboriginal governments. When we do come up with critical management problems, we have nowhere to turn and we are not in a position to try to cost-share any of the program service and deliveries that we are obligated to.

So I certainly want to encourage Members of this assembly to look very closely at how we function as a government. The future of this government is again at the beck and call of federal statute of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada on the devolution of programs and services. So under the financial arrangements, we have to deal with Finance Canada, which isn’t willing to deal with the territorial government outside of what is normally given to us under transfers.

We are hearing Members of this House talk to problems of their constituents not accessing that level of service or being under funded. I believe this strongly gives us the suggestion that we need to support the motion and work through the process that is laid out under the federal jurisdiction. I want to assure the Members that we need to clearly look at where we stand in the Canadian Constitution and give our Premier and our Ministers the capability of sitting down face to face and having some powers. The systematic approach we want to take is going to be cost-beneficial to the Northwest Territories, not only to ourselves but to the residents.

I see it as a long-term plan, but today we need to begin to plant the seed, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure the Premier that certainly from the riding of Inuvik Twin Lakes and hopefully the rest of the Members will join in in supporting our government to assume some of those powers beyond just turning over responsibility to our constituents which, at the end of the day, will be confronted with huge fiscal deficits and having to mitigate future cost controls in terms of how we provide that level of service.

Again, I wanted to speak briefly. I had spoken briefly to the level of intent to the Constitution Act of 1982 and laid out some format of how we should proceed with it, giving the Premier the mandate to move out on this very large, but very important initiative on behalf of at least my riding, as the mover. I will speak again at the conclusion of the debate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess I am sad about this motion. Mr. Allen asked me to consider seconding the motion. Mr. Speaker, I heard that in order to get to the Promised Land, we have to negotiate our way out of the bushes. So I look at this as an opportunity with the Northwest Territories being the promised land because of the potential wealth that we have in the Northwest Territories and the amount of wealth that the federal government takes from the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a unique position. There are unique circumstances in the Northwest Territories. The way it’s structured right now, it seems that it may not be a good place to have provincehood. However, we have the means and the dynamics in the North. There are many changes happening in Canada, where some of the provinces look favourably upon the North in terms of having some unique approaches to looking at provincehood.

Devolution is a big issue for the Sahtu. I did some canvassing in the Sahtu region and they basically said that it would be a good idea to look at some of the options of provincehood. Maybe it would have benefits for us, maybe not. It may work against it. At least have a dream, and Mr. Allen has agreed to planting the seeds for our people in terms of growing up with the big boys in the Confederation of Canada. Right now, we are a territory and there is some perception that we are at arm’s length of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, an administrative arm of the federal government. In some other areas, it shows we have come into some maturity as a territory and could be looked at as a province. That will take some support from this government and some other governments here across Canada.

I guess I am supporting the motion so that we can have a seat at the Confederation table. We are more than a territory and it’s about time we started looking at having some discussions with our people in the Northwest Territories in terms of having the Northwest Territories become a unique province in the Confederation of Canada. This is gaining control of resources and administering our resources and looking at the revenues that could stay in the Northwest Territories. I would like to keep all the resources, but I understand a huge load of it goes to Ottawa. They have some instances where they distribute the money back to the Northwest Territories.

However, through my six months of being in the House here, it seems we are not getting anything. The needs of the North are so big that we are barely scraping the bottom. We have lots of needs in the North such as housing, health, education. We need to have more power to give more benefits to the people. I think unless we go to Canada and send a message to our people that it’s high time that the Northwest Territories takes a meaningful look at all the options, have some meaningful meetings in the Northwest Territories and in the regions and look at the big picture in terms of having this territory come to fruition in terms of the unique provincehood style.

These are my points in supporting the motion that Mr. Allen put forward. Thank you.

To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short comment on my position on this motion. I have supported the introduction of this motion in this House because I do believe it is a topic worthy of discussion and my honourable colleague from Inuvik Twin Lakes has been working diligently to advance this item. I thought it was a good idea to have it out here and to get feedback from the Members and to get our position known to the people and parties outside of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I will not be supporting this motion as it is written in terms of what it is asking. I believe firmly and I am sure that we, as a territory, will evolve into a province. I think we can make very good arguments that the discussions we are having on land claim settlements and self-government negotiations, resource revenue sharing negotiations and negotiations on devolution are all different segments that are leading us to that end result. It may have different names, it may be a different process, but I believe we are taking steps to garner more province-like responsibilities and control from Ottawa and that eventually we will get there.

I think though the reason I am not able to support this motion is my sense is that there is lack of consensus in the Territories about whether or not this is one we would like to put on our territorial agenda. We do have a lot of very heavy items on our territorial agenda and I am not prepared at the moment to ask the Premier and this legislature to push this item to the forefront.

Secondly, I must tell you that I have not heard a lot of interest among the people of Range Lake -- maybe it will change after today and I will get a slew of phone calls from everybody demanding provincehood -- in my conversations with my constituents as this being on the top of the agenda.

A third reason is it’s quite functional and practical. That is, I do not believe we have enough population in this territory to be able to function as a province yet. I am not sure if we are looking for a territory of 200,000 people or something. I don’t know what is the magic number that would warrant provincehood, but there is a need for a critical mass of population size. One of the prime aspects of provincehood is there has to be an adequate tax base for that government to function on its own resources. I understand with our resource revenues and such, that we may be able to do that, but I don’t believe, given the population that we have now, that there will be enough of a tax base for us to warrant that.

I do believe all the issues that are being brought up by Mr. Allen and the seconder of the motion, Mr. Yakeleya, are very valid and those are questions we debate and contend with on a daily basis. I do believe that we are heading toward provincehood or something very much like it. But at this time I will not be supporting the motion to ask the Premier to put this on the forefront of his agenda. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the mover and the seconder for providing an opportunity to debate this important point. With that said, Members of Cabinet will be voting against this motion and we take this position for a number of quite practical reasons.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, keeping with the spirit of intent of settled land claims and self-government agreements, as well as ongoing negotiations, the GNWT has chosen to work in partnership with aboriginal leaders to pursue expanded jurisdiction over land, water and resources in the Northwest Territories through devolution negotiations. We’ve worked hard to achieve consensus with our partners at the table and the recent signing of the devolution framework agreement is a signal of some significant progress being made in our negotiations. We believe that the current devolution negotiations provide the best opportunity for gaining greater control over land and resources in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, historical precedence demonstrates that attaining provincehood does not guarantee control over land resources or resource revenues. Manitoba became a province in 1870 and they didn’t get control over their land resources until the 1930s. Saskatchewan and Manitoba were created in 1905. They didn’t get control over land and resources until the 1930s, well after they were established. So going to provincehood doesn’t automatically give you control over land resources and resource revenue.

Second, there is significant fiscal uncertainty in pursuing the provincehood option. As a province, we would be subject to existing equalization payments. Equalization payments are based not on population, but on revenue-raising capacity and do not take into account the cost of providing government services and programs. The formula financing arrangements, as much as we don’t like it and find weakness with it, does consider the higher cost of providing programs and services in the Northwest Territories and it provides an expenditure base that gives us more money on a per capita basis than we would likely receive through equalization. It gives us considerably more, probably three times as much as we would get if we were to become a province that would be on equalization.

Then, Mr. Speaker, as well, attaining provincial status for the Northwest Territories would require an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. Under the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act of 1982, this would require the consent of Parliament and Senate, as well as two-thirds of the provinces that together have at least 50 percent of the population of all of the provinces. Securing the consent that would likely be necessary to create a new province of the Northwest Territories would probably prove to be impossible.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, Cabinet doesn’t feel that this is the time to change courses and give up our working partnership with aboriginal governments and go on our own and start lobbying for provincehood. It doesn’t give us what some people may think it would give us and, secondly, and most important in my view, is that we have set a course with the aboriginal governments and we want to continue to work that way until it’s proven that seeking devolution and resource revenue sharing as a territory just is not getting us where we want to be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.