Debates of May 31, 2005 (day 5)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously, I think the Minister just stated that he hasn’t done any consultation. ECE wasn’t consulted. Regular Members weren’t consulted. Who exactly was consulted or have the folks in his department been busy the last week just putting together a chronology of events? If that’s all we are going to get, Madam Speaker, that’s not good enough. I would like to say to the Minister, prove that moving the TTC to Hay River is the right move. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, clearly in this case, as the saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding. So we will move the program and it will be demonstrated that it was a good move. To speak ahead of time is hypothetical. I can also speak with some assurance that I could never, at this point, in my mind, be able to adequately convince the Members from Yellowknife that moving this program met their rigorous standing or their desire to make sure they protect their constituents. Thank you.

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

Supplementary To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. How could the Minister make the assertion that moving this program will have no impact on the clients when we haven’t seen anything in terms of what the impact is going to be and the needs of the clients are going to be in terms of speech therapy, paediatric support, ideology, psychology and other educational needs? These children need responsiveness. They need action right now. If they are in a setting where they can’t get that and they have to take a flight to Yellowknife and try to get squeezed into an appointment three months from now, that’s not good enough, Madam Speaker. I would like the Minister to answer that question. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the majority of these children are going to come from communities outside of Yellowknife and many smaller communities, communities that may struggle just to have a nurse, let alone the range of services that we are discussing in this House that may be available in Yellowknife or Hay River. The services the children need will be available in Hay River or there will be arrangements made to access them in Yellowknife. If you look at the work plan and the plan for Health and Social Services for the next two years, the plan is to re-establishment rehabilitation teams that are going to service the territory. There will be one based in the South Slave, one based in Yellowknife, in addition to the people who are already here and there will be one based in Inuvik. It’s going to have ideologists, speech pathologists, therapists, occupational therapists and such so that we can start providing those services better outside of Yellowknife. Thank you.

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

Supplementary To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister if he would be able to produce a report that was done last year by FSC on the structural integrity of the current TTC facility. Was his decision solely a political decision, or a decision based on a physical piece of infrastructure that is not worth fixing up? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, there are a number of factors that were discussed over the last few days. Very clearly, the government, as I stated in this House, has a position and a policy on decentralization and looking at trying to move things out of Yellowknife that is equitable, fair and spreads some of the government resources around. This program can be provided outside of Yellowknife. There is a community, Hay River, that has that capacity. The program is just going to be moved. It’s not being dismantled. It’s not being structurally changed. The contractor has indicated that they are very willing to work with us to provide that service. We’ve taken the steps to ensure that this will be done in a careful, measured way and we are going to follow through on that. Thank you.

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

Supplementary To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with the Minister that the government could look at moving some jobs and some things outside of the capital city. I agree with decentralization as a principle of this government, but why would you do something with a program that affects children and families and most of the referrals are out of this region and north of the city of Yellowknife? I don’t understand the rationale behind that. If you want to move government jobs, that’s one thing, but when you start messing around with a program that is supposed to help children and families, then I have to take issue with that. I would like to follow up on what one of my colleagues was mentioning earlier. The information we were supposed to get, we are going to get that today. I thought I heard the Minister say that. Can he confirm that we will get the information he has today? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 54-15(4): Consultation Process For Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For the record, we should be absolutely, categorically, unequivocally and starkly clear that we are not messing around with the program. We are moving the program as it exists to another community with the same contractor, with the same skills and with access to the same resources to do that. I want to point out the majority of children who access TTC are from outside of Yellowknife. We will provide the information as was promised, and if it’s insufficient I am sure that I will be getting direct feedback from the Members and if it is insufficient we’ll try to fill in what gaps the Members may think still exist. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Although I wish I could ask a housing question today, I’ve been pressured to ask some TTC questions. So, Madam Speaker, I will be asking questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger, in regard to the costs associated with moving the TTC in Yellowknife to Hay River. As all of us know, Dene K’onia is a jail, cinder block, bars; it’s a jail. So what is going to be the premium that he thinks is no big deal to transfer anything south or anywhere else out of Yellowknife? What is the total premium it’s going to cost us to renovate the Dene K’onia so it’s no longer a cinder block and bar facility, but it’s a proper treatment centre for these youth? What is the total cost of this? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Return To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this facility will be renovated with the money that was in the budget initially when TTC was here. An initial plan a number of years ago was to renovate this one, and that figure is in the $3 million range. That money will be used to renovate Dene K’onia, and the estimates that we have from Public Works and Services are that it can be done for that money.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I say this with respect, but I wish the Minister had that type of vision maybe to open up our treatment centre here in Yellowknife. We don’t have a Territorial Treatment Centre open. We could have spent that $3.3 million or whatever the actual dollars are. Why don’t we open a facility that this community is in desperate need of, because we have communities sending folks with problems to Yellowknife and they’re getting them out of the community? The cost is unreasonable. So how much is it now going to cost us if we spend $3.3 million in Hay River to renovate Dene K’onia now to fly these kids back to Yellowknife for that treatment as mentioned by one of the Members about the psych treatment, the ped treatment, the audiology treatment? How much extra a premium is this government willing to pay when we could have better spent this money by continuing to deliver a stable service here in Yellowknife? But no, we’re going to spend more money. So how much more money of a premium are we going to spend? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it’s not anticipated that we’re going to be paying a premium in the range that my colleague seems to be implying. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Are the airlines giving free tickets to these kids that have to come to treatment? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, for that question, you’d have to talk to the airlines, I can assure you.

---Applause

Thank you. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t know if I have to say any more. It’s proof that we haven’t obviously thought this out. It’s proof that the consultant hasn’t spoken to the people who have been impacted. It’s proof that no one has spoken to the families or the staff that run these programs, and its proof that we haven’t spent any effort at looking what the full cost of this is going to be. Would the Minister commit to looking up that information and trying to prove to me and some of my good colleagues if this is worth it, if it is viable, if it is even smart? Would the Minister commit to investigating that this is a cost benefit to this government? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 55-15(4): Cost Of Moving The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the implication would be that Cabinet just makes half-cocked decisions. There is a lot of work put into this. This issue has been on the table for many, many months and it has been made after careful and hard consideration, recognizing the implications. Yes, we’ve taken, I think, appropriate care and caution, and in a measured way made this decision. We’ll provide the information, and we’re going to come forward with more detail in the business plan, and we would be more than willing to have the discussion on that detail when we hit that process. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Before I proceed with the next person on the list for oral questions, I just want to caution Members in the language you are using today when you are characterizing the children who may be residents in the TTC at this time. It is a small group. This is a forum which they would have access to and I’ve heard comments like very, very severe challenges and other words used to characterize this. I know that you are not naming specific individuals, but I just want to be careful that we do not use language that offends those people who may be there for treatment. This would be counterproductive for them to hear comments like that.

---Applause

Mahsi, Madam Speaker. A good point you raised on the Dene K’onia future. My questions here today are to our Premier with respect to devolution negotiations that are going on and the current resource revenue sharing negotiations that are going on with the federal government alongside with the Aboriginal Summit in tow. One of the big barriers to the negotiation process, I guess, seems to be hindered by the lack of recognition by this government to legitimately or formally recognize the aboriginal governments in the NWT as legitimate public developing governments and new public governments as the case is with the Tlicho. We’re going to assume great responsibility within their regions in the near future. I just want to know what the Premier is going to do to alleviate some of the bureaucratic foot dragging that has been going on with the negotiation process in order to accommodate a better partnership building arrangement between this government and the developing and newly formed aboriginal governments in the NWT. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The honourable Premier responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure what the Member is referring to when he’s talking about foot dragging. We have negotiations that are going on between the federal government, territorial government and the aboriginal governments on devolution and resource revenue sharing. There are some differences of positions between each of the three parties. We don’t refer to the aboriginal government or federal government as foot dragging. I think those are the characteristics of good negotiations that each party will put offers on the table, each party will be willing to compromise and think of creative ways. We certainly will do that. We don’t issue ultimatums. We simply want to have good, solid negotiations happening. We have respect for the aboriginal governments as representatives of their people and at the table they are represented by the Aboriginal Summit, and I assume the aboriginal governments provide direction to the summit and we honour that.

As far as recognizing aboriginal governments as public governments, there is a process for doing that. In the case of the Tlicho, that was part of their settlement. In other situations we have negotiations going on whereby aboriginal governments are negotiating for what we refer to as self-government where they will take on the provision of public government services. I certainly welcome any aboriginal government to begin negotiations on self-government if they choose to go that route. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Premier, for that reply. I’ll just rephrase that question. I guess the point I was trying to make is the territorial government just doesn’t seem to be too enthusiastic about the whole devolution process as far as aboriginal governments that are going to be coming on stream here in the next 10 years. It seems like the bureaucracy of the GNWT is really digging their heels in when it comes to passing down or devolving a little bit of authority down to the community level, and to the regional level, and to the future aboriginal governments that are going to be coming on line. I think it’s high time that this government actually started moving this process forward and getting the people in the public service to realize that, yes, they are going to have to move either to these regional governments, because these regional authorities are going to be incorporated into these aboriginal governments that are going to be coming on line, and I think it’s time that we start this process today and not when the land claims agreements are signed.

So I just want to ask that maybe the Premier can make the commitment to the aboriginal governments, both new and the developing governments in our territory today, that he will make every conceivable effort to ensure that these aboriginal governments are viewed and respected in the same manner that any other provincial or territorial or international government is viewed by this government, and that the goal of achieving maybe an AIP in June perhaps would be a reality. But more importantly, achieving mutually agreeable, resourceful and respectful working relationships with future aboriginal governments so that we can all be proud of this government’s achievement in just sort of getting the ball rolling in getting these aboriginal governments up and running. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have to distinguish between negotiations on devolution and negotiations on self-government. Devolution is the transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the territorial and aboriginal governments. We are ourselves, as a territorial government, and the aboriginal governments, at the table. We each have to negotiate our own positions and I think we have been very effective in doing that.

Self-government is another process altogether. Deline, Tulita, the Beaufort-Delta have entered into self-government negotiations and, as I said, I welcome any aboriginal government who chooses to do so, to begin the process of negotiating self-government. That is how they become public governments.

In the meantime, Madam Speaker, when we negotiate with the federal government, then we are negotiating as a territorial government, we are negotiating to take those responsibilities that are currently held by the federal government on as a public government. Should aboriginal governments want to take those on, they can negotiate with us, but that’s a separate process.

Madam Speaker, again I would like to emphasize that we have gone a long ways and without getting into all the detail of negotiations, there are some differences between ourselves and the aboriginal governments or the Aboriginal Summit on things like resource revenue sharing, and we have gone a long ways towards in fact arguing with the federal government to provide a percentage of resource revenues to the aboriginal governments even before they take on self-government. But there is only so far we can go because we have to use those revenues to be able to finance and fund the public institutions that we’re responsible for, and until somebody else takes over the education system or the health system or the housing responsibilities, we can’t negotiate all the money away or we’ll be left with no ability to deliver our services. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the fact that this government doesn’t want to negotiate all the dollars away. The point I want to make is that when the federal and territorial governments are negotiating resource revenue sharing and the aboriginal governments want their direct fiscal benefits coming from the federal level right to the aboriginal government in their respective regions, why is that an issue with this government if they want to help their aboriginal people who have been deprived of education, health, housing and help those aboriginal governments, bring those people up, those aboriginal resources that they have, bring them up to a level of capacity where they can actually start to move and take on more government responsibilities from this House and directly from the federal level. So is this a mandate of the devolution and resource revenue sharing agreement, or is this something that’s totally separate as a self-government negotiating item? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Premier Handley.

Further Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Madam Speaker, through the devolution and resource revenue sharing negotiations, the transfer of any resource revenues is being negotiated to come to that government that is responsible for delivering the service. We deliver education, housing, justice and so on. We have to have the money transferred to us to be able to do that on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories.

As I said, Madam Speaker, if an aboriginal government wants to negotiate self-government, they just have to apply to us. Tulita just recently applied to us saying we want to negotiate self-government. I don’t know exactly what programs they want to take over, but when a government does that we welcome it, we reply, we put a team together and we begin negotiations. So I encourage every government in the Northwest Territories, every aboriginal government, to begin the process of negotiating self-government if they want to go that route and be responsible for delivery of programs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Final supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can understand the Premier’s point that the resource revenue is going to go to the government that delivers the service. But if the service that they’re delivering is not meeting the needs of these communities and these regions that are going to be operating under their own self-government, why is it an issue for this government to say well, yes, we’re delivering the base issues of every service, we deliver that, but it just doesn’t meet the community needs? That’s what we’ve been told here for the last few months by all the communities in all the outlying regions except Yellowknife, that the needs aren’t being met. So why is it a problem to give these regions dollars to help bring these services up to a better respectable level? Where the government can’t deliver on housing for instance, why can’t these aboriginal governments get their own money to deliver housing that this government can’t deliver on? That’s just one example I want to make, and I want to get what this government’s view is on that perspective of resource revenue sharing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Premier Handley.

Further Return To Question 56-15(4): Devolution And Resource Revenue Sharing Negotiations

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a fixed amount of money to work with, and all of us here, as 19 MLAs, every year review a budget that will decide how much money is going to housing and education and so on. So whether that meets the needs fully is a value judgment that people will make because they may not be 100 percent happy with the service, but we are doing the best we can as 19 MLAs to provide the best service possible within the money we have.

If an aboriginal government, I’ll say it again, if an aboriginal government wants money to deliver the service itself, then it should enter into self-government negotiations with us and we’d be happy to consider that kind of request.

As far as getting more money, that’s why we’re negotiating resource revenue sharing with the federal government. We want a share of the resources that are leaving this territory. We’re not going to accept a bad deal; we’re not going to make a bad deal. We want a deal that gives us more money to be able to more adequately meet the needs of the people in this territory. None of us, though, have a money tree. There’s no such thing as a pile of money out there that people can just access. We’re going to have to work together and continue to collaborate in our negotiations with the federal government, and we both win as aboriginal governments and as a territorial government. But again, Madam Speaker, I say if aboriginal governments want to take over housing or whatever program it may be, then let’s start self-government negotiations. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my Member’s statement, I spoke about the meeting between the honourable Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources and Industry, Tourism and Investment and the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in and Tlicho leaders. At this meeting, Madam Speaker, we touched briefly on the Wildlife Act, but the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Tlicho and Sahtu would like to put their efforts into drafting a Species at Risk Act. My question, Madam Speaker, is to the Honourable Michael Miltenberger, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, on whether his department is drafting legislation on this other act. If not, when will he direct his department to move on the act for discussion for the claimant groups? Thank you, Madam Speaker.