Debates of October 20, 2004 (day 24)

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 263-15(3): Sustainability Of The Diamond Industry

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is right in that we have agreements with Ekati and with Rio, although I guess I would probably add that they’re more like understandings as opposed to specific contracts that we knew would be very difficult to enforce. In fact I think we realized early on we needed the companies to want to leave the diamonds here. We needed them to be willing participants in this venture. For the most part, I think they have been. I think it’s been very successful. Aber is complying with the spirit and the intent of the value-added industry here, as the Member knows, by supplying the Laurelton factory owned by Tiffany. We’ve just completed, some months ago, the socioeconomic agreement with De Beers that speaks to how they will comply with the spirit and intent of this industry. The specific details are yet to be worked out and are confidential, so I hesitate to get into that in the House. We do have an agreement with De Beers that they will be involved in this industry in some respect, but those details have yet to be worked out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 263-15(3): Sustainability Of The Diamond Industry

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I take it from the Minister’s answer that we still don’t have an arrangement with De Beers that we have any confidence in. Respecting that some of these negotiations are in confidence, I’d like the Minister to see if he could give us some more sense of comfort and security that indeed De Beers does believe in helping to invest in the northern economy. Are they at least onside with that principle? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 263-15(3): Sustainability Of The Diamond Industry

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They are onside with that principle. As the Member knows, they made a number of commitments in this regard through the environmental process. I can assure the Member that those commitments are going to be lived up to and the CEAA will speak to that and does speak to that. The other point I would make is that I don’t believe the De Beers board has made a final construction decision on the Snap Lake mine yet. We hope that’s to come in the coming months and I think that will be a very significant event when and if we have that behind us. I assume that we will; I’m looking forward to that. De Beers is very interested in being involved in the Northwest Territories and in supporting this industry. I’m looking forward to their participation. I don’t want to get into the details because they have been agreed upon in confidence and obviously there are issues that are very sensitive for De Beers in terms of the business being very competitive and I don’t want to divulge any of that. I can assure the Member that they are very serious and very interested in being involved in this industry in the North and will be supporting the industry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Your final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 263-15(3): Sustainability Of The Diamond Industry

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to confirmation of De Beers’ participation. This is something that, I think, through the messages we’re sending here, that we must not entertain a significant development here that is not going to result in a net benefit for the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, on the broader scale of the National Diamond Strategy, could the Minister outline just what benefit is coming to the Northwest Territories from our involvement at the national level? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 263-15(3): Sustainability Of The Diamond Industry

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try to keep the responses as short as I can and save going into the history of how this came about from the Council of the Federation and just indicate that we’ve agreed on a number of thrusts in the National Diamond Strategy. There are several priorities that I think will greatly benefit the North. We know that it isn’t the intention of the NDS to speak to the creation or the development of a multi-stakeholder body that will assist in coordinating and implementing the strategy. The issues in the strategy that are of critical importance to us, I think, are the development of a national certification or authentication process; also, development of approaches with respect to tax and fiscal incentives. Lastly, and I think this is a very interesting one, the development of a network of centres of excellence. A number of issues that are obviously relevant to the Northwest Territories is we’re the only diamond producing jurisdiction in the country currently. We think there will be others in future, but it’s important for us to be involved not only to share our expertise, but to make sure that the North benefits from this industry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise with questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I’m going to bring to his attention the tabled document 2004 Report from the Auditor General that was tabled last week. Mr. Speaker, I read section three the other day and I was quite surprised -- which would be no surprise, I’m sure, to that Minister -- by the fact that the territorial government is bankrolling some of the responsibilities of the federal government to the tune of for the year 2003 almost $25.4 million for services that the federal government is responsible for. The territorial government is on limited funding, Mr. Speaker, so this shouldn’t be happening. Could the Minister tell me and this House how much is outstanding to date under the responsibility of the federal government for financing their responsibilities? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Is your question to the honourable Premier? Oh, Mr. Miltenberger. Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don’t have an exact figure on hand, but I would like to note that the Member has raised a very important issue. It’s one that I know the Premier has raised at his tables. I’ve raised it since my tenure as the Minister of Health and Social Services with the three federal Health Ministers that I’ve had the privilege of working with over the last three years. It’s also an issue for the other two territories. It’s hopefully one of the issues that will be put on the table if we can get this working group together that there’s funding been identified for out of the recent agreement with the First Ministers last September. Thank you.

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

Supplementary To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t hear the actual number, so I suspect that will be a commitment to follow shortly, of course. Mr. Speaker, if I may entertain this a little further, noting section 3.4. This is an item noted many times by the Auditor General. We follow yearly agreements that have to get negotiated and when we finally get an agreement in place and money paid, they still hold back 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Health and Social Services working on an agreement so we get this done on a timely basis? Sometimes we have to wait over a year to start getting our money. Again, I reference that the territorial government is not in the position to bankroll the federal government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that impacts two federal departments: Health Canada as well as Northern and Indian Affairs. Yes, we have staff working, sometimes it seems almost on a full-time basis negotiating with the federal government over the outstanding claims, what they’re prepared to allow and what they’re not prepared to allow. Problems with the criteria that they have, be it on the non-insured health benefits side or under the medical services for Indian and Inuit people. So, yes, we have people working on this. It’s a political issue. It’s a structural issue. It’s one that I hope over the coming months we can show progress on now that the federal government has come to the table in a much more proactive way. Thank you.

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

Supplementary To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I may remind us all again, in 2002 we had almost $35 million outstanding. Of course, by the time that got paid out, we had to have a 10 percent holdback. As I’ve said earlier, in 2003 we had $25.4 million held back. Mr. Speaker, we’ve had the same Member of Parliament since 1988 with the Liberal Party. She’s been in Parliament. She’s been consistent. That would be the Honourable Member Ethel Blondin-Andrew. Since 1992, Mr. Speaker, it’s been the same government in power. So that’s a lot of years, Mr. Speaker. So my question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services. When does the day come that the Northwest Territories is taken away from the kids’ table to the adult table? When does the day come that we are stopped being treated like second-class citizens? Is it time that the Minister gets our MP to play a role in this progress so we stop funding the federal government’s responsibilities -- because they clearly pay out -- so they know that they are responsible? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a national issue that affects all the provinces and territories. Anybody that does business with the federal government and administers programs for aboriginal people has this problem. So, yes, it has been dragging out. It is protracted. The pace is glacial in getting it resolved, but we all have some new tables. The Prime Minister himself has set up a table to meet with the aboriginal leaders. There has been recognition, and there is going to be a table for the aboriginal leaders to look at the health agenda. There has been a blueprint for aboriginal health that is going to be developed. As I told the Minister of Health in Vancouver, these are not money issues, these are structural issues, they are process issues. I agree with the Member. There is more and more attention being paid to this because it affects so many jurisdictions. Thank you.

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

Supplementary To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. Mr. Speaker, it is time to get this job done. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what we need to do as Regular Members or as a Caucus as a whole. Do we need to put barricades on the road and say no more resources out of the Territories until we settle some of these basic things? Does the Minister need a commitment from all Members to put forward a motion to get the support? What does the Minister need to get done in order to get his job done at the federal level? We need that money. It is time that we stopped bankrolling the federal government on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 264-15(3): GNWT Financing Of Federal Responsibilities

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if one was listening to the questions in this House about royalties and resource revenue sharing, this issue with the federal government, there is a whole list of issues that we have outstanding with the federal government that require resolution. We are taking proactive and aggressive or assertive approaches as we can as a government at all the tables that we are at. This is one of them. It is an issue that has national interest. It has national impact. So over the next few months, as I indicated to the Member, we hopefully will be able to show progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Justice. Last week in this House, I raised the issue of the RCMP cutting one staff position at the Fort Simpson detachment. Since then, new information has been brought to my attention that has some bearing on the situation.

For several years up until now, the Fort Simpson RCMP detachment had been consistently manned by seven police officers. However, during the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the RCMP received special funding from the Treasury Board to add an extra staff member. This was done in recognition of the fact that federal park wardens had lost their powers to act as peace officers. Some 10 extra police officers were hired across the country. Unfortunately, the RCMP did not add an extra member at the Fort Simpson detachment as required. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister is will he find out if the RCMP chief chose to cut a position at the Fort Simpson detachment at the time they received special funding from the Treasury Board? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 265-15(3): Level Of Police Services In The Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the RCMP establish staff positions based on need in the community, and I understand that the decision they made to change the staffing levels in Fort Simpson was based on their assessment of the requirements for maintaining public safety in that region. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the Treasury Board funding that the Member refers to, so I would have to request some information from the RCMP on how that funding was accessed and allocated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 265-15(3): Level Of Police Services In The Deh Cho

Mr. Speaker, in effect, by not hiring an extra member at that time, the RCMP effectively cut one position already. Now we are being told that we are losing another officer and it is because of low crime statistics and other indicators. Is it just a coincidence that we are losing a second RCMP now that the RCMP has lost this special funding they never spent at the Fort Simpson detachment in the first place? Will the Minister speak with the RCMP on our behalf and see how it is that we not only lost one member, but apparently we lost two members at the Fort Simpson detachment?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 265-15(3): Level Of Police Services In The Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the last five years, the complement in the region has been increased in the Fort Liard detachment. I am not sure that in the region there has been a dramatic change. That may have something to do with the position the Member is asking about. I did commit already that I would check with the RCMP and see what I can find out in terms of any extra funding and allocations they may have made.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Supplementary To Question 265-15(3): Level Of Police Services In The Deh Cho

Mr. Speaker, certainly this issue, as the Minister inferred, will turn out to be a good news story or a bad news story. The contention of myself and the residents of the Nahendeh riding is that we are the losers, Mr. Speaker. The reduction of service level will certainly impact us. Will the Minister speak to the RCMP on our behalf and lobby to change this? Will the Minister speak to the RCMP and not reduce staffing levels, but rather not fill this position as a cost-saving measure? Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 265-15(3): Level Of Police Services In The Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Members know, it is not my position to direct the RCMP as to where their staff should go. I have discussed the staffing situation in Fort Simpson with the chief superintendent. The chief superintendent assured me that the decision was made based on need across the Territories. Given the complement of members that we have in the Territories, the chief superintendent is confident that the decisions on where members are located are proper as they stand right now. The next time I meet with the chief superintendent, I will make sure that I advise him that the Member remains concerned about the staffing levels in Fort Simpson. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of FMBS. It is further to the questions that I asked yesterday, which I am afraid I wasn’t as clear, so the Minister was able to get away with very vague answers. I want to re-ask that. Mr. Speaker, I learned recently that, in fact, the appeal process we have for the GNWT employees are very one-sided. It is a process that the union has not agreed to. It is a process where union representatives can’t even sit in on an appeal of an employee and that there are lots of areas step by step in the appeal process that the union does not agree with, but it has not been able to make any inroads in changing to address that imbalance.

Mr. Speaker, in answering my questions yesterday, Mr. Roland said something like this, and I quote from unedited Hansard on page 1899, “The area of staffing appeals is one area that we recognize has some problems, and we're beginning work on potential changes to that process and setting it up so that we can, in fact, look at trying to streamline this and be a little more proactive and productive in this area,” et cetera. My point of this quote is, Mr. Speaker, when you hear something like “we are getting there” and “we are discussing the potential changes” and “we will look into it,” we know that it will be 10 or 20 years before we see any action. So I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister could offer in terms of any kind of concrete action he has taken as Minister of FMBS to address this imbalance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister responsible for the FMBS, the Honourable Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 266-15(3): Staffing Appeals Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the work we have done around staffing appeals has been a slow process, but we have been working on it. We are prepared to make some changes. We have listened to the AOC and its previous recommendations on the concerns that were around the whole issue of staffing appeals. So, number one, we have recognized that there are problems; number two, we have listened to the recommendations, and there was a report done which we are taking pieces of that and going forward with that. I can’t give a date as to when this would actually come into play, but I am hoping to have a process established and an agreement from not only the Cabinet side but, as well, the Members of this House that this, in fact, is the right avenue. We have discussed this, put out some options, and informed Members of the potential changes that are coming up. Right now, I am hoping to bring a legislative proposal forward. We missed the timeline for this sitting, but hopefully at our next sitting we will have a legislative proposal that Members can look at and make comment on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 266-15(3): Staffing Appeals Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as Members, we get so much information that we are not always certain if we might have just missed something when something comes up. I believe the consensus in AOC is that this whole issue has not been brought to the committee yet. We are well aware that the government is moving ahead with centralizing human resources sections of the government, which is what most of the Members in this House wanted. Going by what people are saying on the street, it is moving forward. I am really thinking that any changes to the appeal process should be part and parcel of the overall changes that are taking place. Mr. Speaker, I am still not hearing any kind of time frame. Even before he introduces his legislative proposal, perhaps he could tell us about…He just said he talked to the Members. Is the union involved with this, for example? Maybe I could just go with that question. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 266-15(3): Staffing Appeals Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I should clarify, a legislative proposal was developed. We were hoping to actually bring the legislation forward for this sitting, but unfortunately we weren’t able to make that timeline. We will hopefully have it ready for the next sitting that we have as an Assembly. On the existing process, there is right now room for a union representative at the table. So there is that space right now when a member is going through a staffing appeal process; on the grievance side, especially, there is room for that. We recognize there are problems. We’ve worked on it. There were presentations made to AOC of the day. A legislative proposal has been reviewed, and we are coming forward with that actual legislation to make the changes hopefully in the next sitting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 266-15(3): Staffing Appeals Process

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think what the Minister said about the fact that there is a union member in the appeal process, I think the Minister knows that that union member or whoever sits is not there to represent the employee who is going through the appeal. The union member is there as sort of a prop to make sure that the employee…They have a very negligent role to play, which is a complaint of the union. Second of all, Mr. Speaker, this government has not been forwarding a lot of legislative proposals. It hasn’t been a crowded agenda. I believe that Members here are always ready. A legislative proposal could be dropped off to us at any time. I wonder if the Minister could commit to introducing this this week if he isn’t ready. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 266-15(3): Staffing Appeals Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, for the record, we do not view union representatives or those that attend with employees or potential employees as props. They are part of a process. They are allowed to be there if requested by the member appealing. We weren’t able to make the timelines for the legislation. It is still in the works, so we weren’t able to finish it off. We were hoping to have it ready for this sitting. As I said, we will be bringing it forward during the next sitting we have. Thank you.