That is the challenge before us, as the Member articulates. But clearly, at this point our focus is on getting our thinking clear on the guidance we need to provide as a government when it comes to best practices of unconventional hydraulic fracturing. Then we have to work, as well, just to see what’s going to happen at the exploration stage. If things prove out and we start moving into the fact being a producing field, then clearly the work and those questions the Member has posed will be part of the grist for the millet of environmental assessments, the timing of intensity, pace, all those critical issues, how do we factor in cumulative impact. As we move forward, those are the things we’re going to have to put our minds to. We’ve started doing that already. We’re taking over with devolution and we’re going to have cumulative impact resources coming over from the federal government and we are going to be working with the regulatory processes and our own officials to plan both for the exploration that’s happening, as well, casting our eyes to the future. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also have questions today for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources in regard to my opening Member’s statement on the Peel River watershed and the Peel River itself. I want to ask the Minister what is the department’s position in this cause to protect the Peel. What is the department’s position on this? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1997 there was a transboundary master agreement signed between a number of jurisdictions: the federal government, the territorial government, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon. One of the conditions in that agreement was that there were supposed to be bilaterals negotiated between all of the jurisdictions. We are hard at work and very close to completing our negotiations with Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C.
The only bilateral that exists is the one between us and the Yukon government, and I’ve been in recent discussions with the Minister of Yukon about the need to update and modernize that bilateral agreement. That whole agreement is focused on integrated watershed management; in this case, where the Peel is. So we’re working with the Yukon government to make sure that we have the proper agreements in place. We’ve indicated and asked the Minister from the Yukon that we should call a meeting to review this bilateral arrangement. We’ve suggested that this meeting take place in Fort McPherson. The first choice of the Yukon government would be to modernize the agreement.
So in that regard, we are very concerned and involved in things that are happening in the Peel. We have staff up there that are involved on a day-to-day basis. So we are paying very close attention across the territory to issues with water in all of the basins and sub-basins. Thank you.
Thank you. I guess the Minister pretty well summed up most of the questions that I was going to ask him.
In terms of this meeting, is there a timeline that’s been specified on when this meeting will happen, because there’s a lot of interested groups, not only the Gwich’in people, but there’s a lot of interested groups that are supporting this campaign. Can the Minister please let me know when this meeting might be taking place if there’s a timeline for that? Thank you.
Thank you. We agree that there is a lot of work and we acknowledge and recognize there’s a lot of interest in terms of what’s happening in the Peel on our side of the border, but also what’s happening on the western side in the Yukon. So we’ve put in that request. I indicated, in part of my previous answer, that the response from the Yukon government is yes, they know, and they do want to meet, but they would like to have some preliminary discussions about how do we modernize and update the transboundary agreement. So we’re working with them on that. But I will make sure that we keep the Member and all other Members apprised as we move forward on that issue.
At the same time, we are there on the ground with our staff and we’ve had our own discussions with the Gwich’in government about their concerns and things we have to do together. We have to recognize that a lot of the activity that’s of concern happens in another jurisdiction, which is a really good case in point why we need that bilateral agreement. Thank you.
Thank you. In terms of modernizing the agreement, when can we see a copy of that agreement once it’s in draft form, and is the Gwich’in and the other three Aboriginal groups that are affected in the Peel River watershed, will they have some input into this agreement? Thank you.
Thank you. As we’ve done our work, first with the Water Strategy – Northern Voices, Northern Water – we have, at every step of the way, worked with the Aboriginal governments. We have an Aboriginal Steering Committee with representatives from the Aboriginal governments that have been working with us both in the development of the Water Strategy as well as being involved in the negotiations and providing oversight on that very complex process.
The Alberta agreement, which is nearing completion, there will be about a 90 percent similarity between the key points and elements that are being negotiated in Alberta as there will be in the Yukon agreement. So as we come forward with the Alberta agreement, of course it will be coming back to the Assembly, to the committees, to the public. We’ll review it with the Aboriginal governments. That will give you a very clear example or indication of what we’re looking at as we renew and renegotiate the agreement with the Yukon government. There will be very specific parts that are germane only to the Peel and to the relationship between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories as it pertains to water.
So that information will hopefully be coming available in the next few months as we conclude our agreements with Alberta. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Finance, who is going to be up on his feet again. Strange how that works out some days; one Minister gets them all.
My statement talked about Small Business Week and I mentioned a number of recommendations from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to the Government of the Northwest Territories to try and help small business get ahead and to try and lessen some of the imposition on their bottom line. The first one was that our small business tax rate is one of the highest in northern and western Canada and the recommendation from CFIB is that we should reduce taxes to small business and reduce it from 4 percent to zero. That might be a bit over the top, but I would like to ask the Minister what has this government done or what is this government willing to do to reduce tax rates for small business. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve done a significant amount of work to work with small business. We have all of the services provided through the BDIC where we have a capital there, especially available in communities where banking services aren’t necessarily available. We’ve spent a significant amount of money putting in service officers, the one stop shopping, so we’re available to all folks in the communities.
We have, in addition to the regional support and community support provided by ITI and their business arm and the work provided by the BDIC, we have our e-business strategy. We’ve put a BizPal program in place. We do consultations, and we have been doing consultations on the Economic Development Strategy that the Minister of ITI is working on where we’ve gone across the North looking for specific feedback, advice on what things need to be done in terms to have a successful Economic Development Strategy. We’ve, as well, been in contact with the chamber. In fact, we’ve also asked the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to give us very specific examples of what type of red tape is there in government that we could look at fixing so that we can become more efficient.
Finally, I point out that as we do this analysis of red tape, we should keep it in mind that every place is not the same, and in the Northwest Territories the amount of regulations we have to run our businesses is half, on average, of what is required in other jurisdictions. That alone is I think a significant recognition that while we may have some red tape and obstacles, we are pretty responsible and responsive. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister for answering my second question and ignoring the first, I think. I did ask the Minister what this government has done to help to reduce taxes for small business. Red tape is also an issue, but I’d like to ask him again, is there any intention of this government to help small business by reducing taxes?
As a government, we haven’t raised income tax, corporate taxes, business taxes for well over a decade, and we intend to hold the line on that as well. We have been working very hard not to increase the cost to do business. The tax rate in the Northwest Territories is 4 percent, and that’s worth about $4 million a year. The issue, as we’ve heard in this House as we debate things like capital and the lack of revenue, that if we’re going to consider any kind of revenue offsets lost because of tax cuts, we have to, before we do that, anticipate where we’re going to get that replacement revenue or what programs we would be prepared to cut in order to obtain that tax cut. We’re not in a position nor are we preparing to look at any tax cuts at this point, given the concern about our revenues.
Thanks to the Minister. I realize it’s a double-edged sword. I totally understand if we cut taxes, we’re also going to be cutting our own revenue. I thank the Minister for that response.
With regard to the red tape, it is something which CFIB is on about, not just in the North but I think right across the country, and I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of all the things we do provide. But I believe it was over a year ago that this government, I think, through the Premier, made a statement that we were going to do something about cutting red tape. I didn’t hear from the Minister that we have made any improvement in our red tape. We’ve asked CFIB, but when did we ask them, how long have we been waiting for an answer and what have we done in the interim when we said we would do something?
I’ve been meeting with the CFIB quite regularly and the general response is just that, a general response or chastisement that we’ve got to do more. We’ve written to the territorial chamber as well. We’re looking for specifics from people outside of government looking in to tell us what are the specific things that we need. We’ve tried to improve how we dispense licences, fees and applications. We’re looking at that list that I already read out to the Member, and we’re continuing to work through eFolks and government on ways we can be more efficient as a government, and that includes decentralizing positions so we can get closer to the people on the ground, in the communities and the businesses. But we do need assistance other than a general exhortation about cut red tape. We just need to know so we’re on target. Give us some specific things we can go to work on in addition to what we think.
Thank you, Michael Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. It’s too bad you can’t say that to the Ministers. My last question, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the comment, well, the statement by CFIB about the shortage of qualified labour. Their suggestion is for a training tax credit for small business, and I’d appreciate the Minister’s comment on the feasibility of that for our NWT small businesses.
Our focus has been to put our resources not into those types of tax cuts or credits but to look at putting training programs in place that we can be there to assist communities, individuals and businesses so that they actually have some place to go. So it’s just not a credit but more of a structure, a bigger critical mass that allows us to provide a broader range of service across the North.
Thank you, Michael Miltenberger. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I certainly will never make apologies for demanding accountability, and today is no different. I’m sorry; I may hit a nerve with passion, but of course, this Cabinet has got to accept the fact that some people on this side really care about the fact that they do very little over there on some of the results. The results I’m talking about nothing being done is almost 10 years on the file of 911 almost nothing has happened. Northerners keep asking for 911. Yellowknife keeps asking for 911. The NWT Association of Communities wants 911.
What is this Minister willing to show us that he’s done to get this file up and running across the territory so the safety of Northerners isn’t compromised?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I will remind the Members again this is not a soapbox that you’re going to step on to make anybody look bad. You’ve got a Member that’s going to try to work together. Start working together. The Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll take that question as notice.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had talked about needs for youth, and I am kind of reminded of a discussion that I had with the elders and one elder in particular. He was kind of wondering why land claims and big concepts take so much time. At the end of the discussion he said, well, perhaps you’re forgetting about the little issues. My question is to the Minister responsible for Youth, in terms of my statement, in terms of the news for youth.
Can the Minister provide a reply of hope to youth such as Zachary Lesage and Alvin Minoza, who are asking for help to establish an arena or an area for skateboarding, a BMX track and a play zone for paintball?
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The Minister of Youth, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a government, we have a lot of programs that are designed specifically for our youth. Unfortunately, the capital part of it is not a part of the support that we give to our youth. We have a number of programs, and I think the Member pointed them out before, Youth Ambassadors and all the programs we have. If there is a desire by the youth in the community to have a piece of infrastructure, I would advise them to go speak to their local government, who have the authority to distribute the funds in the community.
I have to say that in many of the communities I have visited, they have taken advantage of responsibility of the infrastructure dollars; I was very pleasantly surprised at the amount of money that they put towards youth facilities in their particular community. Again, I would advise the youth to go speak to their community government.
I was kind of expecting an answer like that. Recently, the K’atlodeeche First Nation took their own steps to establish an ice rink for their youth on the reserve, but they need help.
How are this Minister and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs that are responsible for youth going to help the reserve establish the rink before at least the winter sets in?
I have been explaining for a number of years now, since I got the MACA portfolio, that since the New Deal, a lot of the responsibility has gone to the communities as far as infrastructure goes. We debated the Municipal and Community Affairs infrastructure budget yesterday, $28 million. Unfortunately, none of that money is in MACA’s coffers. All the money is distributed to communities because the communities have the ability to determine what some of their priorities are. Not only do they have the ability, they also now have the financing to do it. If it’s a community rink in any one of the communities, then looking at some of the capital plans, as far as some of the community goes, I’ve seen a few of them have identified in their capital plans outdoor skating rinks. The opportunity is there for the community to do that. As the Minister responsible for Youth, a lot of our youth dollars, our programming dollars, we try to get our youth out to as many events as possible. A lot of our money is program dollars, it’s not infrastructure dollars.
I think I had a moment of epiphany here, because what the Minister is telling me is that those responsibilities have been downloaded to those communities and they have the ultimate say. This is like devolution.
What obligations do the department and the Minister have in terms of meeting the needs of youth that are calling into these simple needs of establishing a BMX track or skating rink? What kind of obligations would the department continue to maintain? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe we’ve downloaded the responsibility on to the communities. I think communities have embraced the new responsibility they have. In many of my meetings with the communities and meetings with the NWT Association of Communities, they have pointed out the fact that they do like the New Deal, it was called at the time, where a lot of the responsibilities were devolved on to the communities. They weren’t downloaded. I just wanted to make that point again.
It’s a tough question to answer, because when we’re talking about the infrastructure, I’ve been saying it here for the last five years, that the communities have the authority and the ability to make infrastructure decisions because they have all the money. Again, the money that we have and when we debate the O and M budget, you will notice there is a lot of money in there specifically for youth, the youth programming, and there is all different areas of youth programming that we have. As far as contributing through the youth programs to a BMX track, I don’t even know if that’s possible. I have to find out. Again, I will point out the fact that the communities have the responsibility, one that they have embraced, to determine what some of their priorities are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Nadli.
I have a simple question that youth have posed to me. Through myself, and asking the Minister on their behalf, for Zachary and Alvin in Fort Providence, who are asking for a BMX track and also an area to play their paintball, would the Minister and the department help them? Is it a yes or no? They’re listening right now.
Mr. Speaker, I said that I will check and see if… I doubt that there is any infrastructure money in our youth programming dollars that we allocate through this Legislative Assembly. If it’s one that Members on the other side, when we do the debate during the O and M budget, if it’s something that they feel strongly about, then it’s their prerogative to raise it.
Again – I keep harping on this and I will continue to keep harping on this – the communities have the responsibility to determine what some of their priorities are. When you see one community respond to the youth of that community and build a youth centre because the youth in the community have asked for it, then they have taken that responsibility. When you have another community in the High Arctic that listen to the voice of the youth that wanted a youth centre to drop in, they determined that was one of their priorities.
I would encourage the youth in Fort Providence to speak to their local leadership that do have the responsibility for allocating some of these dollars, present their case to them and then the community itself will make that determination. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I was asking last week about the plans surrounding the new health care facility in Hay River and plans for the existing hospital, I was informed by the Minister of Health and Social Services that, in fact, it is the Minister responsible for Public Works and Services who will be taking the lead on determining the potential useful value of the existing hospital. I would hope that we could do some kind of a technical review of that building sooner than later so that we aren’t scrambling at the last minute to decide what’s going to happen with that building. We are a couple of years out, I realize that, but I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works and Services, has anything so far transpired within his department that would look at the viability of the continued use in some capacity of the Hay River hospital. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Prior to actually moving ahead with the construction of the new hospital, there was a technical evaluation and investment analysis done on the old hospital which clearly demonstrated that the renovation and upgrading of the old hospital would have been far more costly than building the new hospital. There are a number of issues there: age, condition, and costs associated with renovating that building and bringing it up to a standard acceptable for the GNWT.
Having said that, we did move forward with the construction of the new hospital. When the building is empty and the new hospital opens, that building will likely be declared surplus by the Department of Health and Social Services. Once that is done, then it becomes the responsibility of Public Works and Services, who would go through the normal disposal process on that property. At that time, we will absolutely be looking at the building to see if there is any way we can repurpose that building without investing a huge amount of money, given, as I have said previously, the age, condition and operating costs of that. We will look in house to see if there are any operations or use in the government. If not, and there’s deemed to be no useful purpose for that building, we will look outside. If not, if it proves that the building is in rougher shape than we anticipate by looking at it from the outside, we would move forward with demolition. We will certainly, absolutely, look at other options for that building before we take that step. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he would concur that there are different standards of types of buildings within the inventory of the GNWT and that probably hospitals are one of the more costly and more technical types of buildings. They’re more costly to build. If we were looking at a repurposing or re-profiling of this building and it were not for a hospital, for something else, does the Minister concur that the standards that might be applied to that evaluation would be considerably decreased? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question, we’ve already done the technical analysis of the building and it is completely inappropriate to use that building as a hospital in its current status. It is certainly cheaper to build a new one than to try to bring that building up to the status of a hospital.
At the same time, yes, office buildings are a different standard than a health centre, but we still have an obligation for public infrastructure to make sure that our buildings meet code. We tend to build above the standard building code for Canada. We would have to bring that building up to a certain code, which may be not be the same as the hospital but it would certainly be consistent with other infrastructure that we are putting in, before we can consider using it for certain purposes. It really depends on the purpose.
As I have mentioned to the Member, we are going to look at this building. I will share the information that we have with my committee, the Regular Member committees, and we will certainly have discussion moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, with the new health care facility in Hay River, I believe there are at least eight activities currently being carried on in the H.H. Williams Memorial Hospital which there has been no provision made for in the new health care facility. I could try to list them off, but maintenance, for example, has a large area within the hospital as it currently exists. I do not believe that maintenance has the kind of infrastructure at the new location that they had at the old location.
Has the Minister or would the Minister consider looking at those activities that have not been built into the new health care facility potentially being accommodated within the existing building with some minor renovations? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this exact issue came up when I was travelling through Hay River earlier this summer. Residents of Hay River asked roughly the same question. At that point, I did go back to the Department of Health and Social Services and the Minister. We talked about the individual programs that are currently offered or may be offered. I was assured at the time that all the functions that exist within the hospital, with the exception of the 10 long-term care beds, were accounted for in some capacity in Hay River, whether it’s in the new building or somewhere else in the community I do not recall, but it is my understanding that all the functions are taken care of. In this capital plan we are discussing right now, there are accommodations for those 10 long-term care beds. It is my understanding that everything is covered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I would just like assurance that before this facility would leave the hands and the submission of the GNWT under the Department of Public Works and Services that there would be ample time to entertain proposals for other sorts of things. I have suggested in the past perhaps even like NGOs that deal with certain types of social issues and things like that. I just don’t want to see us run out of time and go, oh no, here comes the wrecking ball, let’s tear the building down. I still think it has value. I’m a little biased.
Will the Minister assure me and assure the House that there will be ample time to consider all options for that building before the wrecking ball rolls in? Thank you.
