Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will follow up on my two-day review of the WSCC federal penalty and our Safe Advantage program assessments. There is over $750,000 in two years of penalties and our escalating claims cost experience, and I thought we should address the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation and Safety Commission with some of the following questions.
Given the dismal performance in the past few years of the GNWT in our safety performance, many would find it odd that the GNWT as a whole has only had a modest increase of 13 cents to our new assessment rate of 79 cents per $100 of payroll. Can the Minister validate to the public that this rate assessment is truly indicative of the performance claims growth and classification befitting of WSCC’s largest client and largest number of clients? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The GNWT’s assessment rate is increasing from 66 cents in 2012 to 79 cents in 2014. That is an overall 20 percent increase, which is also the maximum annual allowable increase set by the Governance Council. If the 20 percent cap wasn’t issued or in place by this government, there would be required a payment of 86 cents in 2013. That would be in addition of the 30 percent increase at that time, instead of 20 percent based on the claims experience. Those are the reasons why the Governance Council is pursuing the rate increase as we speak. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to split hairs on math, but I believe 13 cents on 79 cents is more of a 16 percent, not 20 percent. Given we heard from the Minister of Human Resources, health and safety claims both for GNWT showed significant increases for the Department of Health, Justice and also Transportation, if we were to compare these departments with job descriptions and classifications in the current 2013 WSCC Rate Guide, the comparable private industry fields would find the following: for Health, $1.61; for Justice, $2.58; and Transportation, $5.85.
Given the law of averages, can the Minister explain how the GNWT can be assessed at only a single rate of 79 cents per 100 when, clearly, the three most prolific and costly departments with health and safety concerns are, on average, two to over seven times less than the industry average? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that information that I have from WSCC is that GNWT is one employer under the Workers’ Compensation Act and also is classified as industry subclass specifically developed for government, and whose current rate reflects on government’s long-term history of claims experience. Due to that increase in GNWT’s claim experience over the last few years, this will continue to increase up to the maximum of 20 percent per year until it covers the full cost of the GNWT’s liability. That is where we are at, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister’s response. Will the Minister commit to facilitate an independent oversight review of the WSCC of all employer industry classifications and assessment rates as it pertains to proper claims experience? Would the Minister commit to facilitate a full public audit of accounting in relationship to written claims made by the WSCC in terms of the depletion of the Workers’ Protection Fund due to rising costs of health care services and continued downward trend in investment markets? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Governance Council does engage in third-party actuary on an annual basis to review any impacts of the Workers’ Protection Fund and also the employee industry classification, the claims experience and also the recommended assessment rates. WSCC is also audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada, but we just had a recent audit done. I am confident that the audits of the Auditor General of Canada and the use of the independent actual rate of WSCC have the new checks and balances in place as we move forward. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have great faith in the Auditor General of Canada. Again, we are asking for some public input in terms of the audit and information shared with the public.
On the subject of governance, will the Minister responsible for the WSCC commit to facilitate a full review of governance on how the GNWT is being assessed by the WSCC employer industry classification and assessment rates? Will the Minister commit to tabling all findings and correspondence from the department and the WSCC to this House? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, back in 2001, December, this Legislature completed a comprehensive review of the WSCC. Then it was WCB. That report tabled was called Act Now. The recommendations on the report, coupled with the 2006 Auditor General’s operational review of WSCC and the yearly audit by the Auditor General ensured compliance of the WSCC. I will be sharing that information that the Member is referring to today with the chair and the president of the WSCC. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Finance. In the last month or six weeks or so, the Minister and his staff have been travelling throughout the NWT and doing budget consultations. I think they have been very well received in the centres where they were held. I agree that it was a good move for the department and the Minister to take the budget discussion show on the road, so to speak.
Over the number of presentations and discussions that have been held, there have been remarks by the media, there have been remarks by the Minister, they have talked about how the input may or may not be used from these budget consultations. On the part of the Minister and on the part of the department, what is his intent in using the input from these various consultations relative to the 2013-14 operations budget? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you. This has been an interesting exercise and there’s a number of key perspectives that we were looking for. We wanted feedback from the people of the Northwest Territories. We want to see what kind of responses we can get in terms of the things we’re now doing, which in this case confirm the focus that this Assembly has, for example, on prevention and the need to put more money into prevention, the need to sort out red tape, duplication program overlap, the need to look at how we add more money to our infrastructure budget. The other big issue is, of course, the support for sustainable development and make sure we have processes that are as supportive as possible to business.
So as an Assembly we are engaged in a lot of those issues already and it was corroborating support for the fact that this Legislature is fairly well tuned into the needs of their constituents. We also heard a number of very specific suggestions that we’re going to look at as we do the budget and fine-tune the main estimates and bring back to committee and to the MLAs to look at. So it was reinforcement that, in many cases, we’re on the right track.
We have to always do more and there are some specific suggestions that were given to us in a host of areas that we’re going to look at in terms of possible inclusion, if not in this budget, in subsequent budgets. Thank you.
Thank you to the Minister. I attended the discussion and the presentation in Yellowknife and I found it very interesting, and the Minister is right that there were some interesting discussions and some interesting ideas that were brought up there. One of the things that was mentioned at the meeting here in Yellowknife was that there was no reference at all to revenue in the budget presentation, and in the documents and in the discussions that were held that night. So I’d like to ask the Minister if he can explain why there was no discussion and no consideration of new revenues in the budget at these budget discussions. Thank you.
Thank you. In fact, at every one of the seven communities where we had meetings, somewhere during the course of the evening we talked about the new revenues that are going to come, and that in our case they are tied most immediately to devolution, that we were not considering tax increases at this juncture, given the economic circumstance and fragility of the world economic landscape. So we’ve indicated that next time, and we’ve heard some other requests, as well, for full disclosure of all the budget numbers laid out more in keeping with the main estimates. So we heard a number of issues in terms of the information requested that we will look at speaking to the next go-around when we do this next year. So the revenue piece will be put out there as well.
This particular initial go-around was to give people a sense of the fiscal constraints we’re operating under and the decisions we have to make if we want to move money between program areas if there’s enhancement required. Thank you.
Thank you to the Minister for the explanation. I have to say that I was fully expecting, and I wasn’t disappointed, that he brought up devolution and the money that we’re going to get from devolution. It’s unfortunate but, in my mind, it seems that’s the money that we’re getting from devolution is going to be the one item that is going to solve all of our problems.
The Minister mentioned that revenue was discussed at almost every one of the meetings, and I would like to say that there have been two roundtables on budget and finance that have been held over the last four or five years, I guess three or four years, and those roundtables in the summary both suggested that the government should look at new revenue sources. The Minister is suggesting we don’t need to do that, I think he’s suggesting we don’t need to do that because we’ve got devolution money coming.
So I’d like to ask the Minister, we’ve had recommendations from roundtables to look at revenue options, why have we not done that? Thank you.
Thank you. What I did say was that we are of the mind, as a government, that it’s not an appropriate time to be adding new tax burdens onto Northerners, that we struggle with cost of living issues in all of our communities, that it’s a challenge to businesses as well. So what we want to foster is a strong economy, which will give us more revenue as opposed to us as a government putting more taxes out there. So our focus has been on trying to put in infrastructure, look at how we do business to be as supportive as possible in an economically and environmentally sustainable way to encourage business. It’s to focus on alternative energies, it’s to focus on cutting our costs as a government and cutting the costs of living for the people in the communities. So those are all tied to having a strong economy and those will all give us revenue, but not through the tax man reaching into the pockets of our struggling Northerners to take more money out. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the Minister for his comments. I have to respectfully disagree. I don’t think that we have to raise revenues through taxes. There are other options that are available to us, and some of those options were suggested in the summaries from the roundtable.
So I’d like to know from the Minister, other than looking at taxes, has the department looked at other options to increase our revenue sources, such as resource rents, for instance. Thank you.
Thank you. We haven’t looked at resource rents per se. What we are looking at and what we’ve tried to invest money in over the years is, for example, to increase the amount of immigration into the Northwest Territories. Right now our population is either static or, in some cases, shrinking marginally, which has a significant negative effect on our Territorial Formula Financing Agreement. So in order to do that, we have to make sure we have a strong economy with jobs, and we have to work with all the groups and communities on things like affordable housing and the services that will attract people into the North. So those are the areas of improving our economy that we’re looking at that will very directly impact the bottom line of the Northwest Territories and all Northerners. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment did a Minister’s statement on advanced education initiatives, but really, is this really advanced? Do we continue to put residents through the education system only at the end to have to put more money to get them back to a standard of education even to get them ready for post-secondary job education?
This government has the opportunity to invest in the future of a new generation of healthy, educated adults and teenagers. What I’m referring to is the Early Childhood Development Framework, and I made a statement here in the House not too long ago about past reports and reports getting shelved with no action.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment in regard to the Early Childhood Development Framework, I believe there was a 2001 Early Childhood Development Framework and Action Plan and I do understand that there’s joint work between the Department of Health and Education. I want to know what is the update on this framework, and when can we expect to see a final draft of that framework brought to this Assembly for implementation and action. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Member that we need to educate our people across the Northwest Territories to the best of our ability as the Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Education and that’s what we’re doing. Also, we’re heavily focused on the early childhood development. As the Member indicated earlier, there was a 2001 Early Childhood Development Framework that we’ve embarked on to have a renewal.
We are quite unique compared with other jurisdictions where we want to join forces with the Department of Health and Social Services. My colleague Minister Beaulieu and I had discussed the next step, what can we do to renew? We need to reach out to the communities and regions, the whole Northwest Territories, to hear their perspectives. That’s what we’ll be embarking on.
Starting next month there will be engagement with the communities, the experts, and also the end of January is going to be when we will be having those experts from early childhood to hear their input, the program managers and so forth. From there we want to table a document in the House during the February session. That’s the overall plan to have our engagement by the two departments throughout the Northwest Territories prior to that. We will be keeping the Members informed of our progress.
In regard to the 2001 Early Childhood Development Framework Strategy and Plan, I’d like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment what the current validity is on the work that was done in that plan and what was successful about that plan. Have any of those action items actually been implemented within the last few governments, I guess? The 2001 plan.
The 2001 Early Childhood Development Strategic Plan has been implemented since then. There have been various initiatives in play. We have Dr. Corriveau leading the administrative discussions with various partners in the Northwest Territories. Some of those initiatives are ongoing since 2001. As you know, this is a long-term initiative. Some have been accomplished successfully. We want to hear from the experts themselves what they want us to focus on. There have been some programs in place that may not have worked in the past. How can we improve in those areas and so forth?
I can provide a detailed list of the things that we have accomplished over the years, since 2001 until today, that have been very successful. I will be providing those to the Members.
Early childhood development is a priority of this 17th Legislative Assembly or I wouldn’t be bringing it here on the floor as something that we bring up every time we come into the House and ask questions of the Minister.
What are the current action items that the Minister is currently doing or having implemented in the Northwest Territories, especially in the small communities that are having an impact on early childhood development and the investment in our youth, and not just waiting for this plan to implement and do these actions?
When we talk about early childhood development, there are all kinds of programs within the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. We are also working closely with the Department of Health and Social Services because they do have a framework of programs that deals with zero to three years of age and so forth. Within our Education department, we deal, also, with the college to deliver the certification programs and others, the immersion programs that we have initiated in several of the communities. Those are just some of the examples that have been very successful to date. We will continue to push that forward. I can provide some of the initiatives that we are embarking on. In the February session there will be more opportunity to discuss as we start implementing that programming.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In terms of living in the Northwest Territories, we have a high cost of living, we have a high turnover rate in the communities. In Inuvik, for example, some of the programs have been defaulted or delayed due to the fact that sometimes we don’t have any qualified staff in those positions, as well as having up-to-standard building codes. That was specifically mentioned in the Auditor General’s report. There are a lot of challenges.
What is the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment doing to address these challenges so that we can continue to deliver those early childhood programs and services to people in the Northwest Territories?
The Auditor General’s report and the recommendations brought forward deal with various initiatives that we need to start working on, start implementing, and we have done so. We’re going to follow through with each and every recommendation, such as the daycare inspections, the report, the scheduling and so forth. Those are just some of the areas that we will be embarking on as we move forward.
The high cost of living is a challenge in the communities. Within our Education, Culture and Employment there are programs that support, whether it be the start-up costs of a child care facility or partial mortgage payments and operation costs. We will continue to invest heavily in that area as we have done in the past.
The 2013 February session is when we are going to gather the information. We’re doing our research at this point. Having the two departments working together, I believe we are, again, making history across Canada that we are hoping others will follow as well.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The 17th Assembly’s vision is to work towards individual well-being and empower communities. With that in mind, my question today is for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. Why has the department chosen to truck water to Enterprise and Kakisa?
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been the goal of the Legislative Assembly in the past to empower the communities. It’s one of the reasons the New Deal for community governments was brought about in 2004, and that enables the communities to make decisions affecting their communities a lot better than we can. One of the decisions that they could make is on the provision and distribution of water supply services.
What are the nearest potential sources of drinking water for these communities, in particular Enterprise and Kakisa in terms of looking at potentially establishing their own services for their residents.
We work closely with the communities to identify potential water sources as parts of the funding that they receive, especially under the Gas Tax Agreement. They do have the ability under that program, and I know Kakisa gets probably about $160,000 for that program. That is for water treatment and distribution. They can utilize that money. As well, they get over $600,000 in community infrastructure money that they receive every year. They’re able to utilize that money to help with building a new water treatment plant. There have been some cases in the past where communities have worked together and done bundled water treatment plants. Economies of scale bring the price down a bit. The communities have that ability now to determine if that’s the direction they want to go. As MACA, we will work very closely with the community in coming up with some solutions for them.
Has the department, at this point, considered trying to move these potential projects for the communities forward? Looking at perhaps entertaining the idea of planning to work with the communities and perhaps the Minister could highlight some of the problems in that area. Have there been talks with both Enterprise and Kakisa?
The communities usually identify a 20-year capital plan and we work closely with them on that. If the communities of Kakisa and Enterprise are exploring the idea of building a water treatment plant, then we would be more than willing to work closely with them. We usually wait for an invitation from the community saying they want to look at these issues, and we would go in there at their request and work with them to come up with a solution that is best for all, including possible financing options. We’ve had some communities use their infrastructure money to access loans from the bank and that enables them to get their projects on the ground, because they do know that they are going to be getting a fair sized chunk of infrastructure money every year and they can use that to secure bank loans.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s very encouraging that the Minister has indicated that there is a willingness to work with the communities. My question is: What are the possible barriers to both Enterprise and Kakisa operating local water treatment plants?
The only possible barrier that I can see to these communities not operating their own water treatment plants is because they just don’t have the desire to. All the other tools are in place to enable some of these communities to work with our department to identify potential sites, help them with the planning. The only barrier right now is their lack of willingness, and that can be reconciled.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Transportation on highways. I’ve noted that people driving to the Yellowknife Airport can now see the work on realignment of Highway No. 4 around the Giant Mine site is underway. I understand that the work will include not only the creation of a safer and better road that avoids the Giant Mine site, but some improvement to the highway onward to the Yellowknife River Bridge might be included.
On behalf of the public and my constituents, can the Minister provide us with some information on the extent and schedule for the work?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. David Ramsay.
