Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we get tourists up in the Northwest Territories here we want to give them a good experience, give them a taste of northern hospitality, and if there is not too much tourism opportunity in some of the regions during the winter months, it is a great opportunity to provide other training opportunities such as customer service, possibly getting other people to look at how to create a tourism business licence, do proposal writing, reports, those kinds of things of that nature, administrative work.
Would the Minister commit to possibly creating some kind of training opportunities manual for our tourism operators so that when the summertime comes around again and we get a high increase of tourism in the Northwest Territories, that we are ready to give our visitors a taste of our northern hospitality here in the Northwest Territories?
We’re not going to have a successful tourism industry here in the Northwest Territories unless we’ve got dedicated, trained front-line staff providing the services to the visiting public. It was highlighted in the Economic Opportunities Strategy the need for tourism training, and we’re undertaking that. We’ve dedicated some funding for tourism-related training, and again, we’re working with the Northwest Territories Tourism, our tour operators around the Northwest Territories to get this training in place and get as many folks trained in providing quality customer service to the travelling public here in the NWT.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. I’d like to ask the Minister some questions around a mine that straddles the Yukon/NWT border owned by Northern American Tungsten, and that’s the Cantung Mine. It’s reported that the Cantung Mine is going to be closing next month, at the end of October, and there is going to be a loss of jobs, certainly, when the mine closes. There’s going to be a loss of resource revenues to us, and particularly my concern is that there’s going to be a cost to the government environmentally.
My first question to the Minister is: It is my understanding that the Cantung Mine is now a responsibility of the NWT, whereas it’s been federal jurisdiction up until devolution. So, I’d like to ask the Minister if that’s correct.
Who has responsibility for the Cantung Mine? Did it come over to us as a responsibility to the NWT in devolution? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are issues with the Cantung Mine. They’ve filed for creditor protection and there’s a lot of work underway with the involved governments to work through the process of what that would mean to make sure that we protect our interests. Thank you.
Thank you. I didn’t hear an answer to the question as to whose responsibility it is, and the Minister mentioned several governments. I guess I have to ask again, is the mine a responsibility of the NWT government or is it the responsibility of the federal government? Thank you.
We’re engaged in discussions with the Government of Canada over the potential that they could be filing for bankruptcy, and abandonment of the mine could lead to an agreement to transfer the mine to Canada.
If I heard the Minister correctly, then, if the mine does close permanently, because I understand this is a temporary closure, but if it closes permanently and they go bankrupt, they’re some $79 million in debt, from what I understand. I heard the Minister say that the mine will be transferred back to the federal government. I’d like to get him to confirm that.
The operative word at this point is it “could.” There are court proceedings that are underway; there’s discussion between the governments as well as following through the process as it’s laid out for this type of proceedings. That is part of the discussion that has to be resolved.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I think I kind of heard the Minister tell me to hurry up and wait. Once the report is done, then we might maybe know whether or not we’re going to be responsible for the mine.
So, if we are responsible for the mine, what financial security is in place now, either with us or with the federal government, to look after the mine once it’s closed for us to reclaim the land and for us to do the environmental cleanup as required?
Thank you. The amount of security that’s posted is $11.6 million.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Finance about jobs. As I mentioned in my Member’s statement today, my concerns are about public service jobs and fair and transparent notice.
I’ve been told by our program managers that they’ve not been filling positions and they’ve pulled some off the table during competition processes because deficits are growing and they’re recognizing this both in the regular public service as well as in our authorities, which are ultimately a responsibility of the House.
Finally, the Members at large have seen the fiscal outlook, and frankly, many of us are certainly worried about where this government is taking us. I’d like to know, as well as many of the public servants I’ve been talking to who have been talking about the layoffs, that the lists have been drafted in the public service and multiple departments and I am just wondering what type of information is being provided to the public service employees that we employ here to provide programs and services in a transparent way, that this is a consideration or an option that is being evaluated as we’re going into the upcoming budget with the new government. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is getting way ahead of himself on this particular issue. There is going to be no budget that’s done by this government. The only budget we’re dealing with is the capital plan budget before the House, and what we will be providing is a transitional document that encompasses a whole range of activities that Members are aware of, and the incoming government and Assembly then will make their own determination once they get their briefings. The fiscal forecasts, the issues and challenges before them and opportunities and decisions will be made to exactly what steps the 18th Assembly will take at that juncture. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the new government hasn’t taken over, so the operation of the present government in the context of finance is the responsibility of the present government and, furthermore, the responsibility of the Finance Minister. So when departments are drafting these potential lists for consideration for future governments, it’s a responsibility of today at today’s direction, which is ultimately the responsibility of this House, Mr. Speaker.
What type of transparency process is put into place as the government cobbles these options together? Ultimately, I am worried about fair, honest and transparent notice for the public service, and as I said in my Member’s statement, if you’re young and trying to start off your life or if you are a seasoned employee working to retirement, people need fair and honest notice.
What type of information and transparency is being given to the public service as the list is being cobbled together by departments? Thank you.
Once again let me state for the record that the Member is getting way ahead of himself on these questions. There is nothing that’s going to be decided by this government. There is transition planning in a whole range of areas that is going to be done.
As the Premier indicated in his statement, balancing our revenues and expenditures is a challenge of this government and will carry on as a challenge to the next government. When I do my fiscal update tomorrow, I will be making that same declaration. All we are doing is getting our transition documents ready and there will be no decisions made in the life of this government about what the 18th Assembly may decide to do in their wisdom. Thank you.
As we all know, time and time again, that budgets aren’t drafted overnight. It takes many months and planning, Mr. Speaker, and many months and planning without Members that just show up on our desks before they need to be approved.
That said, the reality is the public service, the management, the bureaucracy, you name it, they’ve spent many months of planning. I am asking about what exercises are being drafted now for consideration going forward. Yes, these budget exercises may be the final ultimate decision of the 18th Assembly and when it rolls in, minus a couple of Members, it might be a reflection of what’s here today. The reality is the work is being done today, and that’s what I’m asking.
What work is being done? What type of transparency is being conveyed to the public service as these lists are being cobbled? Thank you.
We, as the government, are looking at how we make sure that our revenues and expenditures, on a going forward basis, stay the same, that our expenditures do not exceed our revenues and that we don’t start borrowing money for programs that we anticipate and plan for what has been determined and demonstrated to be a flat economy with revenues going down. So, we have an obligation as we look to making sure that the 18th Assembly is provided with the best information possible, to pull together all that information for the consideration of the 18th Assembly.
I want to point out that it’s anticipated at this juncture, given the lateness of this election, that we would be looking at an interim appropriation to allow the incoming Legislative Assembly the full time it needs to decide the path forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gingerly put it on three occasions here in my Member’s statement, or during my question statement that is, to frankly ask are layoffs happening and is that being considered. The Minister at no time took the opportunity to say that it isn’t part of the evaluation process that will ultimately be decided by the 18th Assembly.
The Minister can deny it on the last one because he gets the last word, but the fact is, is the government looking at drafting layoff plans as part of the consideration going forward in the 18th Assembly? If the Minister says no, great, but the reality is I am hearing it throughout the department. If he says yes, I want to applaud him in his honesty and full transparency to the public service so they are fully aware of what may be coming, and they certainly deserve that.
Is the government looking towards, as an option, layoffs in the 18th Assembly and are they building those lists, cobbling names on pieces of paper department by department? Thank you.
We have over 5,000 employees. Our human resources costs are the single biggest costs in the government.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In follow-up to my Member’s statement on dredging, I will have questions for the Minister of Transportation. Last session I asked the Minister to follow up with working on dredging.
I just wanted to ask the Minister, has he taken any steps to getting any closer to dredging of the Hay River? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back in February, as the Member knows, I wrote a letter, sent a letter to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and asked that the federal government consider putting money into the port, dredging the port of Hay River, and indicated it was vital to the Territories for resupply of fuel and food to some of the communities. I did not get a response, so I’m not sure that I should be drafting another letter. I know that the public service Department of Transportation has been speaking to their counterparts about the issue, but it’s clearly something that is a federal government responsibility that we don’t feel we should be going into. Thank you.
So, the question I have is: The Minister indicated he wrote a letter in February and we haven’t followed up. We haven’t had any other conversation with any other federal Minister responsible for the dredging of the Hay River. I just want to confirm that.
Has the Minister had any conversation with the federal government about the dredging since his letter of February? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not had a conversation with the federal government, the departments responsible for dredging the Hay River. Thank you.
I guess I have concern with the priority of the Hay River dredging. It seems to be way low on the GNWT and Minister’s mind. I’m wondering why the Department of Transportation just went through a whole process through Build Canada, through infrastructure funding and the Hay River dredging isn’t on that agenda for the 10-year plan for the infrastructure under Build Canada in partnership with the GNWT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Building Canada is something that is cost shared 75 percent federal government, 25 percent GNWT for GNWT infrastructure. We did get one piece of federal infrastructure in the Build Canada Plan, which was removed by the federal government. We don’t think it would be wise to add federal responsibility and request money from the Build Canada Plan and then take over their responsibility with the money that we will be leveraging from our government. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister led me right into the question that I wanted to ask him. He talks about a federal responsibility versus 25 percent territorial.
In the discussion about infrastructure and the creation of new roads, wasn’t that a federal responsibility? We are currently building roads in the Northwest Territories, new roads, and we are putting in 25 percent. Where is our at least 25 percent for dredging? Why are we diverting this issue of dredging? Yet, with other things when the federal government’s responsibility is there, we are willing to put territorial money into it.
We’ve had a transfer from the federal government. The federal government devolved the Department of Transportation to the GNWT. If we put in a part of the Building Canada Plan and put something in there that was actually federal responsibility, the federal government would remove it. So it would be foolish to go through that process of adding in a project that is clearly federal responsibility just to have the government remove it and we would have to plan on replacing that with something else. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very dismayed by the answers today from the Minister of Transportation. We are hearing that this is federal responsibility, yet the Minister wrote to the federal government and got no response and there was no follow-up. This government does not seem to care about dredging in Hay River. I don’t care whose responsibility it is. Newsflash: They left 20 years ago; they’re not coming back. Somebody has to be responsible.
I don’t know why it has to stay a federal responsibility. Maybe the Minister can tell me that.
Why does it have to be a federal responsibility? Why can’t it be a territorial responsibility? Why can’t you put aside funds? I don’t care if you contract it out. I don’t care if you add it on to the marine division at the Department of Transportation. This needs to be done. Some way, somehow the river has to be dredged. A community is at stake here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Taking over federal responsibility may require us to create a department. There would be more discussion rather than us just asking the federal government to step up with $12 million to follow their responsibilities and dredge the Hay River. If we are going to start taking over or going into areas the federal government don’t seem to wish to do or don’t wish to spend their money on, then it would not be wise for GNWT to step in and start taking over federal responsibilities, pay for federal responsibilities.
This is a federal responsibility. We’ve written to them. We’ve asked them. They didn’t respond. We’ve advised them we thought it was important, essential for us to provide supplies from Hay River to other communities. We have received no response. We don’t feel that we should now take over their responsibilities. Thank you.
What’s the alternative? If our government doesn’t want to take over federal responsibility, what is the alternative? Just wait for the waterways or passageways to fill in with silt?
Could the Minister, for my benefit and the benefit of our constituents, please tell me why this must be designated as a federal responsibility? Even though it traditionally was, why does it today still need to be tagged as a federal responsibility? Why can’t it be a territorial responsibility? Thank you.
It is a federal responsibility and the Department of Transportation is not in a position to take over areas that are federal responsibility. We can’t just move in and start to fund areas that are a federal responsibility.
Right now we go through a process. When a department from the federal government is devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories, or any government for that matter, there is a process. If that responsibility devolves from the GNWT, then it would become a GNWT responsibility and it would come with money and personnel. Just to go in and take over federal responsibility at our expense would not be something that this government could do, even if they wished to.
I still don’t understand, from the Minister’s explanation, why the dredging in Hay River has to be deemed a federal responsibility. I understand it traditionally was. I understand that the federal government vacated their responsibility with response to the dredging.
Is there some legal reason why we have to call that a federal responsibility? Why can’t it be a territorial responsibility without going through some transfer or mandate and some transfer of funds? Why can’t we just take it up and say we’re going to take care of it? Why? What is the legal impediment? Thank you.
Aside from their fiscal responsibility of spending money dredging the harbour, we don’t have the legislation to take over areas. That particular area is now federal responsibility. Even if we had the money to go in and dredge it once and go in and take the responsibility, this would be something that would continue.
It’s important that we, as a government, continue to have discussions with the federal government, for them to step up and take care of their responsibility. I have written a letter to Fisheries and Oceans asking them to do it. No response. Our officials from Transportation have talked to Transport Canada about the issue and also with Fisheries and Oceans about the issue. We have no resolve on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the government does not want the fiscal and financial responsibility of dredging Hay River. Let me ask the Minister… Obviously, we are at a standoff. The feds are not responding to the request of anybody from this government about the dredging of Hay River.
Who is going to stop the territorial government if they go in there and dredge? I know we don’t want to take on the fiscal responsibility. If we start dredging it, then that’s our responsibility, but legally what is stopping us from dredging that harbour?
