Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1996-97 Main Estimates the government said publicly about the Yellowknife Airport, “The department will explore, for the privatization of regulations, pursue privatization opportunities.” According to my research, it never happened. In 2002 the government is quoted in the Yellowknife Airport governance review, “We also suggested option seven, private sector third party, is not a practical option or alternative.” Again very little rationale was offered. In 2003 in a Yellowknife Airport Stakeholders Panel report to the Minister the quote was: “goal: to explore the viability at a macro level of alternative governance models for Yellowknife Airport.” Its recommendation was a task force to be formed, and even though the devolution of airports in Canada from government to independent authorities resulted in many success stories across Canada, nothing ever transpired for the NWT legal largest airport.
My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. In my preface for today’s oral questions I referenced only a handful of reports, reviews and consultant papers.
Mr. Speaker, if one was to go back 20 years on the governance and the operational review of the Yellowknife Airport, can the Minister inform the House how many of these reports, reviews and consultant papers has his department undertaken? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. There have been several reports. There was an indication that there may have been seven reports done on airport governance but there may be more than that. There have been a few reports done since then. Thank you.
The Minister is actually correct. In fact, dialogues behind the scenes reveal that there were at least seven reports in the 20 years in terms of trying to find a solution to this problem. Which leads me to ask: On February 10, 2015, in a series of oral questions from the Member for Range Lake, the Minister made a number of statements that the Yellowknife Airport governance was identified to be reviewed yet again by this government. Can the Minister elaborate? Thank you.
The latest report was completed in March 2014. It looked at five similar types of airports as far as landings and passenger volumes go and because of their varying governance systems. We’ve looked at those five reports. We’ve now put an RFP out, which will close on March 2nd, to examine the various alternatives in those five different airports to determine which governance structure we feel would be the best to move forward with the Yellowknife Airport. Thank you.
Again, on February 10, 2015, the Minister was quoted as saying, “We’re going to look at management options at the airport so we can review all the options.” Again I ask the Minister, can he clarify what specifically is going to be uncovered that has not already been done, at minimum, seven times before? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There would mainly be three options, alternatives that we would look at. We would look at a Crown corporation; we’re going to look at airport authority and even possibly using a GNWT revolving fund similar to the way we administer petroleum products.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, there’s a lot of foolishness in all the delaying and deferring that the Department of Transportation has undertaken in the last 20 years on this subject. Again, the Minister made reference to a report. He claims that was on March of 2014. A report that has never been tabled in this House, a report that is buried in the website of the Department of Transportation to which I haven’t been able to find, but I did get a copy from the department.
We also heard on February 20, 2014, the Minister saying, “We’ve hired a consultant to specifically look at these for consideration, probably by the next government.”
Can the Minister indicate why this government is sloughing this responsibility onto the backs of the 18th Assembly? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the volume at the Yellowknife Airport changes fairly regularly. Right now we have approximately 500,000 passengers moving through Yellowknife Airport on an annual basis. We are looking at that now. We are hoping to… The RFP will close. We’re going to do an evaluation. What I’m seeing, just by drawing a timeline from March 2nd for the evaluation, hiring the actual consultant that’s going to be doing the work, I’m seeing that the results of that would likely be sitting on the desks of the 18th Assembly. We’re not sloughing the responsibility, but we’re looking at the timeline.
I realize that right now it’s costing us about $2 million to run the airport annually. If we were to do one simple math to determine how we’re going to recover that, we’d just be passing that $2 million on to the passengers who are flying through Yellowknife Airport. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Health. We haven’t had an update lately on doctor recruitment and how that’s going. I’m wondering if the department has any additional information to add on to how we are progressing with getting doctors in the North and into the smaller communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The recruitment and retention of physicians continues to be a challenge, but I think at this point in time we are actually doing fairly well. We have moved to a system where all the physicians are actually employees of one body rather than multiple bodies. This has actually given us some opportunities, because individuals can now have rights and access to Stanton even if they don’t happen to live in Yellowknife.
When we originally went to this one model, the expectation was that we’d be having physicians in Yellowknife who can actually provide services in other communities like Fort Smith or Hay River or any of the communities in the Sahtu and up the valley. What we have found is by having one system where all the doctors were part of one system, we’ve actually been able to recruit doctors in places like Fort Smith and Inuvik because they are part of the system rather than independent bodies. So that was a happy surprise.
We continue to recruit on a regular basis, but at this point in Yellowknife we are pretty close to having a full complement of doctors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have questions specific to Hay River and I’m wondering, because of Hay River’s special consideration of not being part of GNWT employees, if we’re having any difficulties in putting those doctors into Hay River. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unless anything has changed in the last little while, my last update was that we actually did manage to get a permanent physician into Hay River. I will check with the department to confirm that. But the reality of being outside of the public service hasn’t interfered with this medical process in obtaining physicians.
My next question about the doctors is: Are we getting them to move to the Northwest Territories? Are they staying in the Northwest Territories? Are we still using a lot of the locums to come into the Northwest Territories and then go back to their home communities in southern Canada?
We actually have filled a large number of the physician positions on a permanent basis. But given that we do have a contract here in the Northwest Territories, those physicians who are resident here are entitled to education time and sick time as well as annual time. We want to make sure that we are continuing to provide services, so there is still a use of locums. But for the most part, in Yellowknife, in Hay River, in the Beaufort-Delta we’ve been able to get physicians in on a permanent basis. But until all positions are filled that way, we will continue to use some locums.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
I guess the other question that I have about health and professionals is are there other positions that we are having difficulties filling, whether it’s any specialists in any of the communities or in Yellowknife that we’re having troubles filling?
I guess that would depend on the definition of trouble. Health professionals are a hard-to-recruit position. We continue to recruit on a regular basis, but for many of the allied health professions there is high turnover. We’re actually putting into force a strategic plan, a Health Human Resource Strategic Plan that is going to put in a number of mechanisms and tools to help us recruit and retain health professionals across the Northwest Territories. But we keep at it, we keep staffing, we keep filling, but turnover is a reality that we do have to work with.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to follow up on my Member’s statement when I spoke about grandparents having difficulty taking care of their grandchildren after a social services apprehension. I want to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Our legislation recognizes our Aboriginal culture and customs with custom adoptions. Why can’t we do the same and recognize the rights of our grandparents and extended families who want to become involved when there is an apprehension?
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A significant amount of work has been done around child and family services. The 16th Legislative Assembly did a comprehensive review where this exact question came up on a number of occasions. Also, the Auditor General recently brought forward a fairly scathing report of child and family services here in the Northwest Territories, and committee has been very, very, very active in articulating their concerns and their desire for significant change. As a result, we are moving forward with Building Stronger Families, an action plan to transform the child and family services system here in the Northwest Territories, and this is a fundamental change in how we do business here in the Northwest Territories.
Currently, we already have the ability to work with families in a case of apprehension, and our goal is not to take children away. If a child needs to be apprehended as a result of abuse-type situations, we would like to work with the families to keep them in the community. If we can’t keep them in the community, we want to work with the regions to keep them in the region; and if we can’t keep them in the region, obviously we will have to look at other locations possibly.
But in a foster family situation we do have the ability to work with elders to go through a foster application so that we can put children with their grandparents or other family members. It doesn’t need to just be their grandparents. There are some challenges with that because we still need people to pass the application process in order to legally ensure the security and safety of those children.
We are working on this. We are fundamentally changing the way we provide child and family services here in the Northwest Territories, and I am regularly keeping committee up to date on the important work that is being done in this area.
Certainly, I can appreciate some of the complications around being a foster home, but I think what the grandparents are telling me is that they are not a foster home, they are the actual grandparents and extended family. Having police record checks is kind of demeaning to them. That’s difficult to grapple with. I know that the Social Programs committee has done some good work the last term, but apparently it seems like the culture about apprehensions has not changed in Social Services to recognize the Aboriginal culture. I think the committee uses the least intrusive measures whenever possible.
So, I’d just like to ask the Minister, internally, what kind of direction is being given to social service workers when they’re considering apprehensions? Thank you.
Research has shown that in the Northwest Territories the vast majority of apprehensions that have existed to date have resulted as a result of neglect, as opposed to abuse, which is one of the reasons we’re going to a completely differential response of dealing with children in those abuse situations.
The new approach is supporting families, finding ways to support families so that we can actually keep the children with the families. If they do need counseling, if they need all these other types of supports, we’re going to be there to work with them to find solutions.
When it’s abuse, we still may need to be in a situation where we have to apprehend, which is where foster family comes in. I hear the Member’s concerns about families wanting to go through the process, but we do have an obligation to ensure that these children are protected once we’ve taken them away as a result of abuse.
Many of these changes are taking place as we speak and some of them may take a little longer than others. The differential response is going to take three to five years to fully roll out and test and make sure that it’s meeting the needs, but at the immediate time we are doing a number of things to ensure that the direction is being passed down to our staff.
As the Member knows, the assistant directors have been delegated in all seven authorities as associate directors under the act. We’ve updated our manuals. Those are going live right away. Later today I will actually be doing a notice of motion for first reading of bills on the Child and Family Services Act where we’re going to be making significant improvements to the act.
One of the changes that we’re making to the act is requiring that notification of applicable Aboriginal organizations of an apprehension order in respect to an Aboriginal child and providing for Aboriginal organizations to be party of an apprehension hearing, a child protection hearing and youth protection hearing.
We want to involve the people, we want to involve the communities and we want to involve the appropriate regional Aboriginal governments when we are faced with an actual apprehension.
Thank you very much. When apprehensions occur, usually it’s not the first time. They’re usually repeated events. I call upon the Minister to assess the procedures that ensure that grandparents and extended family members are involved in the process because usually there’s a plan of care indicated after the first apprehension.
Now, as well, perhaps the Minister can expand on the concepts of voluntary support services agreement as well as the extended family foster placement concepts as well as why it seems that this is not in place right now. Thank you.
There are 43 minutes on the clock and I’m pretty sure you don’t want me to use the entire 43 minutes. So what I’ll do is I’ll actually commit to get the Member a little bit of detail, because the question did actually contain a significant amount of detail. Needless to say, as we move forward with this differential response, we are about supporting families and putting mechanisms in to help families who are in a situation where their children may be in a neglect situation. Abuse situations will be different, but I’m happy to get all of that information, the binders, the information as well as a full briefing on that detail. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much. No, I didn’t want to precede the Minister’s Child and Family Services Act that’s going to also be taken on the road by our Social Programs committee. But at the same time, will the reassessment of this act also consider grandparents and extended families as we had discussed during question period here? Thank you.
The act may not focus specifically on grandparents and elders or other family members, but the actual application of building stronger families moving forward is focused on the families. It is focused on providing supports to the families in situations of neglect to help those families find the solutions to the root causes of that neglect. Therefore, we’ll be able to keep the children in our communities, in our regions and in their homes for as long as possible, hopefully, until they’re ready to go off to college or university.
This is the direction we’re taking, and like I said, I’m happy to share that information and have further discussions with committee as well as the Member. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I spoke of the need for a new arena in Fort McPherson. As we have a public administrator in the community for the next three years, I can see this project being held back for up to five years.
Will the Minister direct the public administrator to begin consultation with the community to design a new arena that will meet the needs of the community? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that they just met recently in the community, the administrator and officials, on the capital plan. I haven’t had an update on that yet. This may be part of the capital plan, because I know it was in the works before the public administrator was put in place and they may continue to do the work. But I would have to confirm that and relay that information back to the Member. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With the process, it needs to be known that if it’s the wish of the community, they can make adjustments to the capital budget in that process.
Once the new arena is developed, will the Minister ensure that the next step of construction is underway?
Obviously, we want to work with the community and bring some of the wishes of the community forward, but this was a plan that was already in the works, and we will continue to see if we can carry out the plan. Once we do that, our officials at the regional level would work with them on the design, best practices, efficiency and the whole thing of financing. We will work with them on that, then the decision will be made whether to bring this forward or not, or begin the actual construction. There are some issues with the existing one, so that would almost cause this one to be a priority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions today for the Minister of Lands. There is currently work being done to develop a Recreational Land Lease Framework or policy, I think both at this point. It’s been ongoing for a while. I would like to ask some questions to the Minister about that policy.
First of all, I would like to know what this particular work is concentrating on. What is the focus on the work that’s being done? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Lands, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back when MACA had Commissioner’s land, we had started the work on a recreational policy framework on the area that we had covered or that was under our jurisdiction. Since devolution we’ve become responsible for 940,000 square kilometres, I keep reminding everybody. So we had to expand on the work that we’re actually doing. We’ve completed work through the MACA rec lease and policy, but we’ve had to expand on the work. Again, it’s building on the work that we were already doing through the Recreational Leasing Policy Framework that we were doing through MACA. I’m going on a little too long. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll sit down.
Thanks to the Minister. I understand that we are doing this work, but I don’t understand the actual focus of the work. In developing this Recreational Land Lease Policy, what is the department focusing in on or what particular kind of use is the department focusing in on? As part of that, I’d like to ask the Minister what his definition of recreational use is. Thank you.
Recreational is one of the highest demands here in and around the city. We have a focus area that we have withdrawn from any further potential leases until we do all the work to be sure that these areas sustain further development. We don’t want to be crowding these recreational areas. A lot of folks put up a small cabin and then they want to go out there for quiet enjoyment. That’s my definition of recreational, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister for the answer. From what I am hearing from the Minister and in general as people talk about the development of this policy, I’m hearing that it’s intended to regulate cabin use. It’s not living dwellings, but dwellings that are used on an irregular basis.
I’d like to know from the Minister, if land is required for a use other than cabin use or an itinerant dwelling, let’s say for a motocross track, and I have some constituents who are interested in doing that, I’d like to know from the Minister if they were already using an already established site but it’s within this corridor we’ve identified or withdrawn down the Ingraham Trail, is that the same as what the Minister has described as a recreational use? Thank you.
