Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I have another question from another Member on this activity. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question would be, what’s driven this initiative. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s the safety of the staff in the office. Thank you.
Was it predicated on an incident or changing a standard in work environment? Was it a union initiative? Was it brought to the department because of some type of concern? Thank you.
The departmental occupational health and safety specialist has identified the current set-up of the rental office as a health and safety risk for the employee staffed in that location. At times the clientele the staff is dealing with can be frustrated and very agitated with their landlords and, therefore, can express aggressive behaviour, putting the staff at risk. Proper physical security measures need to be put in place to ensure the health and safety of that staff. Thank you.
Has there been an incident that any of us have been unaware of? If so, when? Let’s go back to how often there has been an incident, if there are any, in the last year.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that, we’ll go to Ms. Haener.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have had some situations over the past summer, not just in that office but also in the legal aid offices. Thankfully, there was nothing serious that took place, but we are also aware of situations, and I think they were reported on publicly this summer, that involved social work staff, as well, involving clients who became quite aggressive.
We, as a government, as the Minister has said, have an obligation to our staff to make sure that we’re providing them a safe work environment. It became very clear to us that this particular office presented risk that we need to fix. Thank you.
Just to be clear, we are talking about the rentals office. How many incidents have happened recently and how many over the last year, just to be clear?
I am aware of one particular situation which involved both the rentals office and legal aid. I’m not aware of any others, but one is too many, and it became clear, as I indicated, that there were risks associated with the office set-up and that we need to fix that.
I’m trying to understand now the department’s definition of “incident.” Just because somebody is upset, that doesn’t mean… I don’t know. I mean, I’m just trying to understand. We’re talking about the nature of the work that people are… In other words, when people file complaints they’re upset. I’d like to know what the definition is they’re using as the low water mark of incident. I want to understand this.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission has regulations regarding employees who have to work alone, and as we’ve mentioned, the departmental occupational health and safety specialist identified the current set-up of the rental office as a health and safety risk for the employee that is staffed there.
It becomes incumbent upon us to address that health and safety risk, and as my deputy minister has stated, there was an incident there and we need to ensure that we can protect the employee that we have there. There have been incidents in other offices in Yellowknife and other communities, and we need to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to make sure that our employee is protected.
I’m just trying to get a sense of how far we’re going to go. I mean, are we talking about a counter that people will have between the two of them? Are we talking about putting them behind a glass wall, that they have to speak through the little vent and slide paper under the window? I’m just curious how far or how big city we’re becoming because one person may have been a little upset, and I’ve yet to find out how upset.
People get passionate. Some would maybe swear, and some define that as aggressive, absolutely. But in the bigger scheme of things, people sometimes get emotional, and you have to sort of look at the whole situation at large. That’s what I’m trying to understand.
What does “incident” mean and how far is this going to go? Are we going to put a counter in place or are we going to put them in a glass bubble where they’re locked in, security coded and, like I said, speak through the little metal vent, slide paper under the window? I mean, how far is this going to go? I’d like to know.
I think we should be more focused on the health and safety risks as opposed to what constitutes an incident. We can’t be too safe when it comes to protecting the employees that we have.
To get to the Member’s question, we are looking at redesigning the space to share a reception area and also a second egress at the back of the office space to allow a second way for the employee to get out of that office should the need arise.
Well, again, not knowing what “incident” means here, we’re just taking a stab, and I would caution the Minister on thinking I don’t think personal safety or employees don’t matter. I think that that’s an atrocious description of what I was trying to say. I’m trying to understand, did someone get upset and swear? Did someone take a swing? Did someone throw something at it? Did they do the George Bush throw a shoe at them? What are we talking about on that and how far are we going to go without knowing this?
I mean, all I’m hearing is “incident.” Well, incident means what? We have to bring how much money to change the whole office around? I mean, we have to be fair and honest here. I mean, nobody wants anyone to work in an unsafe environment. No one’s saying that. But, I mean, how far are we going to take this? I mean, are we turning a papercut into a triage incident, you know, and we have to send 20 doctors down? I mean, what is the incident that we’re speaking of? Give us a sense of how serious this is. If there’s only been one, again, nobody wants anyone hurt. No one’s suggesting that at all, and I’m very disappointed to even think that would be alluded to, but the thing is, what are we talking about?
I thought it was quite clear what we’re talking about and that’s the safety and well-being of the staff that we have in the rentals office. This type of security and finish, the equipment will be similar to other departmental office space with similar clientele such as maintenance enforcement and also the probation offices. Again, it’s very important that we understand what we’re up against, and that is a clientele who can be unpredictable. They are well known to other social agencies in Yellowknife. We’ve had experiences with these folks at other offices, including legal aid, so we can’t be too safe and we have to ensure that we are protecting our employees.
We still haven’t had the answer of what an incident means or in the context of… Thanks, Mr. Bouchard.
The other thing is that now the Minister is stereotyping the clientele by saying they’re well known by other social agencies. I don’t know what he means, and in all honesty, I mean, we’re just sort of guessing at good faith.
Incident, again I’m saying, was it someone upset? They crumpled up a piece of paper and were mad because they didn’t get the answer they wanted? I mean, what are we talking about? It’s just continue to say as minimum as possible, promise to get back to us, even though we know no one will get back to us in a timely way that it will affect this budget and just drag the clock out so we lose our 10 minutes. Really, all we’re hearing here is just the same thing.
Can the Minister explain what type of incident happened so we can understand the necessity for that? I mean, no one wants a serious casualty of any sort or any casualty, and that’s the issue, but I’d like to know what we’re talking about. He can say all he wants, well, we know what we’re talking about. I want to know what the incident means. Was it someone crumpled up a paper? Swore? Are we actually talking a physical altercation? Like, what are we talking about?
I thought the deputy and myself have made it quite clear that there have been incidents. It shouldn’t matter to what degree those incidents happened. Some of them have been serious in nature, and when you are dealing with a rental office and people are facing the prospect of perhaps losing the place they live, they are under a tremendous amount of pressure, and we can’t be too safe when it comes to protecting the employees we have, because when people are faced with that type of pressure, sometimes people don’t deal with that pressure very well and they lash out at these front-line workers that we have, and we need to ensure that they’re safe.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Committee, we’re on page 57, services to public, infrastructure investments, $365,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, if I can get you to turn back to page 51, capital estimates, Justice, total infrastructure investments, $9.078 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we’ve concluded consideration of the Department of Justice?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I’d like to thank our guests here today, Ms. Hannah and Ms. Haener. Thank you for joining us today, and of course, Minister Ramsay. If I can get the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort our witnesses out of the Chamber.
Committee, we’re just going to take a five-minute recess.
---SHORT RECESS
I would like to call committee back to order. I will continue with our estimates on capital with next on the list, which is Lands. I will turn to the Minister responsible to see if he has witnesses to bring in. Mr. McLeod.
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would escort the witnesses in, please.
Minister McLeod, would you like to introduce your witnesses to the House?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. With me I have to my right, Mr. Mark Warren, deputy minister of Lands; and to my left, Brenda Hilderman. She is the director of corporate services.
Ms. Hilderman and Mr. Warren, welcome back to the House. Committee, we are on Lands, general comments. Is committee prepared to go into detail?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Committee, we are on pages 59 to 61. Operations, infrastructure investments, $1.350 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, Committee. If I can get you to turn to page 59. Lands, total infrastructure investments, $1.350 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration for the Department of Lands?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Mr. Warren, Ms. Hilderman, thanks for joining us for an easy one, and thank you, Minister McLeod. Sergeant-at-Arms, if I could get you to please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber. Thank you.
Okay, committee, we are going to continue with capital estimates. Next on the list we have Municipal and Community Affairs. Again, I will turn it over to the Minister responsible to see if he has witnesses he wants to bring in. Minister McLeod.
Yes I do, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would escort the witnesses in, please.
Minister McLeod, would you be kind enough to introduce your witnesses this evening?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left I have Mr. Tom Williams, deputy minister of MACA; and to my right, Ms. Eleanor Young, who is the assistant deputy minister of MACA.
Thank you, committee. Mr. Williams, Ms. Young, thank you for joining us this evening. Committee, we are on Municipal and Community Affairs. We are on page 63 onward in your capital estimates. We will turn it over to general comments. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is just one section, the infrastructure contributions to communities here in this department and I have to state, I think I stated in my opening remarks to the budget, as well, and I have stated here in this department, that communities have been funded for their capital infrastructure at the same level for far too many years. If I look at the background information that we are provided, the government is proposing to keep communities at the same infrastructure funding level for the next two or three or four years to come. That is a real concern for me.
Our communities, under the New Deal, which started quite a few years ago now, have been taking on more and more infrastructure. They have accepted what used to be government infrastructure and it has now become community infrastructure and as they grow, as communities grow, they build their own infrastructure. Yet, they are funded at the same level for their capital projects as they have been for quite some years. I don’t know how far back it goes but it goes back a long way.
There have been discussions about doing a review. There certainly has been a review done on operational funding and I am very glad for that and there were some changes made, but there needs to be, and there should have been, the same review on capital infrastructure funding for communities. I don’t think that’s finished. I hope that it is in the works. I would ask the Minister to confirm that it is happening. If it is not happening, it certainly had better be one of the first things that are done in the 18th Assembly. It’s really important that the government recognizes that our communities are doing more and more on less and less and we cannot expect them to be subsistent. We can’t expect them to protect our residents, to provide services for our residents if we don’t give them the capital dollars to keep their infrastructure up to snuff. So, it’s just a comment, Mr. Chair.
I do have a question. Where are we at in terms of a review of the funding? Other than that, that’s all I have. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. McLeod.
