Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are about income assistance, and in order to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that I had with the Minister yesterday, I just want to start by asking a preliminary question: is the Minister up-to-date with the changes that have taken place in the income assistance regulations? Mahsi.
Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are up-to-date, in fact, we're actually looking at making further changes to our NWT Income Assistance Act to include the NWT child benefit. So, in reality, from the federal government's introduction of the new Canada Child Benefit and the changes that we initially made, we're going to go one step further and make changes to the Income Tax Act and not include the NWT child benefits, so now families with low income to moderate income will start to receive more dollars in their pockets. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Minister to answer this question: why did your department change its income assistance regulations and stop funding food and clothing allowances for children under 18?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The introduction of a new Canada child benefit prompted all provinces and territories to look at their respective social programs. As a territory, what we did was we looked at our social programs, and the outcome was that we wanted to make sure that all income that was intended for children went to the children. So what we did, we made some of those changes. Some of those changes included the introduction of the community cost adjustment. Some of those calculations were based on net family income, as well as the number of children that are in the household and the age of those children. As a result, more families are receiving more money.
We've got to look throughout the Northwest Territories. Each family is unique. They're in different situations. You've got to look at our economy. Some families, some family members might be working, some might not be. So, as we went through the community cost adjustments and looking at this formula to address the income assistance, all families got more dollars.
There have been no concerns that have been brought to the office, no concerns from any of the families with the increases. As I mentioned, more dollars into the pockets of families that are low income. As we make changes to the Income Tax Act, we're going to see even more dollars into these families for low income to moderate income. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister and please take this as I'm concerned, and it took a lot of work to get to this point. So I'm not too surprised you haven't heard from people who are on income assistance. My question is: why did your department change its income assistance regulations and stop funding food and clothing allowances for children? So we're talking specifically about NWT income assistance regulations.
As I said, when the federal government introduced the new Canada child benefit dollars and plan, we had to go and make the changes, as well. We came up with some changes like the community cost adjustment, which adjusted a lot of the way we funded families, and we also, one of those things was the food allowance rates for adults and for mature children, at 18.
At the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, when we made those adjustments, all the families are getting more money. As I mentioned, we wanted to make sure that everything was going right and smoothly. We did a review of 171 families. Of those 171 families in July, before we introduced the new changes, $79,000 was being assessed by our government and looked at as income. After the changes were made in September, we looked at it again; $166,000 was not assessed as income. That went into the pockets of families. We have had no concerns. Now it averages about $500 per family.
Income assistance, although we did make the changes to assist low income families, families with children, and we've seen increases right across the board, we continue to give high dollars in income assistance and we continue to see that rise. We're projected, for 20152016, to give over $20 million in income assistance to those that need it, throughout the territories.
Mr. Speaker, the point here is that, had those regulations not been changed, the people on income assistance would have been receiving more money. What the Minister has said is that the Child Tax Benefit is the occasion for reducing those amounts of money. That means that he is making these changes on the backs of the people who most need this money. We're not talking about huge amounts of money here, but it's important to people with low income. I'd like to know whether the Minister will turn back these reductions in income assistance so that children are once again funded for food and clothing.
We went before committee in July. There was no concerns then when we presented this information, the information that was brought forward. As I said, low income families are getting more money. I don't understand, but, if Members and committee wants to have another presentation, we can walk through it.
Each family is going to be different. As we do the formula funding, it's going to be unique to each family in each situation based on the family's age, the age of the children, the number of children in the household. If the Member wants to sit down, we can get one of our staff to sit down and walk through the details of how this is calculated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, I spoke with some developments on 911 services and a decision by Cabinet to further delay real progress. The Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs checked into the Anderson v. Bell court decision as a possible avenue for funding and found a dead end. Can the Minister tell this House what specific inquiries were made and the results? Merci, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Department of MACA actually did meet with Northwestel. We were asking them if we could utilize some of the funding for 911. We found out that that wasn't an option. The money that was brought down through the court case was offered back to people who had paid for it and, anyone who didn't want to pay for it, that the monies was provided to the Stanton Territorial Hospital Foundation. So that was the avenues that we had taken regarding working with Northwestel on that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to thank the Minister for that response. The Minister also indicated that the lack of 911 service has been brought to attention of the federal government as a possible area of investment. What specific action has been taken, and will the Minister commit to keep this House informed of any further developments in a timely manner?
Yes, we have met with the federal government, a couple of times actually, and we've been asking them to consider our request for 911 under public safety and under future investments in infrastructure funding. We have really put forward the case that 911 is an issue within the territories. We've told them about our difficulties with the limited population and the cost, so they're well aware of that. We will continue to advocate to the federal government for infrastructure money to implement that, and, as soon as I hear any more, I will commit to bringing it forward.
I appreciate the answer from the Minister, but I hope we don't have to wait for the feds to pony up before we can actually get this important service. We should be doing it ourselves. Back in June the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs committed to look into whether Northwestel could change its current recorded message when someone dials 911 to at least give the right information about what numbers to call. The response tabled by the Minister last week failed to address this commitment. Can the Minister tell this House what, if anything, has been done with Northwestel to change the recorded message to contain the right or at least better information?
Yes, we have met with Northwestel in asking them to change the recorded message. Northwestel is not willing at this time to change it. They say it's due to technical and liability concerns. They've also talked that it would require a technical upgrade and they're concerned that it may jeopardize the current message should a new approach prove not successful. However, we are still working with Northwestel regarding cellular service providers, and we're trying to figure out if we can actually redirect callers that call into cell service to the existing emergency numbers that we have.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the efforts on the part of the Minister, but we still don't have 911 service. Lastly, I expressed some frustration and concern that Cabinet has been hamstrung by the $150million reduction target, and Cabinet has used this as a reason for not proceeding with 911 services. How can the Minister and her Cabinet colleagues justify such a position and not find additional revenues or reductions elsewhere in the budget to support critical 911 services? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Cabinet is concerned about it. We had looked at a few things. The money that we had looked at taking reductions in the first two years. We had hoped that we'd be able to invest more money into the final part of our terms; we're still hopeful for that. We're not sure what will happen. We are hopeful for federal monies as well to support that. There are other options. I have requested a meeting with the Standing Committee on Governance, I believe. Let me just check. I'm hoping that offer is still on the table. I'm really hoping that the committee will meet with me to go over the various options that we have and to provide some input into how we could move forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions today for the Minister of Transportation to seek some clarity around the territorial government and the federal government's commitment to the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Mackenzie Valley Highway is an important project identified in our mandate. We know that it is a major infrastructure project, and we're all aware that there is an application into the federal government to the tune of some $700 million of which we would be responsible for about 25 per cent of that.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the federal government has also made an announcement recently that they are putting their consideration for the Mackenzie Valley Highway on the back burner. So I'm just wondering, can the Minister let us know if there has been any additional feedback from the federal government, communication from the federal government with regard to what their commitment is to the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Is it a go or a no go? How long are we expected to wait for certainty? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Transportation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government had notified us in July that they were proposing this application, but what they are doing is they were going through their planning activities and figuring out how they're going to move forward with their infrastructure plan and phase 2 moving forward, and we anticipate that they will probably be doing something within the next budget cycle. We are optimistic that this project is still alive and well from all the conversations we've had from the Minister of Infrastructure meeting with Minister Sohi and myself meeting with Minister Garneau, this project is well on the radar of the federal government and we continue to push it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That'll be my questions for today. The following questions were in case there was a long-term understanding that we didn't know where the federal government was going with their commitment to the Mackenzie Valley Highway. I was going to ask what we were going to do with our resources and would we have a willingness to reallocate those resources to other priority projects, but it seems so far that this is going to remain a priority, to some degree, from the federal government, and I'll keep checking with the Department of Transportation as we move forward.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier I made a statement about NTCL pensions, and I have a correction to make. I stated that the court hearing regarding the pensions was scheduled for October 26th. Today CBC reported that that date has been pushed back to early 2017. It's unclear whether the pensioners will continue to receive their full pension until that date or if the next cheque will be reduced. The pensioners I've talked to have had one communication from the company saying your pension will be reduced at some date in the future. That's all they’ve heard about it. I've also heard of some recent developments. Yesterday, a number of NTCL employees who received temporary layoff notices received permanent layoff notices. There are issues surrounding severance that I'll probably be discussing in the future as those developments develop.
My questions are related to what, if any, role the GNWT is taking or willing to take to protect the pensions of the former NTCL employees and to ensure they receive a fair severance? My question for the Finance Minister is: what level of engagement with NTCL, IDC, any of the unions involved, or the Monitor, Price Waterhouse Cooper, has the government being engaged in so they at least know what's going on with the situation? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the Member said in his Member's statement that this is a privately-owned company and they were paying into a pension plan. To this point, we haven't had much contact with any of the parties involved. I think we play a very limited exposure that we have to NTCL and we don’t really have a standing in the bankruptcy proceedings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think I know how my second question will be answered. In 1999, the GNWT supported an application to the courts in the Royal Oak bankruptcy proceedings taking place in Ontario, relating to the termination of federally-regulated Giant Mine employees. Our government argued on behalf of the employees that the NWT Labour Standards Act had to be complied with to the benefit of the employees despite the fact that it is federal jurisdiction. Despite the fact this took place in a different jurisdiction, they did this to support our residents. So is the GNWT willing to put in the same effort to support the affected NTCL pensioners and terminate employees in terms of engaging any sort of legal proceedings?
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the GNWT had a standing in the Royal Oak proceeding so it was easier to intervene and make representation. I said before, we have limited exposure with NTCL. We don’t have a standing in the bankruptcy proceedings, so it would be difficult for us to do so, and it's also assumed that the pensioners and affected employees are suitably represented in the proceedings.
This is federally regulated. It always comes back to that. So on the federal level what is the GNWT doing to engage the federal Minister? Are they writing the federal Minister in support of the pensioners? Are they talking to the MP at least? Is there anything going on a federal level to support these residents of our territory?
Mr. Speaker, at this point, no, I haven't had the opportunity to speak with our MP; however, I will commit to having a conversation with Mr. McLeod, and as far as writing to the appropriate federal Minister, no, that hasn't been done yet.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These answers are, I guess, what I expected. We see that there's not much happening on the part of the government to support, you know, the affected employees of NTCL. In general, these type of things can be avoided in the future. I know that in Ontario they have a system where they have regulations to protect pensions, and there was an article a couple days ago in the Financial Post talking about how even public sector pensions, the investments are becoming riskier. They're not as stringently regulated as things like banks, and so there's a risk that, you know, a lot of people, a lot of organizations can face these pension shortfalls. So is the government aware of this and doing anything to prevent these types of issues in the territory in the future? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I'm not personally aware of it; maybe the department is, but what I will ask them to do is to do some research into the issue that the Member speaks of. I mean it's unfortunate that we have to be having this discussion on the pension of those employees in Hay River for -- or all the employees of NTCL. But I will commit to the Member that I'll do further research. I'll ask the department to maybe have a conversation with Ontario, see exactly what it is that they do there.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today my question is in regards to the Fibre Optic Mackenzie Valley Project, and it's certainly a project that is financed by this government through the P3 Arrangement and would be coming onto the books here with an extended period of one year since the project was extended from last June to this coming June. So, therefore, it's the last year of work season and having knowledge of some previous contractors that haven't been paid over the last 24 months. Could the Minister of Finance ensure that he will look into this and also look into the fact of having a reserve holdback fund to offset or pay the subcontractors related to that service? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the P3 partner is actually the contractor on this particular project and they have deals worked out with the subcontractors, and we have no role to play, it's not our contract. So there's really not much we can do. Any issues that might be happening would be between the contractor and subcontractors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for his prudent project management, and looking back into the statements made by the Minister on March 3rd saying that, as per the project agreement, no deficiencies or holdbacks and unpaid bills would be left as part of this project come transfer day. Having said that and although it's not ours yet, but it will be, we want to get a clean bill of health that this project is met by standards and the technical issuance of the original contract are of P recognition. So I want to ask the Minister if a certificate will be coming that this government has supported a contractor and its subcontractors that enjoy working for this government knowing the fact that they will be paid a recognition or a certification of all bills paid come takeover day?
Mr. Speaker, the contractor has made great efforts in the Sahtu to make good on many of the outstanding invoices. There might have been a few that fell through the cracks. Apparently there was a meeting in Fort Good Hope and nothing was really raised during the meeting. As a matter of fact, it was quite positive and they were appreciative of the work they have this upcoming winter. I can say that of the $32 million in local spending, employment as long as 2016 the Sahtu has enjoyed the benefits of $21 million in project spending. I can assure the Member and all Members of this House and the general public that, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we will ensure that we have a quality project when it's turned over to us and the lights are turned on.
Going back to a clean bill of health for all the subcontractors providing services in and outside of the Sahtu Region for the project, whether that service is coming from Fort Simpson, or other parts of Canada for that matter, it's a project that was initiated by this government and we want to ensure that we get the product that was initiated by this government as per the specifications, and a clean bill of health that all subcontractors are paid. If the Minister would provide a briefing, prior to the takeover date, that everybody is paid?
Mr. Speaker, this is a project that this government has been quite excited about, and the benefits it'll bring to technology down the valley, and of course I will keep committee apprised as to going forward. I know there's a winter bill season, that's when they are hoping to have it completed, and we are hoping to have it lit up by I believe it's this spring. So there's a short little stretch to go, but the plan is to try to have that completed this spring. But I will keep committee apprised as to the work going forward.
Oral questions. Member for Sahtu.
Mr. Speaker, my last question. I'm glad to hear that the lights are going to be turned on and hopefully it'll shed some light to unpaid bills. In the briefing or information supplied I know of certain companies that are in the neighbourhood of at least 17 per cent of the overall project, and the overall project is $82 million, so 17 per cent of that, approximately, is in the form of unpaid bills. So if that could be researched and confirmed by the Minister that it's going to be paid? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
