Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister just said the third week of November for light traffic and mid-November for heavy traffic, so that does add up to me just like some of his other numbers there. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this keeps the cost of living down. How does the Minister expect to keep the costs of living down in the region when they take out the ferries and rise up the costs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This continuation of the winter ferry was a decision of the House of this Assembly. We have made $1.8 million as I’ve said. The road was open for 36 days based on it for $1.8 million with the Dempster possibly closed as much as 40 per cent of the time. It’s not good value for the money. The decision was made to put this winter ferry service into accommodate the Ikhil well. The situation right now is not a concern of ours. There seems to be from the producers’ side of things, there is not an effect of it going forward. We will continue to monitor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my statement earlier today, I brought up several issues that relate to our fledging agriculture sector. My first question is about lands. I’m aware that access to agricultural land is an issue for the Department of Lands but the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment has the agricultural file. I wanted to both pass on the message that the farmers who are actually putting in the sweat equity to get this industry off the ground are frustrated with a lack of support they’re receiving when it comes to accessing land. I want to ask the Minister: what is he doing to help them access affordable agricultural land in a timely matter? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to remind this House this is the first ever agricultural strategy of the Northwest Territories. We tabled that in March. We were working towards this budding industry to bring local production of food to residents of the Northwest Territories. Yes, the issue of lands is one that we’re working on. It’s an interdepartmental working group working on this. It’s myself, ITI, Health and Social Services, ENR, the Department of Lands. We’re assessing this stuff. We’re looking at other jurisdictions and what’s going on. We’re continually talking with the federal governments so we’re not having the roles and responsibilities mixed up. We will continue to work on that, but yes, the issue of lands is a liability. This is one of the biggest things we have to implement in the strategy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
About half of the agricultural funding in the Growing Forward 2 program is spent internally on ITI by things such as promoting agricultural awareness, community gardens, and other non-commercial ventures so why does the Minister of Industry prioritize the socialist programs instead of flowing the money directly to the commercial producers?
Why?
When we tabled this strategy, we went out to consultations to develop the strategy across the Northwest Territories of people that are interested in agriculture. That fed into how we developed this strategy going forward. That was their strategy along with ours that we put forward in this House. We are finishing up our Growing Forward 2. They’re the last year of our five-year growing forward plan. We’re going to be moving forward with a new plan with a federal Minister, but right now we’re out doing a survey to see feedback on what we can do in the strategy. How can we make things work better and listen to what residents in the Northwest Territories have to say about implementing this strategy. To clearly answer the Member’s question, the strategy was developed in consultation with all of the farmers in the Northwest Territories.
Speaking of the strategy, many of the recommendations in the agricultural strategy relate to training, specifically during the community consultations it came to light that communities outside of the regional centres support train the trainer approach and a focus on experiential learning so that they can gain and develop agricultural skills within the community.
NFTI has been successful in providing both of these. He had residents or regularly denied funding to attend NFTI in favour of brief community-based workshops which offer no real experiential learning and which are no match for spending weeks on a working farm. Why over the past two years has ITI been systematically denying residents the funding they require to train with the Northern Farm Training Institute?
I have never heard that concern. If that Member has that type of information, I’d gladly sit down with him and discuss it.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I’ll take that up with the Minister later. I’ll fill him in. How about this? Why does ITI believe they’re better positioned than the Northern Farm Training Institute because ITI has been the one who has taken over the role of deciding what residents need to know if they think they know better than a farm training institute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don’t believe that’s the case. The strategy that we put forward, as I said, is in consultation with the people that want to do farming in the Northwest Territories. We’re back out doing a survey with them right now to see what we can do to implement to make this thing better going forward. We will continue to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Health and Social Services. During my visit to communities, I noticed that there seems to be a high rate of cancer in my riding. Can the Minister please tell me how many people from Nahendeh are being sent out for cancer treatment presently? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I can say that there are residents of Nahendeh being sent out for cancer treatment. Some of those are in Yellowknife. Some of those are going south for radiology services or chemotherapy but at this point in time, I’m not prepared to actually give the number. The number is low. Given how low it is, I don’t want be in a position where we might be able to identify individuals by articulating the number but I will certainly discuss that with the Member later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for that answer and I look forward to having a conversation with him. Can the Minister please tell us if there are support groups available for patients with cancer and if these patients are told about this type of program?
Yes there are all sorts of different support groups that exist throughout the Northwest Territories. In addition, we have a cancer care coordinator who works out of Stanton Territorial Hospital and does provide outreach to support NWT cancer patients throughout their entire cancer journey. When the cancer coordinator is aware of a cancer patient via healthcare provider or by a self-referral, she does let patients know about the supports that are available to them that are appropriate and does work to connect them with those resources.
Mr. Speaker, the medical travel guide also lists a number of the different organizations and groups out there whether they are community groups, national groups, or groups supported by different societies. That is in the medical travel guide with all the contact information. I can certainly provide a comprehensive list to the Member. I would list them off all here but we would be going for an extended period of time which I know makes the Members unhappy when I talk for long periods of time and don’t tend to, yes.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I guess my concern is when I talk to some of my constituents they’re not away of these support groups out there so I look forward to working with the Minister. My understanding when patients go out for chemo treatment, the immune system is very unstable or is very susceptive to cross-contamination issues. Flus and that can make them sicker. Does the department have a policy in place to deal with patients who are getting treatment for cancer, both staying in the boarding home or in hotels?
I think this also goes to one of the questions the Member asked earlier today about individuals being in their own rooms. Unfortunately, there is no specific policy in place regarding cancer patients and boarding homes. Cancer patients do stay at boarding homes but the accommodations made can be different depending upon patient circumstances. For example, it could be important that other arrangements are made for patients with reduced immune systems as a result of this type of treatment. This is a policy hole in our system right now. This is one of the things that I’ve asked the department to look at, how we can address or work with our clients who have long-term accommodation requirements may have to leave the territories for extended periods of time as a result of treatment or in compromised positions where it may not be safe for them to be sharing rooms with other people who might be coming in with different illnesses. This is a policy gap that exists. This is something that has been identified. This is something that the department is working to address.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for the answer. It kind of leads in to my next question. With people with chemo treatments and that, can the Minister start working with these patients to put them in hotels until a policy is in place so their immune systems don’t allow them to catch other diseases such as colds and stuff like that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when these individuals do come to our attention, we do work with them on one-off basis to try and address their issues. It does not mean that every cancer patient is in the same situation that we have described, but where there are certainly issues as a result of other conditions or the chemo effect on their immune systems. We are prepared to work with them to find alternative arrangements. It may not be a hotel. It might be other family supports or other private accommodation that might be most appropriate, but we are certainly willing to work with our residents to make sure that they remain healthy as they are going through treatment and are not catching other conditions or sicknesses or illnesses. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following two documents entitled "Inter-Activity Transfers Exceeding $250,000 (April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017)" and "Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board 2016-2017 Annual Report." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, committee wishes to consider Committee Report 12-18(2), Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning Report on the Progress Review of the Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019; and Tabled Document 419-18(2), Proposed Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019 (Revised). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will consider the documents after a brief recess.
---SHORT RECESS
I would like to call Committee of the Whole back to order.
Committee, we have agreed to consider Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning Report on the Progress Review of the Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019 and the proposed mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019, revised. I propose that we consider these concurrently. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I understand that the Premier had some opening comments. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To open this discussion, I’d like to make some brief remarks on the proposed revised mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019.
In June of this year, Cabinet and Regular Members each tabled their respective reports reflecting on the government’s progress on our mandate. These reports provided a critical evaluation of our progress on the almost 200 commitments in the mandate, including suggestions to ensure we continue to work effectively toward fulfilling the priorities of the 18th Legislative Assembly through the second half of our term.
Since June we have engaged in a collaborative process with Regular Members to revise and improve our mandate. This process has required us to listen carefully to each other, find common ground, and compromise when it is in the best interest of Northwest Territories’ residents, all of which are items essential to the functioning of a consensus government. Based on the feedback received from Regular Members, as well as subsequent discussions in Caucus and correspondence back and forth between Regular Members and Cabinet, we have proposed a revised mandate for consideration by Committee of the Whole, which we tabled at the beginning of this sitting. The proposed revised mandate is the product of a great deal of coordination and collaboration between political leaders and government departments, and takes into account Regular Members’ feedback as well as the fiscal and operational realities that our government must face.
The proposed revised mandate continues to follow the priorities of the 18th Legislative Assembly that the original mandate followed, while also recognizing that new information and changing external factors may warrant an adjustment to our approach. To this end, the proposed revised mandate includes new commitments regarding emerging issues, such as the legalization of cannabis, youth suicide prevention, revised wording to clarify existing commitments, and restructuring of existing commitments to allow for progress to be tracked and reported.
Additionally, we have responded to the standing committee’s concern about duplicate commitments by removing or combining copies of commitments that were found under multiple headings. Once the Legislative Assembly has adopted a revised mandate, departments will develop new milestones for added commitments, and revise the milestones for existing commitments to ensure they accurately capture and report on the activities undertaken by government to fulfill our mandate. These milestones will be tracked and reported on the mandate website, which will also be updated to reflect the revised mandate.
I look forward to our discussions today on the revised mandate, and I am confident we will have a much improved document that will guide us through the remainder of the life of this Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Does committee have any general comments on the documents? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I simply want to state I’m happy that we have undergone this process. I think it’s very becoming of us as a government to take an opportunity halfway through our term to review the priorities that we made as a government. Certainly, when you’re fresh off the campaign trail and newly elected, there are a lot of burning issues. We seem to at times even get emotional about those.
We put a lot of work and lot of effort into drafting our original mandate, but as I noted, I think this is the right thing for us to do. I’ve appreciated the steps that we have taken as a government: meeting earlier in the spring and again later in the fall, and now coming to a revised mandate halfway through our term. I think it only makes sense. I’m a small business kind of guy, and it’s not uncommon for small businesses to have to pull out their business plan ever once in a while, dust it off, and make revisions so that they can stay current.
We hear from our constituents on a regular basis and they’re the ones that matter in this. They’ve informed us time and time again on those things that they value and that they want to see us work on collectively. We’ve come to realize over time that maybe some of those things didn’t get fully captured in the original mandate. With that, I want to simply say thank you to everybody for all the work that everyone has done in getting the mandate to where it is today, and I look forward to completing the process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d also like to express my appreciation to my colleagues for the work they’ve done in revising the mandate and in hopefully improving it. I want to reflect on some of the limitations of the mandate, though, while I have the opportunity. The first is that it doesn’t really contain priorities. In it there are 200 priorities that range from building a new road at a price tag of $67 million in the current capital budget, to supporting initiatives that will get women elected, at a cost of $15,000 or so. There is no sense of the weighting in this mandate, of the relative importance or scope or cost of those different items. The thing that I regret most is that we have too many priorities, and with too many of them we don’t really have a sense of urgency around which ones need to be accomplished immediately and which ones don’t.
It’s also worth noting that there are some major initiatives being undertaken by the government that never were in the mandate. I’ll give you a few examples. One is departmental amalgamation. There was nothing in the governance section that talked about theneed to undertake departmental amalgamation. I believe that was driven by the fiscal realities, which I don’t necessarily disagree with. It was not something, however, that we had agreed to as a priority, and it wasn’t something that we made a priority, and yet it became a priority. Likewise with the drive to set up the airport revolving fund. The change in governance for the Yellowknife Airport is not something that appears anywhere in this document, and nor does removing the board of NTCP or Aurora College.
What has developed is a kind of two-tier approach. There are the priorities of the government and there are the priorities of the Caucus, and this document represents the priorities of the Caucus. It doesn’t represent what the government has decided to do for reasons of its own. That’s a real limitation.
Having said that, this document is cited by every Minister every time something is done, that it is in the mandate. If it isn’t in the mandate, then it doesn’t get done. There’s kind of a double jeopardy that goes on with this document.
It’s full of good intentions, but it’s not necessarily full of ways and means. As a result, I think we’re setting ourselves up, despite the glowing reviews on the government’s mandate tracker, for a lot of unfinished business in this 18th Assembly because we’ve simply taken on way more than we can possibly accomplish, not only fiscally, but in terms of the capacity of the departments that we work with to get the job done. I’m happy that this work is done. I think it’s better to revise the mandate than not, but I think the document has some real limitations, revised or not. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Next is Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I’m agreeing with the sentiments raised by my two previous speakers, colleagues from Yellowknife North and Yellowknife Centre, respectively. I think we had a more collaborative process this time around. That’s a good thing. There are, however, a number of conflicting items and commitments in the mandate, and it’s not possible to do it all. It’s so big that you could drive trucks through it. I’ll use one example. When we say that we’re going to try to accomplish three major road projects all at the same time, I think it’s unrealistic and raises unrealistic expectations among residents. It’s just not possible financially, capacity-wise, and so on. I’ve always said that I think we’re doing our residents a disservice by having too many items in the mandate. In some cases there are even conflicting items. There is no way we can build a Mackenzie Valley highway, a Slave geological province road, and a road to Whati at the same time. Even if the federal government gave us gazillions of dollars, there’s no way we could do it all at the same time. I think we should have spent more time setting some priorities, as my colleague from Yellowknife Centre said.
I think the process that we went through was a sound one. I do worry, though; I think some of the discussion and debate that we have had around changing parts of the mandate should take place on the floor and in public. This is not just about tweaking in some cases. This is about fundamental changes to our priorities and the things that we have agreed to try to work together on.
I will just use one example which I will speak of later: child care. There is a fundamental change in the priorities in this new document. We are not aspiring for universal child care anymore. We are just going to try to improve affordability and accessibility. I think that is a fundamental change. I think it represents a broken promise, and I will raise that again when we come to that part of the discussion later today. Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Before we continue, I just want to take a minute to thank all the Pages, not just the ones here today, but the ones who have been here this sitting and this entire session as we are coming to the end of our third session. Thank you to all the Pages that have been with us this year. Next, Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to be as quick as possible here. I would like to thank both sides for working together on this revised document. It was a lot of work throughout the process of developing it and to revise it. I really have to say that youth suicide prevention, to me, is very important, and it is getting the recognition it does need to deserve as we move forward on that. My colleagues talked about other priorities, and there was a lot of give and take. I know there were some issues on the mandate that I had to give up that were unrealistic, and I understood they were important for my riding, but for the global picture, sometimes you have to give some things up. I would like to thank everybody for working together and working hard as we move forward.
It is a challenge, and it would have been nice to do some stuff in the open, but sometimes work has to get done. As I said during it, I just want to move forward on this mandate. Sometimes we are able to achieve some stuff behind closed doors that we might have taken longer to do here. No disrespect to my colleagues who wish to do it in the open. I believe in open, transparent government, but sometimes we need to get work done. Sometimes it can be done behind closed doors. Some meetings are challenging. I know I was part of committees, and we had some pretty good conversations. I do not know if we could have done that out in the public.
I thank everybody for the hard work they did in developing a revised mandate that I think we can hopefully achieve through the remainder of the term, if not at least the majority of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Next, Mr. Nadli.
