I would like to thank the Minister for that information. I note that, in the socio-economic agreement covering this project, it says, "Selection, hiring, promoting transferring, dismissing, or otherwise disciplining of all of its employees for the jobs on the project shall be within the sole discretion of Dominion Diamond." It is kind of disappointing to me that we don't really have any hooks on this and that they may not even be required to provide notice to us. Does our government have any authority or power to protect these union jobs that are largely held by long-time and Indigenous NWT residents?
One thing, let's make it quite clear, most of these jobs, as I have been informed, are mostly NWT residents, and we are quite concerned about that. Particularly as the Minister of ITI, I have a very big concern about that. We want to keep these jobs in our territory, but, at the same time, this is an issue between the union and Dominion Diamond. If there is an issue that they can't work out and they want someone to help facilitate, I would certainly direct my department to try to help them do that. We want to make sure that Dominion Diamond, regardless of the outcome of this, that they meet their socio-economic commitments in their agreements.
I would like to thank the Minister for that, but how is he going to do it? Is the Minister prepared to reach out and actually talk to Dominion Diamond about these layoffs and stop them?
We have the SEAs. That is what requires them to base their commitments on. That is what we try to hold them accountable to. At the end of the day, this is something that we want to see the union and the company work out, if possible. We are certainly concerned about it. We are willing to help, like I said, facilitate anything to help move this forward, but, at the end of the day, if they cannot come to an agreement to continue on with these 150 employees, labour law is the ultimate responsibility of the federal government, but we will keep an eye on this situation. I will certainly have discussions with the president of Dominion Diamond.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that. I think I heard him almost say that he was going to try to meet with the president of Dominion Diamond about this. You know, this is a Minister who is very interested in promoting mining and all of the benefits that it can bring. We have these jobs now in the Northwest Territories. We need our government and Cabinet to actually step up to the plate and do something to protect them, so what is Cabinet's position on this issue, and what is the Minister prepared to do about it?
Yes, I am the champion of mining in the Northwest Territories, and I will continue to do that. At the same time, this is an agreement between Dominion Diamond and their employees and the union, and this is something that needs to be worked out between them. We do not impose ourselves on contracts or employees in a manner that tries to tell a private business how to run their business. I will not do that, but I am very concerned about meeting our socio-economic agreements, and we will work with all parties involved to try to ensure as many northern jobs are protected and that commitments are met in the socio-economic agreements. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was talking earlier today in my Member's statement about taxation, and I asked the Minister some questions. I would like to follow up with more questions to the Minister of Finance: can the Minister advise, of that $9.6 million, how much is owed in taxes by the residents of the hamlet of Fort Liard and have a breakdown of principle and interest? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the principle that is owed by the Hamlet of Fort Liard is approximately $700,000: $699,675; interest would be $1,169,999 million; a total of $1.8 million that is owed in taxes by the Hamlet of Fort Liard.
I thank the Minister for that answer. So, we are talking about possible solutions in there. When we are trying to move forward, would the government be willing to waive the interest fee if the residents come up with a plan to pay the principle of the taxation? I am not asking the taxation to be waived. I am asking if we can come up with a plan to pay for these taxes.
Under the property tax legislation, outstanding interest charges are considered to be a part of the tax outstanding. Remission of any property tax or interest would be decision of the executive council. As I said before, we want to work with the residents on a repayment plan, and, if we start forgiving interest, then we will have to do it across the Northwest Territories.
In tax-based communities, people pay a property tax to get the services that are offered within that community. In the GTA, they pay the property tax to government with funding through the hamlets and community governments. We pay these. We pay the costs of maintaining that community, and people expect services, but a lot of times they are not willing to live up to their end of the bargain, which is to pay their community tax. Mr. Speaker, I am going in circles here, so I will stop there. Thank you.
I thank the Minister. I understand we can go around and around in circles. What I am trying to do is come up with a plan that we can move forward for the residents of Fort Liard. The problem is that somebody made a promise to them and now, no fault of their own, they made a decision that they were not going to pay their taxes, so what we are trying to do is come up with a plan to do it. Previously, the Minister talked about the Property Assessment and Taxation Act, and, if I understand him correctly, outstanding interest charges on property taxes are considered part of the taxation outstanding. Would it be possible to separate the tax and interest component in the act to potentially waive this fee?
When I said that I was going in circles, I meant my answer was going in circles and I was trying to find a place to end the answer, not the questioning itself. The Department of Finance, we do track the principle and interest separately for each individual account, and all taxation legislation provides for an interest component, which motivates residents to keep their accounts with the government current. Changing the legislation to set up for an interest and then to potentially waive the fee would be contradictory and problematic as a policy choice. The government does need to continue to charge interest on delinquent accounts. As mentioned earlier, the structure is currently there to remit all or a portion of the tax on the authority of the executive council.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that answer. I understand that, but, if we want to move forward, we have got to come up with a plan to work with these people. I mean, that is my challenge, is that I am sitting here right now; we are not having any direction to encourage these people to pay their taxes because we are in trouble with that, so what I am trying to do is come up with a solution. Would the Minister be willing to have his staff go into the community to work with the affected residents to come up with a plan to try to resolve this issue? Just not talking about the interest, but I am talking about the taxation. If we can get that resolved, then we can move forward.
The quickest solution to the situation that we face right now is for people to honour the commitments that they have made and pay their property taxes. That way, we are in a position to provide the level of service that they have become accustomed to. We need that to happen, but, failing that, we understand that there are some issues. Again, some people are so far into tax arrears that they find it problematic to try to work their way out of it. We are interested in coming up with a repayment plan. I think the Member's question was: would we go into the community and meet with them? I think, as he said, as the Member said in his Member's statement before, we were there in March. We would be willing to go back. We would have to have a coordinated approach with the First Nations government in the hamlet, because we want to make sure that we are all on the same page and all want to resolve the issue. So the answer is, yes, we would consider going into the community again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On May 25th, the Minister of Health and Social Services spoke on the GNWT's public education awareness campaign related to cannabis in preparation for legalization and in preparation to us passing our own laws. I don't want to focus on what is obviously being proposed that we will debate at a later day, but on his statement. It seems like there is a lot of work that has been undertaken already on educating people. Could the Minister provide approximate costs of what has been spent on this public campaign and where the resources are coming from? Thank you.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't have those exact figures in front of me, but I am happy to pull that information together and share it with the Member and committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the Minister. I would very much appreciate that. I do not recall any specific spending in the last budget towards cannabis public education. This is obviously an issue that is very important as we roll out this process. Can the Minister just confirm whether or not it was additional money voted in the budget or whether it is internal resources from the department proper?
To date, we have been using money out of our public health budget to help get that information out there. As a note, we have submitted a proposal to the federal government seeking support to help us work with communities to tailor the information to the communities and get it out. We are not sure we are going to get that financial support or not, but we are still committed to doing the work and working with our partners to get the message out there.
Can the Minister release the details of that plan, either publicly or to the appropriate standing committee?
I sent a letter to committee earlier this week with a complete outline of the advertising and communications that we are doing to get some of that information out there, but I am happy to share a copy of that letter with the Member as well.
Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister just confirm whether or not that was what the department has already undertaken? I am more interested in the detailed multi-year funding proposal that is in to the federal government. Can the committee or the public see that proposal at this time? Thank you.
I am happy to share that proposal with standing committee. I am not sure we should make that public at this point, because we are still working with the federal government to try and obtain that money, but I am happy to share it with committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions for the Minister of Infrastructure about dredging the port of Hay River. I believe it was back in 2016 he said that we might begin dredging in 2017, and it was in 2017 that dredging hadn't begun, but there had been military aircraft taking pictures. There was Coast Guard doing ultrasonic sounding. There were working groups. Now it is 2018, and we are getting close to the end of this Assembly. A constituent just asked me this today, so that is why I am asking: what has been done in regard to dredging the port of Hay River? What work has been completed to date? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member has laid it out pretty well there. When we initially went into this, we started a working group, the Harbour Restoration Working Group. A bunch of work and meetings have taken place with them on a harbour restoration plan. The Coast Guard has done sounding of the Hay River harbour. The military did a flyover and did some photographs for us. As we speak, an analysis of sediment is under way to give us a better idea around the environmental requirements and permitting that needs to be identified as we move forward on this, but I can update the House on opportunities for funding on this project.
The Department of Infrastructure has brought this up with the federal government around the Oceans Protection Plan. We have given them a list of priorities that we believe need to be prioritized under this funding arrangement with the federal government and, at some point, a bilateral they will sign with us, and included in that is the restoration of the Hay River Harbour.
One point that I want to make is that the federal government is not very keen on doing dredging, but we keep pressing the point that this is a priority for us, as it is a security need, a food issue, a resupply issue. The port of Hay River is a focal point of the Marine Transportation System, in and out, and in and out for Coast Guard themselves.
We will continue to pursue federal funding and make our case on the Oceans Protection Plan, and at some point, hopefully we will be able to make an announcement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The federal government isn't too keen on funding dredging, and it doesn't seem like the territorial government is, either. I did a quick Google search of "dredging Hay River," and it came up with posts from the last decade, MLAs standing up in this House talking about dredging the port of Hay River and nothing getting done. Finally, we have a vocal MLA over here hammering this issue. We have a Minister from Hay River. When can we expect this dredging to begin? I hope the answer is 2018.
Let me reassure the House and residents of the Northwest Territories that it is not just the Regular MLA from Hay River pushing this issue. I will tell you that. This has been brought up at a number of federal FPT meetings. It has been brought up one-on-one with the federal Ministers. I continue to push this thing. The bureaucracy pushes back, maybe, a little bit, as I have said in this House, around ocean protection money.
We will continue to pursue the federal money to do the dredging in the Hay River Harbour, as it is a priority, particularly since we are the owner of MTS and the Coast Guard base is facilitated in Hay River. We will continue to push the case.
Does the Minister have any numbers he can share with us about how much they expect this dredging to cost? Maybe we can swing it ourselves and don't have to wait on the feds.
I don't have that exact cost in front of me. I think a lot of this work is going to depend on the sediment samples that we get and the amount of dredging that we want to pursue. There is probably a small amount version that we can tackle to address this situation, but that only does a short-term addressment. The long-term addressment is probably in the millions of dollars.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not even quite sure what to ask anymore. Let's talk about addressing in the short term. It sounds like there might be a plan to address it in the short term. Could the Minister elaborate on what that would look like? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would have to work with my colleagues in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the permitting around the federal situation, because Waters is under the federal jurisdiction. What that permitting would include, I am sure there is a lower threshold, depending on the amount that we would want to dredge. It could be the possibility of a backhoe doing it in the wintertime or something off a barge, but these are the types of questions that I can check with the department and get back to the Member, on what a short-term measure would be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the Assembly that the Standing Committee on Social Development has reviewed Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Summary Conviction Procedures Act, and wish to report that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive rule 75(5) to have Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Summary Conviction Procedures Act, moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi, Member for Nahendeh. The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive rule 75(5) and have Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Summary Conviction Procedures Act, moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.
---Unanimous consent granted
