Debates of May 27, 2005 (day 3)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My questions this morning are for the Honourable Brendan Bell in his capacity as Minister of Investment, Tourism and Industry. It might be the other way around, but I hope that’s clear enough. Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the statement I made earlier on the diamond mining industry and its impact or potential lack of impact on our long-term sustainable economy here. Madam Speaker, we have long complained about resource industries being fly-in/fly-out industries. Here, unfortunately, we have another manifestation of this with Diavik’s decision and it’s quite allowable, I would underline, through the socioeconomic agreement, within the first four years of the agreement, to fly workers in from outside of the NWT at no cost. Madam Speaker, how are we to grow our economy if we allow ourselves to continue to be treated as any other remote outpost that multinationals can fly-in/fly-out either workers or product? How can we continue to grow if this is the way we continue to regard ourselves? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a difficult issue for us to address, but we know what we need to do is get more northerners trained, especially for the jobs that require a high level of expertise. The fact of the matter at that specific mine is 70 percent of their workforce -- I think it’s 72 percent, in fact -- are northerners. The other 30 percent currently come from the South. Had we had that expertise locally available in the North, there would be no one coming in from the South. That is our goal. That’s why we have programs set up like the ASEP program that the Minister of Education has been working diligently on with industry and with communities. I think that’s the future, Madam Speaker. The future is to get our people trained to take advantage of the opportunities that are there for them. I don’t believe the mine has any interest in flying people in from the South unless they absolutely need to. It’s more expensive. As I said earlier and yesterday to the questions, people who live and work in the North are much more likely to stay at those jobs. The cost of turnover is huge for mines. When you have people trained and prepared to stay, the longer they stay, the less you have to train replacements. So they have a vested interest in using northerners and I am sure if they could use 100 percent northerners, they would. It’s up to us as government and northerners to get our people trained to take advantage of those opportunities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those are all very good and very valid explanations, part of the foundation of our understanding. Certainly the mines collectively deserve congratulations and compliments for the investment they have made in doing that. It is truly a partnership. It continues to be a source of concern that we are seeing this trend, unfortunately, come into a reality. Madam Speaker, the cost of living and separation from friends and relatives is one of the main reasons that southern workers say they cannot move to the Northwest Territories. Now we can’t do much about the distance and the separation from friends and relatives, but we can about the cost of living. What is the GNWT doing to help address the high and already getting higher cost of living here in Yellowknife? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a very comprehensive and broad response required to that difficult question. It is a priority of the government to start to address the cost of living in the North, and it’s one that cuts across many departments and many aspects of life in the North. Obviously we need to make more land available for housing developments. We need to pursue opportunities like hydro to make sure that the cost of electricity across the North isn’t so onerous. There are many things that we need to do. We need to focus as a government on a number of these issues, but there is no denying that in an overheated economy, wage inflation pressures drive the cost, because it’s very competitive, of labour up. It’s more and more expensive for those who provide services to employ people to carry out those services. So the effect is one of compounding the problem. I suppose many people would say it’s a good problem to have because the economy is so hot, but we do know there are issues we need to be able to address. I don’t think government can do it on its own, Madam Speaker, but we certainly can play a significant role. That is part of our priority and strategy as a government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing that rather far-ranging question and for the Minister’s answer. I will come back to the theme of workers choosing not to live in the Northwest Territories. There is a concern in the city, Madam Speaker, that workers who are now residents of the Northwest Territories may look at this and say if I can get my way paid from Edmonton, I am going to move to Edmonton. I get the big salary, I enjoy the lower cost of living, I am closer to friends and relatives and other kinds of amenities. What kind of protections are there in the socioeconomic agreements, Madam Speaker, that will prevent or deter workers from actually retreating and leaving the Northwest Territories?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Madam Speaker, in much of this discussion, we tend to want to focus on the hypothetical, the what-ifs. We don’t know what’s going to happen and obviously we can’t chain people up and force them to work or force them to live somewhere. We have to do our best to make sure that it is an environment that people want to live in; that’s what we are here to do. We are here to improve life, reduce the cost of living and make sure this is the best place in the country to live. I believe it is. Will some people want to move south because they have now seen a window? I don’t know. I guess hypothetically that is the case. The mines do provide the charters coming north. They are aware of who is on these charters, but they can’t insist that because you have chosen to move south for whatever reason that you can no longer be employed at the mine. I hazard a guess that they would run afoul of provisions of the Charter of Rights by suggesting that. So I think it’s important for us to focus on what we can improve in the North, instead of looking at protectionist measures and trying to project the absolute worst-case scenario. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister is right; we have to pursue an incentive and an attractive environment to work and live in, but I will go back to what I started with. The North has had such a history of fly-in/fly-out resource development and we have worked so hard to counter that. The agreements that we put in place under considerable pressure, Madam Speaker, to get the diamond companies to comply with our desire to leave some of the product here so we could work on it is one example of how we have worked so hard to make this happen. The concerns I raise about workers now potentially making these kinds of choices is a signal that we have to do as much as we can to make this an attractive environment. So I would come back and ask the Minister what steps he is taking with Diavik to constructively reverse the opportunity they’ve made, and not just wait for another two years before this agreement comes up. What steps are we taking right now to help Diavik attract and keep workers living in the North? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 32-15(4): Impact Of New Diavik Travel Policy

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have met with the company, Diavik specifically, a couple of times recently about this. We’ve had discussions around training for the most part because that really is the answer here, is to make sure that programs like ASEP are up and running, and are able to provide training for people who are currently not employed and who want to be employed, but I think that’s the answer. As we stated earlier, Diavik is complying with the terms of the socioeconomic agreement. Their explanation for having to do this is one of a very hot economy in western Canada and the fact that 30 percent of their workforce is coming from the South is highly sought after for southern projects. They’re trying to make sure that there’s not a disincentive for them to come north. It’s quite possible that as these people come north and get more familiar with life in the North, that they’ll in fact want to relocate here, and I don’t think that we can discount that possibility either, Madam Speaker.

So, much of this is hypothetical, but I would say to the Member the Member is aware of people who are specifically coming to his office and suggesting that they’re now going to leave the South, this is the window they’ve been looking for because the $10,000 in northern allowance payments they get from the company was really now something they were going to leave on the table and take the $3,000 travel benefit, and that was the difference. But I’m prepared to sit down and talk to the Member and committee about that. So if the Member has some specific names or incidences, we can sit down and discuss that. Thank you.