Debates of February 25, 2005 (day 44)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, further to my statement today, I’d like to ask questions to the Minister of RWED. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot in the news and during our budget session where we have not been able to fund everything that we need to. I really do believe that for the people out there, they don’t really care if we have 28 more positions in RWED or wherever else. What makes the difference to them is what’s happening in their communities and to facilities that are breaking down. We have places with no indoor gyms, we’re closing facilities, and I just heard now that there is a very valuable program in Yellowknife that’s under the axe. So I’d like to know from the Minister how he can justify creating 20 new jobs and say that’s necessary for Mackenzie Valley pipeline development readiness. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not saying 20 jobs because of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I’m not saying 28 jobs, as the Member indicated in her statement. It’s 23 additional jobs. We’ve got a heated economy. We had to do something about our mandates in terms of economic development and environmental stewardship. These are critical priorities of this government. They have been well discussed and debated, as our Legislature set out to create the strategic plan. Certainly that’s where I was taking my direction, Mr. Speaker.

I want to also indicate that of those 23 jobs, one additional position is not because of the split. It’s a position in Hay River to help the south-of-the-lake region better handle some of the increased tourism traffic we’re expecting. Also, three of the positions are energy policy positions that didn’t exist before the split, because we feel we have a void or a vacuum in terms of a macro-energy policy on the part of this government. So those are the numbers.

In terms of other priorities and our limited resources, I would certainly acknowledge that there are other priorities. We do have limited resources. That’s the environment we operate in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated in my Member’s statement, this department, before a split, runs with an $80 million budget. That’s a lot of money. Everybody here knows there are always vacancies in any department. There is a lot of room for the Minister to manoeuvre; 20 or 30 percent vacancies. Mr. Speaker, the Minister is already aware and he has already stated that there will be hardly any funding for individuals or small NGOs to take part in the Mackenzie Valley review process. Most of the government funding goes to other levels of governments and huge organizations. How can he justify even creating 20 new jobs on this when he can’t meet the needs of other more important areas within his mandate? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Mr. Speaker, the environment is very important to us, as is the economy. I think it’s important that we ensure that the resources are there for us to meet the needs of all NWT residents in this regard. I’d like to also indicate to the Member that when we looked at the breadth of responsibility in this one department, RWED, and compared it to other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has six different departments to handle this breadth; in Alberta, it’s seven; Saskatchewan has four; Manitoba has eight; Ontario has eight; Newfoundland has five. We were dealing with one department for all of these mandates and, quite honestly, we didn’t feel we were effectively organized and were afraid that some balls would be dropped and some very important things would be missed, especially with the magnitude of development on our doorstep, Mr. Speaker. So that really was the prime motivation.

Let’s also keep in mind that we’re hopeful we’ll have devolution in the next couple of years. We’ve got to be a devolution-ready organization. I don’t think we’re there yet. We have something now that will provide us the framework. I think there’s a lot more work to do and I don’t think it is going to get done adequately with one department handling the lion’s share of that responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that all governments across the country are bigger than ourselves. But we are smaller than the rest of them, as well. We’re only 40,000 people and, Mr. Speaker, most of the positions that are being created are senior management positions. They are not going to add to the people on the ground who need to be in contact with communities to do the work. In the end, I really don’t think it’s going to make a difference in a way that people want to see it. It really, Mr. Speaker, was done to minimize the pain in reorganization and I think the Minister dropped the ball in terms of looking at the big picture. We have schools that are cracking…

What is your question, Ms. Lee?

Would the Minister revisit this issue? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. More than half of the positions are regional positions. Yes, there are some superintendents, five superintendents. But more than half these positions are in regions to help us deal with the clients in need, both on the environment side and the economic development side. I know the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development hears this message loud and clear as it travels. I’ve been with them on the road, I’ve been in these communities and we are hearing that we are not meeting the needs of our communities and we’re not able to meet regional needs in terms of preparing people for development and ensuring that we are providing that leadership and that environmental stewardship, Mr. Speaker. I think great initiatives are underway now. The Protected Areas Strategy is certainly something that we’ve needed for some time. I’m happy that this government has been able to fund this. It’s been a long time coming. We’re working on cleaning up contaminated sites. We’re doing a lot of good work, but simply, to be quite honest, we needed additional resources in some areas in order for us to meet the demand. That’s what we’ve done here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all the resources he had, the Minister still hasn’t got the beverage recycling plant off the ground, he hasn’t brought in the Wildlife Act that’s been in the works for 10 years, and people are crying in the public media saying we want to take part in having a say about what’s going to happen to us with this development. All the Minister is doing is creating government positions in offices. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not revisit this and see how the money could be better spent in making a difference in people’s lives? Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 483-15(3): Costs Of Dividing The Department Of Resources, Wildlife And Economic Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know if the Member is making the argument for me, but the fact that the Wildlife Act is taking a long time and the beverage container recovery plan is underway but won’t be rolled out in every community for April 1st, I think speaks to our capacity as a government in some regard. I don’t want to put it all there, Mr. Speaker. We’re moving forward on these initiatives, but quite clearly we have been under resourced. Yes, we do need to work to ensure the federal government steps up to fund its responsibility in terms of helping interveners through this GRPEA. I don’t deny that and we’re certainly willing to go to the federal government and insist that they live up to their obligations. But to suggest that our government is not receiving resources from development currently, not receiving the lion’s share of the revenues, is the one that should have to fit the bill for interventions across the board I think is misguided, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.