Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, November 24, 1993 I shall move that Bill 4, an Act to Amend the Hamlets Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions, Motion 1-12(4), Setting of Sitting Hours by Speaker. This motion will be stood down until tomorrow. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Minister's Statement 3-12(4), Sessional Statement by Premier; Bill 1, Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1994-95; and, Committee Report 3-12(4), Report of the Standing Committee on Finance Review of the 1994-95 Capital Estimates, with Mr. Pudluk in the chair.

The committee will now come to order. What does this committee wish to do this afternoon? Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman the committee wishes to start addressing the Sessional Statement by the Premier for some time this afternoon, and then we would like to go into the Department of Transportation. Thank you.

Thank you, Member for Thebacha. I believe this is Bill 1. We'll start with the Sessional Statement made by the Premier, if this committee agrees we start with that first.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. General comments, Member for Thebacha.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I initially moved for the Sessional Statement to be brought into committee of the whole so we can further discuss it in some detail, or to ask questions on it as opposed to spending a lot of our time in question period addressing many of the issues, particularly when a lot of the answers, I would anticipate, would not be readily available. Mr. Chairman, when we decided to address this, there were basically some general comments that I would like to make as a Member.

First of all, I appreciate the government giving us information and giving us an update as to where they are at with the process of decentralization. I've indicated in the House for the record that I've always supported decentralization and it's appreciated to know where this government is at with it.

However, I am concerned with respect to the way implementation of the staff housing strategy, to get the government out of housing, is addressed. I know part of the strategy involves selling of government owned housing and I have to say that I'm really disappointed as to how the strategy has been implemented. I initially supported this strategy, I fully supported the concept of government getting out of housing but the way they disposed of the houses is not the way I had anticipated it would happen.

Mr. Chairman, quite some time ago I asked in this House, to the Minister of Personnel, how these houses were going to be disposed of and I was given assurance that these houses would be disposed of through the private market, through a real estate agency. In my discussions with the real estate agency in my riding, in the year 1992 when there was no government housing for sale on the private market, there were 21 sales in Fort Smith alone. But in 1993, up to September of 1993, there were only three sales of housing because of the fact that the government decided to take it upon themselves to sell their surplus units. Not only did it destroy the housing market but I believe it practically destroyed a business in Fort Smith. I know it wasn't the intention of the government. In fact, I think they wanted to create an economy, create a housing market, but certainly the way the strategy has been implemented, did not achieve these results.

I've recognized on the top of page two on the ministerial Sessional Statement, it says that 89 units of staff housing have been sold throughout the territories and another 91 sales are pending. I certainly hope that out of these 91 sales, they are not sold through the government.

Another comment that I want to make is, I am aware that the appraisal method used for these houses is not on the appraisals that you do. It's apparently on the assessed value of the land and of the houses which is totally different from an appraised method of the unit. You get a totally different figure. I know of one civil servant in Fort Smith who has purchased a house -- apparently from the government surplus -- for $85,000, decided to move out of the community into another position in the government and turned around and was able to sell his unit for $135,000. Now, this was not the intention of the government when they disposed of these units but this is the way that the housing strategy has been allowed to be disposed of in a method which is not, I believe, acceptable for the government and not acceptable for the community.

I don't believe it was the intention of the government to get into the real estate market but without recognizing it, they did and it's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, also in this Sessional Statement there were comments such as, the community transfer initiative -- and it's somewhat of concern to Members of this House -- when we have the government wanting to give more responsibility to communities when they have closed down one of the larger communities in the territories. We still have not yet heard why. Maybe the Member for that particular community knows the details but other Members don't. It leaves us in a position where it's somewhat difficult, on one hand, to understand why government is trying to create community transfer initiatives and on the other hand, closing down a community.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents were very grateful for the $6 million workers' training fund this past summer. Many people in the north were grateful for such a fund being available and I certainly would like to commend the government for taking such an initiative. I believe it created much needed jobs in many of the communities that had a lack of employment available.

Continuing on through the Sessional Statement, I believe one of the major concerns of many Members, Mr. Chairman, is the government's plan to turn the NWT Power Corporation into a user-owned utility, by giving northern residents and organizations a chance to invest in their future, by the purchasing of shares. I believe it is a concern to many people in the north that the government is planning to privatize the Power Corporation. It is not as much of a concern when you look at privatizing the liquor outlets, POL or other opportunities the government may consider privatizing. But, when you start privatizing a utility corporation which provides some of the basic needs in today's society, it is a concern. How is this going to be privatized? Where is it at? What method is going to be used? Who is going to be given the opportunity? There are many questions with respect to the privatization of the Power Corporation. I am sure Members will press this issue further in the House as our session goes along.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to education, we all recognize that more people are requesting an education. We know that the capital and O and M budget is probably being pressed for education. We also know that because of a decline in the economy, people feel they need an education in order to be competitive for whatever jobs are available. I believe training is a key component.

I was pleased to note that our MP is working closely with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy. I would encourage this government to take advantage of CEIC or other federal agencies. We should make the most of any type of training opportunities for the territories.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the topic of work place commission, again, there are many questions on the commission. I know it was the intention of the Government Leader to give us a briefing in the caucus, but our caucus agenda just didn't allow the time. We did have the opening and other events happening. It is unfortunate that we didn't have the time because this announcement was made through the House by the Sessional Statement.

There are many questions with respect to this commission. There are many questions about the purpose, the framework, the mandate, the cost and of the final report to be published in the fall of 1995. Taking into account that 1995 is the election year, and this report is going to be published in the fall, who is to say that the next government will take this report and implement every recommendation? We are somewhat sceptical of the government asking for in excess of $1 million to look at such a commission, when we don't clearly understand what it is for and what it intends to do.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Members are very pleased with the fact that the Access to Information and Privacy Act will be introduced in the next session. I agree, as many Members will, that there are many complex and outstanding issues such as claims, developing a new constitution for the western territory, and arranging for ongoing work toward the creation of the Nunavut government. There are many outstanding items that have to be addressed. However, we must not forget -- even though these political and constitutional developments have to be addressed -- that we have many social, housing and health problems to address. They are very important needs of the people of the Northwest Territories.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give another colleague of mine the opportunity to make general comments, with regard to this Sessional Statement. I would like to thank the Cabinet and the Government Leader for bringing us up to date. I know that was probably their intention in putting forward this Sessional Statement, into the House. I believe it is appreciated but there are many questions about issues that we did not know about. I believe that the Committee of the whole is a better forum for addressing this than question period. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a number of comments. I wonder if the Premier would like to make a remark? Madam Premier.

I would hope that we could look at the general comments. Then I will make comments about some areas and the Ministers responsible will take note of the general comments and will respond after the general comments are made, if that's acceptable.

Is this committee agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Okay, general comments and questions. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am perhaps biased, having been involved with the public hearings and the preparation of the report of the Special Committee on Health and Social Services. I know that some of these problems -- family violence, alcohol and drug abuse, child care -- are areas in which it sometimes seems one could spend great amounts of money and still feel that they have not come close to dealing with the serious issues we all know we're facing in our communities.

I want to say that, knowing the special committee report was coming forward at this session -- and I do appreciate the positive comments of the Premier today about what we hoped would be the constructive nature of that report -- I find myself searching for some acknowledgement of these pressing social issues in the Sessional Statement.

Mr. Chairman, apart from references to the plan to present papers on custom adoption, income support and training, family violence, and a response to the gender equality report, I don't see that there's any emphasis on the social issues that are crippling our communities.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that these social issues, unless they're resolved, are going to provide barriers to economic, and even constitutional development and community transfer in our communities. So, my general comment is that I was looking for some indication that the government believes these social issues are a priority that have to be dealt with. Issues like the wages of alcohol and drug workers, the deficiencies of the food allowance rates for those who must depend on social assistance, and the adequacy of social services benefits seem to have been ignored in the Sessional Statement.

We know the government is hard pressed financially, but I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that if money was to be squeezed from our tight, tight budget that the priority that would emerge would be something wonderful such as finally dealing with the need to bring alcohol and drug workers' wages to a scale where decent people can be attracted to these jobs. In my constituency you can make more being a water truck driver's helper than you can working as an alcohol and drug counsellor, in a community that is ripe with these kinds of problems.

Instead, what do we see, Mr. Chairman? We see that the government has devoted almost $1 million to a burning issue of the day, the northern work place. I haven't heard Members of this Assembly stand up and demand that the northern work place be studied. I haven't heard committees of this Legislature say that the northern work place is an issue the government must tackle, address and consult our constituents on. Frankly, I've listened carefully and I know there's going to be briefings provided to caucus. The reason cited in the Government Leader's Sessional Statement that we have to prepare for division, the settlement of claims and the negotiation for self-government, to me aboriginal organizations are preparing to settle claims and negotiate self-government. I'm sure that if the character of the work place is going to change because of aboriginal claims negotiations or because organizations such as the Gwich'in are going to negotiate self-government, the Gwich'in would be very happy to decide for themselves how the work place and the labour implications of those changes should be dealt with.

With division we have a federally funded and supported implementation commission which I would think is going to examine issues related to planning the new Nunavut government including, if it's a burning issue, the work place in Nunavut. If the work place is a problem with community transfer, I would think that municipal governments would be anxious and willing to grapple with these issues and deal with them as they take on responsibilities and integrate these former GNWT responsibilities with their own municipal work forces.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that this has been identified as a priority issue for new money, although I'm not saying it's unimportant. When you place it alongside the food allowances for social assistance, the wages for alcohol and drug workers, the need for mental health workers in the community, the need for child care as an aid to improving education and improving employment for single parents and the need to take measures to address family violence, I think all those issues are more important than examining the northern work place.

So, Mr. Chairman, rather than saying the statement has flaws. I would say, from my point of view, one of the biggest questions is why the government's Sessional Statement does not really have anything to deal with these very pressing social issues that we will be debating during this session, as a result of the work of the Special Committee on Health and Social Services. When are we going to tackle the major social issues on which I hope the special committee -- Members will agree -- have made constructive, thoughtful and cost-effective recommendations? Why are we spending money on an area that no one has identified as important, when we are now considering a report that was considered so important that this Assembly created a special committee, consulted widely in the Northwest Territories and has brought forward recommendations that we hope will be taken seriously and will become a priority of the government on which to respond? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Are there any further general comments? Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have devised this method of responding to the Commissioner by moving the Sessional Statement into committee of the whole so we can deal with it in some detail. I think the expectation is when you make a statement like this, which proposed to talk not only about this session but for the next two years, then you would expect it would reflect what is left in our mandate as we have developed as we have gone along over the last two years.

I feel one of the big problems we always have is we set up a committee and the committee outlines what is the huge priority of the day. In the 10th Assembly, it was housing. The housing committee went all over the place and came up with lots of great ideas to solve the housing crisis. In 11th Assembly we set up one on the economy, and now we are into social and health issues. We never deal with any of it, we just keep on piling one on the other.

It seems to me, if you are going to make a sessional statement which has to do with what we are going to achieve within the next two years of our mandate, then you would hope it would reflect these big issues we have been talking about for so long and some kind of solution to deal with them. I found that the statement, although I was happy with many things in it, I feel there were so many things that were just left unsaid. It was not what was in it that I am concerned about, but what wasn't in it. We have so many issues we have left dangling in the air and we haven't tried to meet them head on.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. There are so many things that were left out, but I have no real contention with some of the things in the statement, apart from the one issue of the Power Corporation but I have already referred to it in my reply to the Commissioner. That is the major issue in my area, in addition to the concerns about this building and the payroll tax. Thank you.

Are there any further general comments? If not, I wonder if someone would like to make a response to the comments made by other Members? Madam Premier.

I will just do an overall reply and the respective Ministers will do likewise, for their own responsibilities. Mr. Lewis, in his reply today, suggested that we have done nothing in the first year and barely nothing in the second year, but there are a few important things to consider. One is the ongoing responsibility of government and keeping it going. We all know the social problems in the Northwest Territories are ongoing and as we plan our budget, we attempt to try to resolve those. I believe no matter how hard we try we will never overcome all of them, but certainly we are trying to change the expenditure pattern to fit in some of the concerns that have been raised and the Minister can respond to that.

We realize the Special Committee on Health and Social Services was going to present a report. It has been a good report and I believe many of the recommendations are dovetailing to the general direction this government is going.

In terms of the Power Corporation, we did announce privatization and we are proceeding with that. However, I can assure the Members what information we have will be brought to you by the people who are commissioned to do the work for us in detail and without any bias or against the corporation. As we all know, this issue is certainly one of the major issues of the unions that have committed themselves to do everything they can to make sure this does not get privatized because they feel it is not in the best interest of the employees. We accept it is the right of the union to represent themselves in that manner. However, it is this Legislative Assembly that will decide on the merits of the privatization and how it will be privatized. We expect it to go through the normal process and in the end it will be the Legislative Assembly who will be making the final decision.

In the area of people, their well-being and the responsibility of communities, we have a fundamental concern in all communities that we are still too centralized. There isn't an acceptance that all the jobs should be held in Yellowknife and that decentralization is not a good thing. Decentralization has been well-received from the different regions that have received employment opportunities for people to work who would not otherwise have had that opportunity. We have attempted to put training programs where we felt there was some shortfall.

It is unfortunate that much of our economy comes from the Government of the Northwest Territories to smaller communities and community support services. It would be very nice if some of the communities had another option of where they could get jobs, but they don't.

As well, we are accused that we don't intend to take any more and put it out to where the services are being offered. Even the clerical component of the department is well-received in a community because people actually get employed. It may not be important to the overall design. We aren't pretending we are a government that is representing a large cosmopolitan area. We are only 60,000 people. We are not Toronto. Most people in the communities feel we are over-bureaucratized, that many things can be done if you give people an opportunity to take up a role in the privatization, such as housing. We still haven't completed our work. I realize and I accept the criticism because it is valid. But any time there is a change, no matter how small, people are not ready. So a small change is a big change in the Northwest Territories because everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

I felt in looking at how we are going to deal with the broader issue of providing services to people, it would be better to try to get as much as possible to the community and we are moving toward that with the community transfers. It was slow in the beginning because people didn't buy into it and they didn't believe us. They didn't believe that we were seriously going to conclude community transfers. There is still a bit of disbelief that we are 100 per cent behind this.

In terms of the regional aspect of where we are going, I think strong communities will make strong regional representation. If people are developing at the community level, regions have a better base of dealing socially, economically and politically on behalf of their regional representation.

In terms of the work place commission, and what I proposed to call it at the beginning was a "working group," but the word "commission" seemed more appropriate. I thought it needed that extra word that would give it more weight. Every time we talk about a community transfer, one of the problems is how do we handle our employees. In terms of the land claimant groups, there is a difference between how they handle our employees and how they handle their employees. If we are going to take over public government responsibilities, there has to be some coordination there.

In terms of the issue of industrial development around oil and gas, pipelines and mining activity, people are wanting to know what we are willing to do to look after the work place. If anyone here says that has not been a difficult issue, it has been and it is going to be. Addressing the issue is important before it becomes chaotic. Even regarding decentralization, this government was accused that we were creating instability of the work place. How are you going to handle your people? Do they have to move? Are you going to look after them if they cannot? What are the rights of an employee? We didn't go to the federal government at the beginning because we wanted to get on with this job and it is a job that has to be done. It was not appropriate at the time to go to the federal government because they were going into an election. This does not preclude that we shouldn't go to the federal government now. They should pay for some of this exercise.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I am not the kind of person to come up here and blow my own horn and say we are doing all of these great things. I have never been that type of person. I believe a lot of things that have been done here have not only been done by Cabinet, but have been done by ordinary MLAs. We have tried very hard to give total respect to standing committees and the involvement of ordinary MLAs. I hope we have reflected that. From time to time we have strayed or neglected something, I hope it is just because we were too caught up in too many things at once. But I believe we have to keep working together. Just because there is a Cabinet, that doesn't mean ordinary Members have lesser input. But, in respecting that, sometimes it takes a little longer to do things. It takes that effort by Members of caucus or Members of standing committees to take on maybe a little bit more of a role. The other area...

Proceed.

I don't have much more to say. But I think the comment has been made -- I believe it was by Mr. Lewis -- about other opportunities for revenue. At this point in time, yes, we don't have many opportunities or options to put more revenue into the coffers of the Northwest Territories.

If we encourage development, we're penalized. I believe this is one of the areas we have to address as quickly as possible, even if we can find some kind of interim arrangement with the federal government. We have great opportunities in the development of the mining industry but it has got to be on our terms. It has to be on the basis of what we get out of it. We've tried to work with them in a cooperative manner, but I don't think that we, as a Cabinet, -- or us, as a Legislative Assembly -- can sit back and not make sure those benefits accrue to Northwest Territories residents.

I realize that in the Izok Lake area land claims have a priority in certain areas. But, overall, I believe that if they are taking our resources, we've got to get something out of it. I've worked a great deal with the mining industry but they'll only act in a way that legislation tells them to. So, we'll stick to the areas where they feel they can best move in. However, I would like to say that they have changed in attitude somewhat. But, I don't think we're in the driver's seat at this time.

In other areas like the defence policy, I believe there has to be enough concern raised that we have to find a way of dealing with this issue as well. Overall, Mr. Chairman, I believe that what I try not to do, as your Government Leader, is think that things can just be done by Cabinet. We've integrated many things and changed many things because the Members of the Legislative Assembly and its committees feel that there is a different way to do it.

I hope we continue to work on that relationship because I don't believe that 24 of us, with all the time we can put into it, will accomplish all the things we want to accomplish. But, we should give it a very good try. We, as Cabinet, can't do it alone. We have tried to change, as people feel there are important areas we have to address.

In terms of land claims, it is just not land claims. People can have a land claim -- I have more experience than anyone in telling you that anyone can sign a document -- but it is how you implement it that counts. You can't do that yourself. Claimant groups can't do that themselves, they need cooperative support to implement their claim.

Mr. Chairman, I allowed some of the Ministers to make the responses for some of the areas that are particular to their portfolios, if you don't mind. Thank you.