Thank you. Agreed?

Agreed.

Thank you.

-- Break

Before I get to the point of order, I would like to recognize in the public gallery from Fort Liard, which is Mr. Antoine's constituency, we have Joanne Deneron, Ellery Deneron, Derek and Kiley. Welcome. Thank you. Yesterday, in debate in the committee of the whole, the honourable Member for MacKenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko, raised a point of order. As it was near the end of the day, I indicated to the House that I would review unedited Hansard and report back to the House. I am now ready to deliver my ruling.

Chairman's Ruling on Point of Order

Some information is required to put the point of order in context. The committee was considering the budget of the Department of Public Works. On the specific line item of assets management, operations and maintenance, Mr. Henry and Mrs. Groenewegen declared conflicts of interest as they both have businesses which lease space to DPW. The lease of office space falls under the line item of assets management. Later in the day, both Mr. Henry and Mrs. Groenewegen were present in the House during the consideration of the program summary for the department. Mr. Krutko raised a point of order, stating, and I quote from page 1009 of unedited Hansard:

"Regarding the overall budget of this portfolio, I believe there were two Members who did declare conflict regarding the assets and liabilities and I believe that the overall budget that was approved, $83,672,000, does consist of that portion of this budget."

I offered Mrs. Groenewegen and Mr. Henry an opportunity to make representations on this issue. They both indicated that they had received advice from the law clerk to the effect that they were not in conflict of interest in considering the overall departmental budget and that they were only in conflict when considering the specific line item. Mrs. Groenewegen indicated that she had even sought an opinion from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

Rule 13 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly does provide that "No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct or indirect financial interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed".

My role today is to assess whether Mr. Henry or Mrs. Groenewegen breached that rule in being present in the House and having agreed on the program summary of the department. The answer is simple. The rule prohibits voting if a Member has a financial interest. The actions yesterday on the program summary were to approve the summary. No formal vote occurred. However, for the guidance of Members, I will address the larger issue involved. Rule 13 does not provide me with a great deal of guidance as to what is a "direct or indirect financial interest". I can, however, take notice of the fact that this Legislature has adopted legislation which defines and addresses issues relating to conflict of interest. I refer, of course, to the specific provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Those provisions define conflict and also provide that there is no conflict of interest if an interest is "so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the Member in the performance of the duties of office of the Member". The House is not in possession of information which would allow me to evaluate whether Mr. Henry's or Mrs. Groenewegen's interests are "so remote" as to not be a conflict. Both Members have sought legal advice and I can assume that they are satisfied that they have no conflict at the program summary stage or the main estimates for the Department of Public Works. In the absence of any contrary information, I rule that the Member for Mackenzie Delta does not have a point of order.

Before I end my ruling, I would like to draw all Members' attention to the ruling of Speaker Gargan of February 4, 1997. Mr. Speaker clearly indicated that the Legislative Assembly has adopted a process and structure for identifying and addressing conflicts of interest. That process is through the office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and we should be extremely reluctant to bypass the process that we ourselves have established. Conflict is a serious issue and should not be politicized or trivialized. Thank you.

Yesterday, when we concluded for the day, we were reviewing the Department of Transportation 1997-98 main estimates, and Mr. Minister had made his opening remarks, so did the appropriate chairperson of the committee of this House. Therefore, we are now in general comments. Before we get into general comments, I would like to ask the honourable Minister of Transportation if he wishes to bring in the witnesses. Mr. Antoine.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Do we have the concurrence of the committee that the honourable Minister will bring in the witnesses? Sergeant-at-Arms, seat the witnesses please. Thank you. For the record, Mr. Minister, would you please introduce the witnesses to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Bob Doherty. He is the deputy minister for the Department of Transportation. I also have Ms. Raj Downe. She is the director for finance and administration for the Department of Transportation. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome to the committee. Before we get into general comments, I would like to remind the Members the allowable time for any one Member to speak at any one time is 10 minutes. That is the rule of this committee, and I would urge the Members to be conscious of that rule. General comments from the floor. We are in the Department of Transportation budget 1997-98. General comments from the Members. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you. There are some implications that the honourable Member wishes to get some response from the Minister. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree that this department has taken substantial reductions, both in this current year's budget as well as this budget that we are looking at for 1997-98.

In regards to the positions, the honourable Member mentioned 30 positions and just to clarify this area, it is actually 29.5 positions identified for reduction. I guess you could round it off to 30 positions. Eighteen had incumbents, not what was reported, that 14.5 actually had incumbents. So I guess he rounded that off to 15 as well, which is fairly close.

Of these 18 employees, at this time our understanding is that six may be negatively affected, although there may be other options or opportunities before them being actually laid off. Four of the employees indicated a preference for being laid off and one is retiring. Seven new positions are being created by combining responsibilities of existing positions, so that leaves 12 actual people who may have positions. Layoff notices have not been issued, except in one case where it was requested by the individual. The 18 affected employees were notified late last year that, subject to this budget approval, their positions were to be affected. This was word of mouth type of awareness that was given out to 18 of the affected people.

This provided them with advance notice in case they had other plans or other opportunities come up. In fact, one employee had an opportunity to go back to school and asked to be laid off early. This was done. Had she not been given advance notice, she might have missed that opportunity. This is just to clarify the concern that the honourable Member has in regards to positions.

In regards to the Arviat lighting, the five year capital plan is exactly what it is. It is a plan that is put there by the departments. In some cases the communities put their plans forward, usually as a joint-type of action. Each plan is looked at by the department and investigated as the time draws near to the actual year of the project itself.

In this case, yes, it was reported earlier that the Arviat lighting may need replacement. Since this airport was built some time ago by the federal Transportation, it was one of the airports that was transferred over to us. We were not too clear about the condition of the lighting system. Similar to other airport lighting that we had problems with, this one we thought may require some work as it was slated in the five year capital plan.

This past June, some technical people went into Arviat to take a closer look at the lighting system and determined at that time that it needed some repairs. Rather than a complete replacement, they are going to install some pulpits and connectors and replace some fixtures. The feeling here is that this improvement to the system will make it easier to trouble-shoot and repair in case of any failures. This is the scope of the work that is determined here for the Arviat airfield lighting project.

I guess the question here is, why was it originally slated? Again, this project was installed in the late 1970's by Transport Canada and the system had been installed without the benefit of underground conduit and pulpits, both of which enhance trouble-shooting and preventative maintenance of the system. Based on the age, the department programmed the project to replace this existing system, and as a result of that, upon assessment, it was determined that it did not require the extensive type of repairs that it was originally thought it may require.

Moving on to the Rankin Inlet re-supply terminal building, actually the Rankin Inlet re-supply terminal, sorry about that...Mr. Chairman, the honourable Member is correct that there is about $800,000 in the budget; actually $820,000 is the exact figure.

Just to do some clarification here, in 1996-97 and 1997-98, a total of $1,620,000 was allocated to the construction of this marine terminal facility. In 1996-97, $250,000 of it was re-allocated from the Rankin Inlet marine terminal project, with $150,000 of it going to the Pangnirtung harbour development project and $100,000 going to the Iqaluit and Apex harbour enhancement projects.

This $250,000 was put back into the Rankin Inlet marine terminal project in 1997-98 and the $150,000 from the Pang and the $100,000 from Iqaluit and Apex were projects that were already in the capital plan system. All we did at that time was bump them forward so that $250,000 is put back into the project for this year. So it is part of the $820,000.

Of the $1,620,000 allocated for construction in 1996-97 and 1997-98, $1,050,000 of it has been committed under the full authority agreement that was signed with the hamlet of Rankin Inlet. Under this full authority agreement, $800,000 is committed for 1996-97, and $250,000 is committed for 1997-98. So this leaves $570,000 of the $820,000 of the funding in 1997-98 that is uncommitted at this time. Hopefully, all these numbers clarify for the honourable Member his concern about the Rankin Inlet re-supply terminal.

Another concern the honourable Member had was in regards to transfer of staff to Nunavut. In the previous government, direction was given to start developing an eastern Nunavut Department of Transportation and positions were established in the Nunavut area. In 1995-96, 17 positions were created in Nunavut in Rankin Inlet and in 1996-97, five more positions were moved over there.

There is a second phase that we have put on hold. The plan was to move 17 more positions in the 1997-98 year, but that is put on hold, pending further developments and direction from this Legislative Assembly and from the Cabinet. Again, just for more clarification, the plan is that in phase 3 in 1998-99, we are anticipating moving ten more positions over there. At the present time, nobody is intended to be affected in regards to filling these positions and we put this whole transfer movement on hold.

Mr. Chairman, the final concern of the honourable Member was in regards to the emergency response services for Norman Wells and for Iqaluit. The Norman Wells emergency response services is more or less done. I stated in the House earlier to the Chairman's question, that when the emergency response service was turned over to the government in the Territories from the feds, for Norman Wells there were no actual persons who were transferred with it, and we moved ahead and eliminated the ERS service in Norman Wells.

As for Iqaluit, it is a different situation. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transportation has participated with Transport Canada in the development of new emergency response services regulations and the new federal regulations which will soon come into force, we are told, will not require an on-site fire fighting service at the Iqaluit airport.

The department conducted a study on the need of the emergency response service at the Iqaluit airport to ensure that all issues were taken fully into account before coming to a decision. Consultations were held with a representative from the community of Iqaluit, the northern air carriers, Transport Canada staff, and international staff service organizations.

The study concluded that the emergency response services at Iqaluit are not required by regulations and are not necessary for the safe and effective operations of the airport. At the present time, the department plans to decommission this emergency response service in the new fiscal year.

Those are my comments on my response to the honourable Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be talking in Inuktitut. (Translation) Mr. Chairman, I do have a comment to make to the Department of Transportation, as well. The Department of Transportation allocates some funding to all the communities and I would like to give them appreciation for this. The Department of Transportation is visible in the communities, not only in Nunavut but within the west of Nunavut, and we appreciate that very much. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that you allocated funding to fix up the lighting system on the airstrips. In Clyde River this was done as well. The lighting system was done and also this will happen in Pangnirtung. In Broughton Island, they will be upgrading the airstrip. As I stated, this is a very important issue to make sure that there is safety within all the communities because we get aircraft into the communities. For that matter, to every day make sure that there is safety in all the communities and it is very important because you stated that your first priority is to make sure that there is no danger. Recently I stated that in Pangnirtung, that we have to relocate the airstrip to another, safer place and this is very important to have safety in that hamlet. In the Baffin region, it is right behind Iqaluit because they get many aircrafts. There are a number of aircrafts that land every day in that community and we would like to make sure that this is safe. I would like to see you work along with the federal government with the Department of Transportation, that the Pangnirtung hamlet have stated in a letter that they would like to relocate the airstrip. Also, we have given the government a motion from the hamlet of Pangnirtung. Like I stated, we appreciate the job that you are doing. I would like to comment on Clyde River, the terminal in Clyde River is in a very poor state. Also, they have been asking for another terminal building and the same goes for Broughton Island. Clyde River and Broughton Island have been asking for a terminal at the airport and I was not told that there was no funding left for these in the past. I would like to get a better understanding by writing to me for the reason why this is going to be delayed in those two communities of Broughton Island and Clyde River and, also, I would like to state, Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we have safety in the community because life is very important to us. Everybody has to be in a safe situation because this is your first priority, that everybody has safe grounds to live. Also, if the Minister would like to answer these two questions for the terminal in Broughton Island and Clyde River because I do not see them in the budget. Would you be kind enough to answer those two questions for me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Translation ends)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister at least tell me why the terminals for Clyde River and Broughton Island were deferred? Since they are not in the main estimates, I thought they would fall under general comments or general questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I am asking the question, because I do not see any terminal building for Clyde River or Broughton Island. I do not see it in these main estimates. That is why I am asking the question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, general comments on the Department of Transportation. First of all, I think, after going through the mains from last year and this year, I am quite pleased with the work of the department. After the past few months of working very closely with Minister Antoine and his staff on the ERS situation in Iqaluit which, as he just earlier stated, was to be shut down because of federal regulations. I guess general comments on the federal regulations are that the federal regulations do not take in the movements of passengers in and out as a hub region. It takes in the number of passengers. On that scale, yes, we do not need it, but it also does not look at the geography, the location, the weather conditions, climates, and the hub traffic. On the break waters that were mentioned earlier, I would also like to thank the Minister, last year, for moving several hundred thousand dollars out of the Rankin tank farm project, and Mr. Todd for redistributing that money into Iqaluit and into Arviat, into Pang and other communities. I think that was very important. I would thank the Minister for doing that and would also have a couple of other general comments on the roads. I see that we are building a lot of access roads in communities to hunting areas and trapping and fishing areas and camping areas and I would like to see that type of project continued, because it is of benefit to all of the communities, especially in smaller communities. With that, these are my general comments. When we get to the main estimates, line by line, I will be asking specific questions on the ERS to the appropriate Minister. Thank you, Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have a concern over the Transportation Department. With the community empowerment coming up, with the communities taking over, I think there needs to be improvement in emergency response situations. I would like to remind the department again, that the closure of icebreakers has to be considered again, especially in high Arctic areas. Icebreakers will be servicing most of the time, with limited time to service the high Arctic areas. This still needs to be addressed. In the high Arctic area, we will still depend upon icebreakers. That is my short, brief, general comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.