This is page numbers 965 - 1056 of the Hansard for the 14th Assembly, 6th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was chairman.

Topics

Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery
Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery

Page 973

Sandy Lee

Sandy Lee Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand your concern but my point is I was not able to raise this point until I got the documents that I tabled in the House yesterday, which didn't come to my possession until yesterday which sheds a different light on what has been said in the House.

Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery
Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery

Page 973

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Okay. The chair will hear your Point of Order and we can decide on it after we've heard more information. Ms. Lee, continue.

Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery
Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery

Page 973

Sandy Lee

Sandy Lee Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your patience and the patience of the Members. Mr. Speaker, he made the statement that I just read, but yesterday I received a copy of the letter dated May 14th, which is a full three weeks prior to his statement that I just read signed by all 18 general practitioners in Yellowknife and it was tabled yesterday. I quote, Mr. Speaker, from the latter part of the second paragraph of that letter: "Family physicians providing obstetrical care, including high risk obstetrics, will not be able to continue to provide this care without specialist obstetrical backup. Similarly, those family physicians that provide surgical services cannot continue to do so without specialist surgical or obstetrics backup." The letter goes on to say, in the next paragraph: "Many emergency physicians chose to work in Yellowknife because of the level of acuity and the specialist backup that allows ongoing treatment locally. Without specialist backup, the role of emergency physicians will be altered, with more patients needing simply to be transferred south for ongoing care. GP anesthesiologists chose to practice in Yellowknife because of the ability to work with general surgeons, gynecologists, ENT surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and ophthalmologists. In the event that these specialists are no longer represented in the community, many family physicians will find their scope of practice greatly curtailed. Given the situation, some family physicians may elect to look for opportunities in other communities where they could utilize their skills to the fullest."

This substantiation is that the Minister was misleading the House by not providing the full answer and making a statement that was, I don't want to say contrary, but not a full picture of what he was aware of.

Mr. Speaker, my second substantiation is from what he said on June 4th. This comes in light of the document that I was able to get yesterday. Mr. Speaker, as you recall yesterday, there were extensive discussions about the fact that some mothers were having to travel to Edmonton for labour and he said, on page 1781: "My job as Minister is to ensure the maintenance of the health and social services system, to deal with issues in a careful, measured way, not to promote fear and concern and needless apprehension among the people. Mr. Speaker, the Member has raised and thrown out a number of third-hand comments that I have no knowledge of, I have no context, I have no way to verify what she has said, so I am not in a position to address what may be considered hearsay at this point."

Mr. Speaker, this sheds a different light on the issue for me because of the document that I tabled, which is a letter dated June 5th that gives more context addressed to the Minister and signed by all four members of the OBS department in Yellowknife. The letter states the following, in the second paragraph: "In the short term, we are absolutely clear that we cannot carry on as usual without intermittent locum obstetric backup. Although in theory, we could carry on low risk obstetrics under those circumstances, in fact risk stratification is fraught with difficulties and when impending disaster is diagnosed from Yellowknife, we are hours away by air from additional resources, particularly paediatrics. In addition, two of the family practice obstetric group members have resigned from the obstetrics practice as of July. With holidays, this leaves three family practitioners doing intra-partum obstetrics without paediatrician availability for at least several weeks in July. This is not doable. Thus, we must not accept obstetrics patients from out of town for confinement and we must be making arrangements now to send our local patients to another centre to await delivery. We cannot wait until the end of June to begin this process."

Further, Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say, and I quote from the fourth paragraph: "We will be contacting the communities immediately, advising them that we will not be accepting prenatal patients for confinement and making arrangement with other local patients for their ongoing care outside the territory."

My Point of Order is in saying that he was unaware of this problem and that it was third hand knowledge when he knew or ought to have known this information and I await your ruling. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery
Item 6: Recognition Of Visitors In The Gallery

Page 974

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The chair is primarily concerned with the timing of your Point of Order and the dates that have gone by and want to seek some more reference to this. So I am not going to rule on the Point of Order yet, whether we should allow it or not allow it or hear debate on it, until I have checked out that point. We are talking dates that go back a considerable period of time. I want to be sure that I've looked at some of the facts here first. So I am not ruling on this. I am taking this under advisement and I will bring it back up again either later today or tomorrow. I am not going to allow any debate on it at the moment, until after I have ruled on the admissibility of the point. So we will continue on with our business of the day and we will set that aside for a little while.

Item 4, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Brendan Bell

Brendan Bell Yellowknife South

On October 25, 2002 the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories passed Motion 14-14(5) instructing the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures to undertake a review of the operation and accountabilities of the committee structure and system. The standing committee was also instructed to provide a report on such matters to the Legislative Assembly no later than June 30, 2003.

Process

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures initially met on December 9, 2002 to consider background information on the evolution of committee structures in the Northwest Territories and to formulate options on how best to proceed with the review of committee structures and systems.

Committee Members decided the following three basic premises would guide the Committee in its deliberations. It is likely that consensus government would continue for the 15th Assembly.

  1. The structure, roles and responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly and its committees would not change in the face of self-government agreements.
  2. The review of the operation and accountabilities of the committee structure and systems would be a separate process from the transitional planning exercise.

Mr. Speaker, our staff was instructed to research and prepare briefing notes on potential committee structures that would lend themselves to the consensus form of government.

Committee staff was also asked to consult with key managers on their thoughts on the current committee structure in relation to the legislative and budgetary processes and to receive input on potential for changes they see as beneficial to both committees and the bureaucracy.

In addition, the standing committee provided direction to staff in the preparation of a survey designed to elicit Members' opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the current committee structure as well as their thoughts on potential changes to committee structure and systems.

Findings

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures met again on April 17, 2003 to review the research undertaken by staff and to examine the results of the Members' survey on committee systems and structure.

Committee Members noted in a majority of jurisdictions modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system, the potential of standing committees to add value to legislation has been somewhat derailed by the adherence to party politics.

For this reason, the rules committee did not extensively examine committee structures in other Canadian or international jurisdictions modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system.

The other committee process Canadians are most familiar with is the American system. While the American committee system is seen as essentially non-partisan, meaning that committee Members from different parties can work together to achieve common goals, there is nonetheless an adversarial approach taken with the executive branch of government that does not translate well to the Northwest Territories' consensus form of government.

As many Members are aware there are other jurisdictions, particularly the Channel Islands, where committees have played a significant role in the day-to-day operations of government. However, these jurisdictions have or are in the process of changing committee structures with a view to improving accountability within their systems.

Remarkably enough, Mr. Speaker, these jurisdictions have engaged in significant consultation with our own Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in adapting the Northwest Territories' committee and Cabinet system to meet the needs of some of the Channel Islands.

The Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures examined several new options for committee structures that contemplated the increased sharing of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.

However, it became apparent to committee Members that there needs to be a clear delineation between committees and the executive (Cabinet) in order to ensure that government is held accountable, both in fact, and in the eyes of the general public.

In the end, committee Members were forced to dismiss each option as unworkable and realize that our current committee structure, which is not without its imperfections, does at the very least ensure government is held accountable.

The feeling that government is being held accountable was borne out by the results of the Members' survey on committee structures and systems.

Results Of The Member's Survey

Those Members of the Assembly who responded to the standing committee survey were almost unanimous in their belief that any suggestions for change to committee structures and systems take the form of recommendations to the 15th Assembly.

This made sense to the Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures in light of the potential for major restructuring of government that may fall out of the transition planning exercise.

Committee Members could see no point in effecting major changes to current committee structure and systems when we do not know exactly the future organizational structure of government at this time.

It was interesting that, even though the majority of Members surveyed thought there was a definite need for a major overhaul of committee structures and systems, no Members were comfortable in making any specific recommendations in the absence of knowledge of the future structure of government.

Many Members responding to the survey also commented on the need to realign the departments to ensure a balanced workload among standing committees.

Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures also see this need but are hesitant to make a specific recommendation, given the potential for the redistribution of programs and services among existing and possible new government departments.

The survey results also indicated that Members thought there was a need to "firm up" committee guidelines and handbooks and perhaps even provide more training to committee chairpersons on committee operations and running effective meetings.

According to the survey, some Members believe individual Member constituency issues, which should be dealt with in another more appropriate forum, occasionally overtake the committee process.

One suggestion for remedy comes from the Catalonian Parliament in Spain where regular meetings take place between committees and Ministers. These "taking stock" meetings provide Members with an opportunity to discuss overall policy issues, as well as raise specific constituency issues with the Minister.

The 14th Assembly has established a similar convention with the monthly meeting held between the Premier and the Members of the Accountability and Oversight committee at which the issues of the day are discussed and feedback provided to the Premier.

Opinion was split on the need to re-evaluate the budget review process, with some Members believing the current process allows Members the most opportunity to influence government programs and spending, and some Members believing the process becomes repetitive between the in-camera review of the draft main estimates and the review of the main estimates in Committee of the Whole. Senior management, who pointed out that the current process might not be the best use of scarce human resources in the departments, made a similar observation.

There may be an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to streamline the process for reviewing the draft main estimates while still ensuring that Members and committees have influence over government programs and spending.

Development Of Government Policy

In discussing the working of the 14th Assembly and analyzing where problems were encountered, the Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures observed that the issues that caused the most friction between committees and Cabinet were matters of government policy.

In a majority of cases, a new government policy or changes to an existing policy is developed by the responsible department in response to a real or perceived need.

Once the responsible Minister approves this new policy or changes to an existing policy, he or she takes the policy to Cabinet for approval. Only if the policy receives approval from Cabinet does the appropriate standing committee get informed and become involved.

It was observed by Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures that by the time we reach the stage of policy development where the standing committees become engaged; the department and Minister have invested significant time and resources in getting the policy to this stage.

It is only natural that by this time, positions have become entrenched and the Minister would be resistant to any significant changes proposed by committee.

The Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures see a need to establish a new convention on the development of government policy that involves standing committees at an earlier stage. Mr. Speaker, this would allow Members opinions and constituent's needs to be taken into account in the development of the final product.

The benefits of such a convention are twofold. First, if such a convention works, as it should, the small bugs can be worked out prior to any public statement or position being taken. This would allow any subsequent public policy debate to focus on the intent behind the policy, rather than the smaller details that seem to derail us on occasion.

Conversely, if a policy does not have support at the initial committee stage, the government can either withdraw the policy or rework it for further study by committee. It is easier to do this at the committee stage than in a full sitting of the Legislative Assembly when it may have been referred to Committee of the Whole.

The second benefit goes to the true purpose of committees, which is to add value to government. Allowing committees the opportunity to help develop policy rather than just react to government positions, is more in step with the principles of consensus government.

Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures also believe there is a need for more broad-based policy discussions not related to any one specific policy, to take place between committees and Ministers on a regular basis. A clear understanding of committee Members' positions on such issues as taxation policy would be beneficial to Ministers and their departments in developing policy and implementing change.

Membership On Committees

Another practice the Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures believe worth examining is how the Striking Committee decides membership on the standing committees on Social Programs and Governance and Economic Development.

As it stands now, the Striking Committee tries to accommodate the Member's preferences in determining which committee he or she will serve on. While respecting the wishes of an individual MLA is an important criterion, it should not be the overriding factor in determining committee membership.

The Members of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures have observed that some of the conflicts encountered in the 14th Assembly were related to a lack of regional or rural perspective on the Social Programs committee or, conversely, a lack of an urban perspective on the Governance and Economic Development committee.

To ensure the perspectives and needs of all territorial residents are represented in committee deliberations, the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures are of the opinion that a new convention, similar to the one used to determine regional representation on Cabinet, should be used by the Striking Committee to determine membership of the standing committees.

Recommendations

  1. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the 15th Assembly examine the assignment of departments among standing committees to ensure a balanced committee workload.
  2. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the committee manual be updated and training sessions for theincoming committee chairpersons and Members on their respective roles and responsibilities be enhanced.
  3. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the 15th Assembly examine the advantages and disadvantages of streamlining the budgetary review process.
  4. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends the 15th Assembly examine options for engaging Standing Committees in the early stages of policy development.
  5. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Striking Committee establish a convention that ensures equitable regional and urban representation on the standing committees.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures, on the potential committee structures and roles for the 15th Assembly.

Brendan Bell

Brendan Bell Yellowknife South

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that Committee Report 14-14(6) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Bell. We have a motion. The motion is in order, but the chair doesn't recognize a quorum. May we sound the bells?

---Ringing of Bells

Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour of the motion, please signify. Thank you. All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Item 4, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Brendan Bell

Brendan Bell Yellowknife South

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 2001, you directed the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures to conduct a review of Rule 70 of the rules of the Legislative Assembly. It was felt there may arise some procedural difficulties, particularly with the provisions respecting the 120-day rule for standing committee review of bills.

In essence, the rule now states that a standing committee has 120 days to review a bill from the day it's referred to a committee until the day it must be reported back to the House. The rule further implies that if a committee has not reported a bill within this time frame, the sponsor of the bill is permitted to proceed with the bill in the Assembly.

Complicating matters somewhat is the occurrence, quite often, of standing committees' review of bills taking longer than 120 days due to the size, scope and impact of the bill, or the length of time between sittings of the Assembly. In all cases, an implicit concurrence of the bill sponsor, almost always the government, not to proceed with the bill in the absence of a committee report has been obtained. On two occasions, this concurrence has been obtained in writing, while others have been an implied mutual agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the potential difficulty would arise under the present wording of Rule 70 if a bill's sponsor insisted on proceeding in the House with a bill that had not been reported from committee and the 120-day period had lapsed. The problem would stem from the lack of a mechanism to return the bill to the House by placing it in some fashion on the Order Paper, most likely in Committee of the Whole.

During the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures consideration of the issue on December 9, 2002, and April 17, 2003, a number of options were discussed.

Having the bill automatically appear on the Order Paper in Committee of the Whole 120 days after second reading was deemed to be undesirable, in that it does not take into account those numerous instances where the standing committee's review may be lengthy due to the complexity or nature of the bill and its impacts. In addition, there are occasions that the length of time between sittings of the House -- from the spring to the fall, for example, Mr. Speaker -- is such that reporting within 120 days is not possible. This remedy would also preclude the continuation of the long-standing parliamentary convention of allowing bills to die in committee.

The option of returning the bill to the House by order of the Speaker was not a preferred option because of the impartiality of the Speaker's position, and the fact that the Speaker would theoretically, and as a rule of procedure, possess no direct knowledge of the committee's activities or the wishes of the bill's sponsor in order to be able to ascertain whether a particular bill should be returned.

In considering the matter, the Rules committee decided that a mechanism was required to advise the House, and the Speaker, that a bill had not been reported within the required timeframe and that the bill's sponsor wished to proceed with the bill in the House. It was decided that this mechanism be incorporated into Rule 70 and be termed "Notice of Intent."

Mr. Speaker, this notice of intent to proceed with a bill not reported would be given to the House by the bill's sponsor under the item Minister's statements on the Order Paper if it is a government bill, or under Members' statements if it happens to be a private Member's bill. The mechanism would then provide that on the third sitting day following receipt of a notice of intent by the House, the Speaker would place the bill on the Order Paper in Committee of the Whole.

In addition, the committee also feels it is necessary to provide a more formal avenue under the rules for a standing or special committee to secure an extension to the 120-day rule if it wishes to do so. The Rules committee proposed that this be facilitated by an amendment to Rule 70, which would state than an extension may be requested by motion in the Legislative Assembly under the item reports of committees on the review of bills.

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures is of the opinion that this course of action takes into account the interests of all parties and provides an effective and efficient remedy to the issues, and hereby recommends it to the House.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures on the review of Rule 70.

Motion To Receive Committee Report 15-14(6) And Move To Committee Of The Whole, Carried
Item 4: Reports Of Standing And Special Committees

June 11th, 2003

Page 977

Brendan Bell

Brendan Bell Yellowknife South

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Committee Report 15-14(6) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Bell. We have a motion. The motion is in order. All those in favour, please signify. Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Item 4, returns of standing and special committees. Item 5, returns to oral questions. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Steen.

Return To Question 262-14(6): Proposed Territorial Sport And Recreation Board
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions

Page 977

Vince Steen

Vince Steen Nunakput

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to oral question asked by Mr. Dent on June 5, 2003, regarding the proposed territorial sport and recreation board.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that meeting all of the sport and recreation needs of all of our communities and territorial organizations places great pressures upon the sport and recreation system. This is especially true as our government has made the promotion of active living a key priority.

The intent of the proposed territorial recreation and sport board is not to take away resources from the organizations that are responsible for direct sport and recreation program delivery. In fact, the proposal is intended, in a large part, to streamline the administration and governance of the system, resulting in more resources being made available for programs.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member that volunteers are the backbone of the sport and recreation system. It is only through the dedicated efforts of countless volunteers in all the communities across the NWT that we are able to support the extensive range of activities that are occurring in our communities, such as track and field meets, hockey tournaments, Super Soccer, cross-country ski clubs, races and traditional games, to name just a few.

By streamlining the recreation and sport system and ensuring equitable access to lottery revenues across the territory we hope to realize an increase in the resources that are available to support these activities. It we are successful in this effort, we should be able to provide better support for volunteers in the recreation and sport system across the NWT.

Mr. Speaker, based on the recommendations put forward by the sport and recreation partners, it is obvious that we will continue to rely upon the important role played by volunteers in the system. It is not our intent to replace these volunteers with permanent employees. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another return to oral question, Mr. Speaker.

Return To Question 262-14(6): Proposed Territorial Sport And Recreation Board
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Yes, Mr. Steen, you may continue.

Return To Question 308-14(5): New Sport And Recreation Board
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions

Page 978

Vince Steen

Vince Steen Nunakput

Mr. Speaker, I have a return to oral question asked by Mr. Delorey on June 11, 2003, regarding the new sport and recreation board.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs provides funding to community governments through a recreation and sport contributions program that makes funding available to all communities, both tax-based and non-tax-based, upon application, to support local activities. Contribution amounts for this program are determined based on a proportionate share of the total $825,000 program budget, and range from $14,000 to $80,000 per community. Communities are required to account for the use of this funding. This was a new program in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, and I have committed to provide a report to Members of this House on how the funds were used by communities. This information will be available shortly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Return To Question 308-14(5): New Sport And Recreation Board
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions
Item 5: Returns To Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Item 5, returns to oral questions. Item 7, oral questions. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, and it's in regard to closure of the native arts program at Aurora College in Inuvik. Mr. Speaker, this program has been operational for one year. It is a post-secondary arts program at the college, and I think it's essential that we have such a program in place. This government has put a lot of money and effort into the arts and cultural industry strategy. I would like to ask the Minister, what is his department doing to ensure and encourage that these programs have adequate funding so they are able to continue, rather than simply running these programs for one year?

Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Ootes.

Return To Question 314-14(6): 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

Jake Ootes

Jake Ootes Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm not familiar with the reference the Member has made to the college program, that funding has been cut. That was news to me late today and I don't have the details to that. But with respect to funding programs, Mr. Speaker, we fund the college through a transfer payment of approximately $23 million and they handle the implementation of the programs that are conducted through the college system. Thank you.

Return To Question 314-14(6): 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Supplementary To Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons they gave for the closure of this program is that funding was withdrawn by the sponsoring organizations, which were the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in who contributed some $48,000 each. They're going to spend it elsewhere. I'd like to ask the Minister, is it possible for his department to consider or look for those resources which were given by the sponsor organizations to continue this program at the college in Inuvik?

Supplementary To Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Ootes.

Further Return To Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

Jake Ootes

Jake Ootes Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into the situation that has transpired in Inuvik with this particular program, and I will need a day to do that, Mr. Speaker, before I can provide any response to the Member.

Further Return To Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Supplementary To Question 314-14(6): 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this program has already been established, it's been up and running, the curriculum has been developed, and I think it's important as a government that we do invest in our arts and crafts industry, especially in the North where we do have a very important segment of our population that depends on the sale of arts and crafts, as their income, especially in the smaller communities among the people who are on the promotion side of arts and crafts. I would like to ask the Minister if he would take a serious look at long-term funding for these types of programs so that their stability is ensured, that they don't simply find themselves running one year and then being closed down?

Supplementary To Question 314-14(6): 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 978

The Speaker

The Speaker Tony Whitford

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Ootes.

Further Return To Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Question 314-14(6): Update On Negotiations
Item 7: Oral Questions

Page 979

Jake Ootes

Jake Ootes Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this and see what we can do about the Member's comments and suggestions. I will have to naturally, as well, consult with the college board who have the responsibility for delivering programs and I will undertake to do that. Thank you.