Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if one was listening to the questions in this House about royalties and resource revenue sharing, this issue with the federal government, there is a whole list of issues that we have outstanding with the federal government that require resolution. We are taking proactive and aggressive or assertive approaches as we can as a government at all the tables that we are at. This is one of them. It is an issue that has national interest. It has national impact. So over the next few months, as I indicated to the Member, we hopefully will be able to show progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Justice. Last week in this House, I raised the issue of the RCMP cutting one staff position at the Fort Simpson detachment. Since then, new information has been brought to my attention that has some bearing on the situation.

For several years up until now, the Fort Simpson RCMP detachment had been consistently manned by seven police officers. However, during the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the RCMP received special funding from the Treasury Board to add an extra staff member. This was done in recognition of the fact that federal park wardens had lost their powers to act as peace officers. Some 10 extra police officers were hired across the country. Unfortunately, the RCMP did not add an extra member at the Fort Simpson detachment as required. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister is will he find out if the RCMP chief chose to cut a position at the Fort Simpson detachment at the time they received special funding from the Treasury Board? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the RCMP establish staff positions based on need in the community, and I understand that the decision they made to change the staffing levels in Fort Simpson was based on their assessment of the requirements for maintaining public safety in that region. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the Treasury Board funding that the Member refers to, so I would have to request some information from the RCMP on how that funding was accessed and allocated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in effect, by not hiring an extra member at that time, the RCMP effectively cut one position already. Now we are being told that we are losing another officer and it is because of low crime statistics and other indicators. Is it just a coincidence that we are losing a second RCMP now that the RCMP has lost this special funding they never spent at the Fort Simpson detachment in the first place? Will the Minister speak with the RCMP on our behalf and see how it is that we not only lost one member, but apparently we lost two members at the Fort Simpson detachment?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the last five years, the complement in the region has been increased in the Fort Liard detachment. I am not sure that in the region there has been a dramatic change. That may have something to do with the position the Member is asking about. I did commit already that I would check with the RCMP and see what I can find out in terms of any extra funding and allocations they may have made.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Speaker, certainly this issue, as the Minister inferred, will turn out to be a good news story or a bad news story. The contention of myself and the residents of the Nahendeh riding is that we are the losers, Mr. Speaker. The reduction of service level will certainly impact us. Will the Minister speak to the RCMP on our behalf and lobby to change this? Will the Minister speak to the RCMP and not reduce staffing levels, but rather not fill this position as a cost-saving measure? Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Members know, it is not my position to direct the RCMP as to where their staff should go. I have discussed the staffing situation in Fort Simpson with the chief superintendent. The chief superintendent assured me that the decision was made based on need across the Territories. Given the complement of members that we have in the Territories, the chief superintendent is confident that the decisions on where members are located are proper as they stand right now. The next time I meet with the chief superintendent, I will make sure that I advise him that the Member remains concerned about the staffing levels in Fort Simpson. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of FMBS. It is further to the questions that I asked yesterday, which I am afraid I wasn't as clear, so the Minister was able to get away with very vague answers. I want to re-ask that. Mr. Speaker, I learned recently that, in fact, the appeal process we have for the GNWT employees are very one-sided. It is a process that the union has not agreed to. It is a process where union representatives can't even sit in on an appeal of an employee and that there are lots of areas step by step in the appeal process that the union does not agree with, but it has not been able to make any inroads in changing to address that imbalance.

Mr. Speaker, in answering my questions yesterday, Mr. Roland said something like this, and I quote from unedited Hansard on page 1899, "The area of staffing appeals is one area that we recognize has some problems, and we're beginning work on potential changes to that process and setting it up so that we can, in fact, look at trying to streamline this and be a little more proactive and

productive in this area," et cetera. My point of this quote is, Mr. Speaker, when you hear something like "we are getting there" and "we are discussing the potential changes" and "we will look into it," we know that it will be 10 or 20 years before we see any action. So I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister could offer in terms of any kind of concrete action he has taken as Minister of FMBS to address this imbalance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister responsible for the FMBS, the Honourable Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the work we have done around staffing appeals has been a slow process, but we have been working on it. We are prepared to make some changes. We have listened to the AOC and its previous recommendations on the concerns that were around the whole issue of staffing appeals. So, number one, we have recognized that there are problems; number two, we have listened to the recommendations, and there was a report done which we are taking pieces of that and going forward with that. I can't give a date as to when this would actually come into play, but I am hoping to have a process established and an agreement from not only the Cabinet side but, as well, the Members of this House that this, in fact, is the right avenue. We have discussed this, put out some options, and informed Members of the potential changes that are coming up. Right now, I am hoping to bring a legislative proposal forward. We missed the timeline for this sitting, but hopefully at our next sitting we will have a legislative proposal that Members can look at and make comment on. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as Members, we get so much information that we are not always certain if we might have just missed something when something comes up. I believe the consensus in AOC is that this whole issue has not been brought to the committee yet. We are well aware that the government is moving ahead with centralizing human resources sections of the government, which is what most of the Members in this House wanted. Going by what people are saying on the street, it is moving forward. I am really thinking that any changes to the appeal process should be part and parcel of the overall changes that are taking place. Mr. Speaker, I am still not hearing any kind of time frame. Even before he introduces his legislative proposal, perhaps he could tell us about...He just said he talked to the Members. Is the union involved with this, for example? Maybe I could just go with that question. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I should clarify, a legislative proposal was developed. We were hoping to actually bring the legislation forward for this sitting, but unfortunately we weren't able to make that timeline. We will hopefully have it ready for the next sitting that we have as an Assembly. On the existing process, there is right now room for a union representative at the table. So there is that space right now when a member is going through a staffing appeal process; on the grievance side, especially, there is room for that. We recognize there are problems. We've worked on it. There were presentations made to AOC of the day. A legislative proposal has been reviewed, and we are coming forward with that actual legislation to make the changes hopefully in the next sitting. Thank you.

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think what the Minister said about the fact that there is a union member in the appeal process, I think the Minister knows that that union member or whoever sits is not there to represent the employee who is going through the appeal. The union member is there as sort of a prop to make sure that the employee...They have a very negligent role to play, which is a complaint of the union. Second of all, Mr. Speaker, this government has not been forwarding a lot of legislative proposals. It hasn't been a crowded agenda. I believe that Members here are always ready. A legislative proposal could be dropped off to us at any time. I wonder if the Minister could commit to introducing this this week if he isn't ready. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.