The Minister has pointed out a couple of times that the four were vacant. I think those were the firefighting positions, if I’m not mistaken. Are they always filled? Are they filled year-round? Obviously, when the decision was made to do this, they may have been vacant, because there was no fire season yet. I’m just curious to know: are they employed year-round? Or is it just a seasonal position, and when they came up with the numbers these four were vacant because there might have been snow on the ground and they didn’t need them?

Mr. Chairman, they would be basically permanent seasonal. They would have a job that would start up every May and conclude in August or September, depending on demand. They at some point had been interviewed or made indeterminate, I guess — indeterminate seasonal — and those positions were set up as GNWT seasonal staff.

Assuming we were to have a fire right outside of Inuvik, do we have anybody in Inuvik who’s capable of fighting the fire, or are we going to have to bring in a crew from Yellowknife?

Thank you,

Mr. McLeod. Mr. Bohnet.

I was just trying to follow up on a few questions on that. But I do want to make just an observation, and I think an observation that’s shared by many Members. It’s an observation made in some of the other departments we’ve been going through the last couple of weeks. We passed a motion again — I’ll mention it — the other day on decentralization. I look at this Active Positions — By Region, and I think it’s been pointed out a couple of times: an increase of six, again in headquarters. They show a decrease of one in North Slave, but I’m assuming that’s still in Yellowknife. Then Fort Smith has got a reduction of eight. Deh Cho has a reduction of two. Sahtu has a reduction of two, and the Beaufort-Delta has a reduction of seven.

This doesn’t go over well with us, especially a lot of the Members from outside the capital, to continually see positions going up in headquarters, saying we need specialized positions. As Mr. Krutko said, you get a guy there who’s been a career firefighter and depends on this kind of seasonal employment. We’re doing it backwards, people. We’re going after the little guys constantly, because they put up the least resistance. Then we add specialists to headquarters in every department. I think we’re doing it backwards. We’re going out in the communities, and the guy’s making payments. But no, we’re going to cut you, but we’re going to put six specialists in headquarters. I would encourage this department and the rest of Cabinet to really stand back and have a serious look at that. We’re going to have so many people working in headquarters that they’ll have nobody in the regions to give orders to; there’ll be nobody left. I think it’s something we seriously have to have a look at.

ENR, of all departments.... You know, there’s always a lot of aboriginal content within ENR, and it’s always been a fairly good department. I see the folks who are being let go; that’s why I asked if they were aboriginal. I’m curious to know if they were aboriginal. Who at the end of the day made the decision to let these folks go? Would it have been the regional superintendent? Would it have been the deputy minister? That’s what I’ve been curious about. Who made the ultimate decision? Was the recommendation coming in from the regional office? That’s what I’m having trouble understanding.

Just a few comments, Mr.

Chair, and an

observation and some words of advice for ENR and the rest of Cabinet. We’re going to have to start getting away from being too top-heavy. It’s not a good sign. We can’t be telling people on one hand, We’re letting you go, and then on the other hand it’s coming out that we’re increasing in headquarters. I always go back to the first budget I was ever a part of a few years ago. One of the departments — actually it was the Housing Corporation — had a reduction of $1.2 million in the Beaufort-Delta. Well, I mean, okay; but then, a couple of pages later, the budget in headquarters went up by $1.2 million.

I don’t think I had a question there, but I just wanted to make a few comments. We have to just keep letting them know we’re not happy with this. It’s not acceptable to keep seeing the regions getting nailed and headquarters growing.

Thank you,

Mr.

McLeod. Response to those comments.

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you,

Mr.

Chairman. I appreciate the comments and

advice from the Member. There are a couple of quick points.

I’ve indicated that when we looked at the firefighting issue, both the aircraft and the fire crews, there was a study that was done that laid out issues and concerns and the fact that, in terms of our requirements, we were overcrewed. I will check with the department, but if I haven’t provided that report to the EDI Committee I will make sure we get that. It was done. That particular piece was looked at very carefully. In terms of the decisions, the final decision, of course, is mine as Minister. I agreed with the plan that was brought forward. I will stand here before this House, and that is my responsibility and final decision. We went through Cabinet, but as Minister, I am the one who’s accountable.

We are going to come back in the fall, because I share the same concerns, coming from a small community, in terms of the growth in headquarters. We’re going to come back in the business-plan process with what I hope are going to be some clear options to possibly relocate some resources and services outside of Yellowknife.

We also have a plan we want to bring forward to committee to look at coming up with a clear plan by this fall in the small communities to work with those community members who may be interested in acquiring the skills to get them at least started in the business of being a renewable resource officer at an entry level. We want to give them an opportunity for training and support they might not otherwise get. They might not be able to make the entry requirements to get into the NRTP program, to get their diploma, but they may have tremendous assets otherwise that we’d like to take advantage of. They’re from the community and have awareness of the culture and the language and the land. We’re going to bring that forward, as well, as a way to get our presence more evident at the community level.

There was a

considerable amount of work done with headquarters and all the regions and all the different program areas and regional superintendents and staff as they laid out what the targets were and what they could bring forward and still be able to say we can do the job, the mandate of the Environment and Natural Resources department. So that worked its way up. There was involvement right from every region to do that with headquarters.

Thank you,

Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. McLeod, anything further? No? Thank you.

We are on page 11-8, Active Positions — By Region, information item. Any more questions? Sorry. Mr. Krutko.

If I can ask the Minister in regard to the position in Fort McPherson: what’s the cost of that position in Fort McPherson? My understanding is that it’s somewhere in the range of $28,000. I’d just like to know: is that the amount of that position in Fort McPherson, which is a seasonal position?

It’s a seasonal position. The figure the Member’s quoted is probably in the range of what that position would be worth on a seasonal basis.

Has the government ever looked at the impact to our system? If this individual decided to go on income support, go into public housing — and that person could have earned an income — receive UI to get him through part of the winter, compared to the cost of this person going on income support and becoming…. What’s the cost of that in the community? I understand, at the end of it all, it’s about $85,000.

Mr. Chairman, our estimation is that the cost of the GNWT maintaining a crew where there’s no operational requirement averages about $27,500 per crew member for the contract period. The cost of providing income assistance to one period for the same period of time as the operational period of the contract is estimated at about $1,250 per person or $2,500 for a family of four.

I guess the other point I want to make is that over time, in some cases, this program has been seen to have a significant social component for the reason the Members have talked about.

Our challenge has been to look at the money we have available, the targets we were given, the number of crews that have grown over the years — in some cases with a very, very modest or minimal workload — and to make the hard decisions in all areas, including this one. We’ve tried to be as careful as possible on that issue. Our capacity to run our fire crews with that social component being one of the criteria is not something we’re able to do with the resources we have available.

Yes; just to remind the Minister, this person was a government employee. He was not on contract to provide fire services. This guy is an employee of this government who basically was a seasonal employee. This person has built his career around that position for $27,000 a year. This

government is basically, you know…. And yet you could put six positions in Yellowknife for $600,000, at a cost of $100,000 per person, and not even blink.

I’d like to ask the Minister: why is it that you had no problem eliminating the position for $27,000, in which this person’s livelihood is on the line? And I have three other people in my community who are government employees who were let go as part this process. I would fight for every one of those people’s positions, knowing that there’s going to be six so-called specialists hired who probably have never lived in the North in their lives, were hired from the south, brought up here with extra costs for moving costs and isolation, removal costs, and get to well over $600,000 by the time they get set up and move them into an office.

Yet you have no qualms about getting rid of somebody for $27,000. I find that pathetic.

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to point out again to the Member that that is a proposed reduction for ’09–10. All these reductions were made with extreme caring. There were a lot of qualms and a lot of hard discussions. I can assure the Member that none of this was done lightly. The position I believe he’s talking about is going to be brought forward in the ’09–10 business planning process, and we’ve all acknowledged there will be a full review and the first opportunity for all the Members to go through the full cycle.

I know my colleague from Inuvik Twin Lakes made reference to the affirmative action candidates in Inuvik. I’d like to know how many affirmative action individuals are being laid off in this department.

In terms of GNWT staff, there are three P1s

in ’08–09.

What about the seasonal positions with the forest fire contract? Those are people also. I’d like to know how many people this government has had under payroll are going to be laid off through this process.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the contract position, the majority, if not all, of the fire crews would be from the community and would in all probability be considered P1s, if you were staff.

I’d just like to ask the Minister if it will take a motion from this House to reinstate that position in regard to the three PYs you mentioned.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Clarification: are you referring to the ’08–09?

I am referring to reinstating any positions in regard to aboriginal employees in this department — that this government generously consider reinstating those positions, knowing the affirmative action numbers are down to 31 per cent yet the aboriginal population makes up over 51 per cent. I’d just like to ask the Minister: what does it take to reinstate positions? Do we have to pass motions in the House or delay the item?