Good morning, colleagues. Welcome back to the House. Before we go to orders of the day, it’s a special day for a couple of our Members today. Mr. Beaulieu has a birthday.

Applause.

And without disclosing his age, I would just like to give a message to his MLA that in 30 years’ time, he’ll be eligible for a special award.

Laughter.

We also have another birthday in the House. Ms. Bisaro’s birthday is today.

Applause.

I thought I had the distinction of being the oldest Member, but not quite.

Laughter.

Anyway, happy birthday to both of you.

Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Bob McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former builder, supporter and fierce advocate of our tourism industry in the Northwest Territories.

Jim Peterson passed away on April 15 of this year, just weeks before his beloved lodge on Point Lake opened for its 22nd season.

Jim first came to the Northwest Territories in 1979 with the Canadian Armed Forces and established northern roots that were, thankfully, never uplifted.

In 1986 he became an active participant in the NWT tourism industry with the establishment of Point Lake Lodge north of Yellowknife. A seasoned outdoorsman and outfitter, he was elected for two successive terms as president of the NWT Arctic Tourism Association and served as a vocal and committed president for the Barren Ground Caribou Outfitters Association.

Jim Peterson held a great love for the North and a deep passion for the industry that allowed him to share its unique environment and beauty with his worldwide circle of clients and friends. He was a man of rigorous principles, an exemplary Northerner who addressed his challenges head-on but never lost the humble spirit with which he supported his colleagues and friends through their own times of hardship.

Mr. Speaker, the headline in the Yellowknifer on April 18 read: “Jim Peterson fought the government, enjoyed his friends and loved his lodge.” The words offer a succinct and fitting description of a man whose achievements and efforts on behalf of tourism in the Northwest Territories deserve our recognition, appreciation and celebration.

Friends and family will be gathering at the Adlair air hangar on Friday, May 23, at 5:30 p.m. for a celebration of life for this great Northerner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 3, Members’ statements. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget session, and I want to talk about the budget information that was tabled in this House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about our unique style of consensus government, and there is an anomaly in

that system. As soon as we choose the seven from among us, they are assigned areas of responsibility on behalf of MLAs and the residents of the Northwest Territories.

But at some point, they become the equivalent of a minority government and take on the characteristics of a governing political party, complete with party discipline, solidarity, confidentiality. They clearly differentiate themselves from those on this side of the House. Maybe this is an anomaly within consensus government that we need to rethink.

After the lack of consultation and representative participation in the development of this budget, maybe there’s a more fitting model that will encourage Ministers to embrace and return to their commitments to work with all Members. Perhaps, like municipal councils, we should just strike committees and elect chairpersons to oversee those committees, and have Members serve as liaisons with various sectors of our territory. Perhaps responsibility for chairing these areas of responsibility should be rotated from time to time to build capacity, to plan for succession in future governments and to give everyone a chance to understand thoroughly the different dynamics and challenges of governing this vast territory.

There has been a very distinctive reluctance on the part of this government to demonstrate the values of the politics of inclusion. The Regular Members of this House have an amazing array of knowledge, background, experience and skills that are being disregarded when this Cabinet fails to consult in a meaningful way.

After our strategic planning session when we developed our Northerners Working Together — a bit of a contradiction…. When we developed that document, Cabinet committees were struck to deal with refocusing government. Many other initiatives committees were struck. Regular Members asked to have representation on those committees, and we were denied. Federal funding in the form of the Building Canada Fund, the equal trust and municipal debt development fund and community trust funding have had projects identified with no input from the Regular Members at the front end. We haven’t been allowed to sit at the table. Decisions were made about reduction targets, job reductions. All this was done in consultation with deputy ministers and departments. Regular Members were lucky to hear about them after the fact and sometimes after the communication was already in the public — if not formally, at least informally.

Now the Finance Minister has brought forward a budget and can’t understand why Regular Members are having a hard time to buy in. There may be more to be said.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

There may be more to be said about what’s not in this budget than there is to say about what is in it. Some of the Budget Address could have been well spent explaining the rationale for the cuts and job reductions so that Northerners could understand the big picture. What we heard were vague metaphors, analogies and hard-to-understand riddles. If we can’t understand the communication on this side of the House, how is the public supposed to make sense of it?

Speaking of the big picture, that is something this budget missed all together.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring to light today a situation affecting my constituents and, I suspect, the constituents of other Yellowknife ridings. Yellowknife’s rental housing market is extremely tight at the moment; the vacancy rate is less than 1 per cent. We’re all well aware of the current costs that are attached to the provision of heat, power, maintenance and so on that landlords must endure — particularly fuel costs. So it’s no surprise that tenants across the city of Yellowknife are receiving notices of pending rental rate increases.

Constituents have advised me that their rent increased in 2007 more than 16 per cent, with an increase in 2008 of another 11

per

cent or

16 per cent, depending on their apartment size and the term of the lease.

I don’t begrudge the landlords the opportunity to raise rents to meet their costs and to have a positive balance sheet at the end of the day. The current Residential Tenancies Act allows landlords to raise rents once in a 12-month period, and that’s not unreasonable. What I am concerned about is the lack of any control for the amount of a rent increase. I find it unreasonable that tenants will have to endure rent increases two years running, each one as high as 16 per cent.

In a housing market with a normal vacancy rate, residents would have the option of looking for cheaper accommodations. Yellowknife renters don’t have that option today. They are effectively held to ransom by the landlord.

The NWT needs to put in place a mechanism of appeal for tenants who feel they are facing an unacceptable rent increase. At the moment they can’t appeal to the rental officer; he can only respond to things that are in the act. The act is silent on the amount of allowable rent increases. The act is also silent on the need for a landlord to

provide any justification to tenants in regard to a proposed rent increase.

I think tenants recognize the rising cost of doing business and are willing to accept some increase in their rent. But a 16 per cent increase when the cost of living increase is no more than 3 per cent seems out of line.

I urge the Yellowknife rental property owners to consider meeting with their tenants to explain why such a huge increase is necessary. At the very least, they should provide their tenants with written justification, including facts and figures to back up their proposed increases.

Few of our residents have the capability and capacity to appeal a rent increase via the court process, but at this time that is the only possibility open to them. Maybe it’s time for the NWT to seriously consider establishing an ombudsman service to hear appeals from residents on any issue — not just rent concerns — where legislation has no avenue of appeal. I believe it’s a service whose time has come. I hope the government will give it serious consideration in the future.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I will have questions for the Minister of Justice.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, when you’re back in the community, a lot of people come to you. They talk to you about cost of living. It was mentioned in the Budget Address yesterday. Cost of living is a great concern in the Northwest Territories, especially, as my colleague from Mackenzie Delta pointed out yesterday, the cost of energy.

One of the biggest complaints I get from back in Inuvik is the cost of power and the power bills and how they’re distributed. The power bills have been coming. I was talking to a constituent and he was saying it’s getting to the point where you almost can’t afford a mortgage anymore. By the time you’re finished paying your mortgage and your power bill, there’s almost no money left for food.

The billing is coming out of Hay River now, where it used to be done out of Inuvik. They are behind. I was talking to a constituent this morning who’s had five power bills in two months because they’re trying to catch up and they’re trying to make up. What kind of an organization is this?

The folks back in the Mackenzie Delta and in Inuvik and the Beaufort-Delta are getting a little frustrated with having to constantly deal with the Power Corporation and the way they do business. There’s some serious talk; they’re looking at options for

pulling off the grid. Your biggest customer base is in Inuvik and the Beaufort-Delta.

If they were to pull off the grid, that would seriously affect the Northwest Territories Power Corporation. If they can supply the power themselves, then we don’t mind having to pay into our own community. But the folks in the Beaufort-Delta are getting these outrageous power bills. They’re getting too many power bills.

I can just see the next power bill. They’re going to have a rider on it, because they had to send out all these pink slips to remind you how they’re going to fix your bill. We’ll get a rider for those, like we get a rider for everything else. It’s just very frustrating for people who constantly have to struggle to make ends meet.

Everything is going up. We talk about the cost of living being a priority of this government, and yet we do very little about it. The subsidy the government provides helps, obviously. Without that subsidy, times would be a little more difficult. It’s just a frustrating time for all people in the Beaufort-Delta to have to keep paying these outrageous power bills.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was very disappointed with the Budget Address yesterday. There was no mention in regard to the access road for Aklavik. I’d like to congratulate my colleague from Tuktoyaktuk; they received recognition in the Budget Address.

After reviewing the budget last night, I was again not able to find anywhere in that budget reference to a motion that I passed in this House regarding an access road to gravel sources in Tuktoyaktuk to site 177 and an access road from Aklavik to Willow River to that gravel source.

This issue has been around since 1991 by way of motions from the Beaufort region, from the communities, and also from me as a Member of this House for 13 years. Yet somehow it has been totally erased or eliminated from the planning process of this government. This project has received government funding by way of the community access road project for several years, in which they’ve built two kilometres of road, because the cost of moving gravel from the Willow River site to the community…. This government has known about this project for some time.

The residents of Aklavik are very disappointed that this is not being recognized by this government. Mr. Speaker, this government has been divvying up

money among themselves by way of the Building Canada Fund and the strategic initiative funds. Again, a large number of these projects have nowhere been previously budgeted or previously planned for in the planning process of this government.

I can remember standing up in this House many times and being told by Ministers across the floor that in order to get any projects, by way of roads connecting communities to highways or expanding our highway system, it had to be part of the NWT Highway Strategy. These new projects aren’t even close to being in the NWT strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very disappointed in regard to what I heard yesterday and how we’ve been treated on this side of the House. As a Member who’s been here for 13 years, this is the worst I’ve seen of dialogue between Members of the 16th Assembly

compared to what we did in the 13th Assembly. That

was a major budget exercise then.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

As a Member for the 13th Assembly,

we went through a similar exercise, but at least the 23 members of the 13th Assembly were involved.

We knew which departments were going to be cut. We knew exactly what our situation was so we could go back to our constituents and explain it to them.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to fight with regard to the constituents of the Mackenzie Delta and the access road for Aklavik. I have to state that I’m very disappointed that there was nothing mentioned in the budget.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to talk about the serious issue that is affecting many of our communities: a lack of adequate housing for teachers.

This is not a new issue. As a matter of fact, it’s been making headlines for some time now — headlines like: Teachers’ Housing – Headache for Education Body; Frustrated Teachers Quitting Beaufort Jobs; High Rents, Housing Crunch Drives Teachers from NWT Communities; Five Beaufort-Delta Communities Losing School Principals.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue for many communities. Things are no different in my riding. The district education authority in Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution, the South Slave District Education Council and even the NWT Teachers’ Association

have raised the issue of housing for teachers in my communities numerous times over the past five years. There’s been little or no improvement.

Mr. Speaker, there are three main issues with teachers’ housing: availability, affordability and adequacy. Contributing to the problem is the fact that Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e are smaller communities with no private rental market. The cost of housing is a significant factor when prospective teachers are deciding whether or not to take the positions. Affordability is a huge factor when it comes to communities getting good teachers or retaining them.

In these smaller communities, availability of adequate housing is severely limited. As a result, teachers often find themselves having to share living quarters with others. One teacher was even forced to stay in a local bed-and-breakfast. In most cases they have month-to-month leases. This can be a major distraction for teachers. It often results in high, fast turnover and places a heavy burden on school budgets. In one case, a teacher had to go without laundry services for a full winter because of a faulty water system and other issues, like maintenance.

At the end of the day, this is not only a teacher’s problem. It affects the students and the whole community.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

This is a territory-wide problem that demands immediate attention. Later on today I will follow up this statement with questions for the appropriate Minister. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to honour the passing of an elder: Madeline Villeneuve from Fort Simpson. Madeline — best known as Madeleine, as she had been called all her life — was the oldest member of our community. She was 101 years old by church records. However, other elders and community members maintain she was far older than that. She was definitely the oldest one in our community and our region. She had lived a long and formidable life: from bows and arrows through to the moon landing, as it was said in her eulogy. This is significant, Mr. Speaker, because I read recently that the oldest person in the world is only 105 or 107, and she was up there.

She contributed greatly to our community. She had a large family. She had 43 grandchildren, 90 great-grandchildren and 28 great-great-grandchildren. I am proud to say that my children and grandchild are counted among them through their mother, Connie Villeneuve.

I just wanted to honour her today here in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and as well to say: Madeleine, you have done a great job with all of your children, and I wish you peaceful rest as you have taken leave from us. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During our last session I went on the record concerning morale in the public service. After receiving the Main Estimates yesterday, it's clear that 231 positions have been targeted for reduction. Fortunately only 147 of these will result in potential job loss, as 84 are currently vacant. Although 147 affected employees is definitely better than 231, it's still far from appropriate, and it's bad for the public service.

Staff of the GNWT are our most valuable resource. They're the people who provide the essential services to our residents in the Northwest Territories. Without a happy and motivated public service, we fail in the delivery of the essential services we are expected to deliver as a government.

These job cuts do nothing but radically reduce already poor morale. Further, this job-cutting exercise is seen as only the first round of cuts. Whether or not a second round of cuts is coming, it does cause uncertainty within the public service, which currently affects morale and the quality of the services provided by our dedicated yet nervous and apprehensive staff.

As I indicated previously, I believe focusing on job cuts is exactly the wrong way to pursue the course of direction with respect to the government's spending patterns.

The public and the Members on this side of the House have offered Cabinet many suggestions on ways to improve our financial situation without cutting staff: things like reviewing and improving our energy use and consumption within the government itself, restructuring boards and agencies and increasing cooperation between departments in order to reduce duplicate spending.

During the last session I and my colleagues on this side of the House strongly encouraged the Premier and Cabinet to make every reasonable effort to reduce our overall spending through streamlining,

as well as creative and innovative thinking and planning. After looking at the Main Estimates last night, it appears to me that our encouragement to find reductions other than through cuts has largely been ignored. Don't get me wrong. Upon review, it's clear that one or two of the departments were more creative and did find alternative savings without jobs cuts; however, the vast majority appear to have gone directly into job cuts themselves.

I am a realist. I know that this restructuring exercise will result in a few — and I stress, a few — job cuts. However, as I indicated previously, these job cuts should be the last resort. They shouldn't be the government's first solution to our financial difficulty. I’m disappointed that Cabinet has pursued this course of action, as I believe they're setting us up to relive the mistakes of 1996 government cuts.

To avoid repeating these same mistakes, I encourage Cabinet to listen to the Regular Members, your colleagues, and reconsider many of the job cuts you are proposing. We must support our most valuable resource: our dedicated and committed staff. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, the three most important things in the basic cost of living for all our residents are food, energy and housing. This Assembly has made it a priority to address the soaring cost of living. Because our small communities have little economic development, they must be subsidized at increasing costs, with significant implications to our residents and to the GNWT budget. In the budget presented, I see little comprehensive and effective government action to actually address these costs. I want here to suggest a basis on which to move forward on this key issue.

When basic needs are derived from resources that are imported from increasingly remote locations, costs cannot be controlled and rising costs result. Money and economic resources are pipelined out of the community as fast as they comes in and are concentrated in fewer and fewer large corporations without any relationship to the community. Environmental impacts rise and eventually are felt globally. Everyone pays those costs, but few have input into the decisions that could address those impacts. Development of skills related to providing those resources is not enhanced. Finally, increasing subsidies are required to provide the basic needs necessary and to address the social and other consequences that naturally arise from this situation. This is what we currently face.

In contrast, many benefits can accrue when basic needs are met, largely from local resources. Costs can be controlled, financial gains are maximized

and distributed locally, and economic interactions circulate money in the community. Environmental impacts are quickly addressed because they're felt immediately and locally, and community capacity rises. Indirect benefits include a strengthened social fabric, respect for the land and people who provide for the needs of the community, and an overall increase in community capacity. Economic development becomes specifically designed to local conditions and resources that vary widely, and it doesn't actually yield diversity.

Mr. Speaker, while we have the challenges of climate change impacts and soaring fuel costs, we also have solutions that will address both of these and the cost of living. We have an incredible potential to raise vegetables, herbs and even grains, as was demonstrated in the '40s through the '60s. Our varied crops are phenomenal. Our potential for harvesting meat is high, with marine mammals, bison, moose, waterfowl and the long-term caribou. Our forests offer….

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our forests offer an amazing potential for diversifying our diet, from birch syrup to nutrient-laden mushrooms and other foods. Renewable energy is available in every community, varying from area to area. Building skills and materials are available, but need investigation and development.

The Minister of Finance noted yesterday that we are totally vulnerable to rising costs and global economic conditions, yet he failed to address how to become less vulnerable. Instead, this government's sole response seems to be to join the madness and pursue mega-development with predictable social, environmental and local economic consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this government to recognize the incredible potential and innovation of our culturally diverse people and to provide real incentives, opportunities and requirements for environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development. We need to meet real needs with real solutions. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the Premier's Budget Address yesterday and found it quite interesting that there was absolutely no mention of the $165 million Deh Cho Bridge project. It didn't get any billing whatsoever from this government. Mr. Speaker, is that not a strange omission?

According to the government, isn't this $165 million bridge supposed to reduce the cost of living? And wouldn't you think that the government would be boasting about this massive piece of public infrastructure? Or was it left out intentionally? Perhaps the government does not want any more attention given to this project, or perhaps it's embarrassed to have gotten into such a poor deal in the first place.

Many of my constituents and residents around the Northwest Territories do not understand or comprehend why, if we are in financial duress and expenses are outstripping our revenues, would we ever, ever sign on to a project that's going to increase our annual operational expenses by close to $3 million per year, indexed for the next 35 years.

Mr. Speaker, the bridge is going to be built. During questions to the Premier in October and in February, he did commit to having a post-mortem on finding out why the government signed the agreement three days before the last election and who was responsible for that action. I'm in receipt of a response to a set of written questions that I had asked the Premier in February — on February 8, to be specific — regarding the Deh Cho Bridge concession agreement. I want to thank the Premier for the responses, but they only add more questions to what the government was thinking when they signed off on this agreement.

In response, the Government of the Northwest Territories finally admits to the public and to this House that they did not have an updated cost-benefit analysis done prior to signing that agreement. How could this ever, ever be allowed to happen with public funds, Mr. Speaker?

We had the discussion yesterday regarding the need for sound decision-making. How on God’s green earth is this sound decision-making when the government was relying on a five-year-old cost-benefit analysis to sign off on a $165 million concession agreement? This is completely and utterly unacceptable and inexcusable, especially since the deal itself was signed in a veil of secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the Premier at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I begin I would like to make special mention of Red Friday, where people wear red to honour the troops.

Mr. Speaker, today’s Member’s statement is to talk about a couple of community grassroots events that will be happening here in Yellowknife. The first one is the Gumboot Rally. It will be happening tomorrow, Saturday, May 24 at 10 a.m. at the Yellowknife Education Board parking lot. It will be the scene of fun, games and a lot of laughs at the Yellowknife Association for Community Living, where they are holding their 16th Annual Gumboot

Rally.

The rally is the association’s major fundraiser to maintain programming throughout the year. The YACL is a non-profit organization that supports families, children, youth and adults with intellectual disabilities so that they are included and able to contribute to community life here in Yellowknife. The association provides services in eight different programming areas, including employability, family projects, living and learning with FASD projects, literacy outreach centres, respite, supportive living, skills training and inclusions.

Mr. Speaker, at the Gumboot Rally 15 to 20 teams will don hilarious costumes — and their gumboots, of course — to come out and compete in such games as basketboots, skinny ankles, boot toss and catch ‘n boot. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of notable prizes that will be donated by Canadian North: two trips, which can be a trip to Edmonton or Calgary. One is for the person who raises the most money, and the other is for the person who gets the most sponsors. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the event there will be a barbecue.

I’m just letting folks know that there are still packages available. Every year teams don funny costumes. In past years we’ve had the Loan Arrangers from the TD Bank, Aurora Jiggers from the college, the Flashers, Sisson Judges and the Hippies. So Mr. Speaker, that community event starts on Saturday. I’m making special note of our sponsors who make sure this event happens. They are Canadian North, YK1, Artisan Press, Northbest Distributors, BHP, and the Gumboots, as well as Coffee Break.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I had two community events that are important in Yellowknife, and they’re grassroots. Of course there’s the Walk for the Cure of diabetes, which I’ll be attending as well. That happens here at the Legislative Assembly on Sunday, May 25. Registration starts at 1 o’clock. I’ll just say in closing it’s put on every year by the Lions Club. I want to thank them for leading that initiative starting here at the Legislature on Sunday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins, The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.

Mr. Speaker, today I’d like to bring up a problem that we’ve been having in our community of Tuktoyaktuk since February of this year. Our x-ray machine has been broken down. The residents have to fly to Inuvik to get an x-ray done, and that’s not acceptable in this day and age. We have to get a timeline on when that machine will be brought back to town. I’ll have questions for the Minister at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize the family of the late Jim Peterson, who are in attendance today. I appreciated the remarks this morning. Welcome to the Peterson family.

I’d like to recognize Candy Brown from Fort Simpson.

I’d like to recognize a long-term Housing employee, Mr. Jim White, of Yellowknife Housing Authority.

I am pleased to recognize the family of Jim Peterson: his wife, Margaret Peterson; his daughter Amanda, Jim’s son Chad and also close friends Jack Levesque, Sandy Osborne and Don Santos. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to recognize an aboriginal filmmaker who made it in the world in the film business: my brother Raymond Yakeleya.

If we’ve missed anyone in the gallery today, welcome to the House. Hope you are enjoying the proceedings. Item 6, acknowledgements. Item 7, oral questions. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement with some questions for the Minister of Justice.

Considering the very tight rental market in Yellowknife at the moment and considering the rent increases that many of my constituents are facing, can the Minister advise if the proposed

amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act will address the issue of limiting rent increases?

I am going to rule that question out of order. That is on the order paper for today as legislation.

Interjection.

Oral questions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my Member’s statement I spoke of the serious issue of lack of housing for teachers, and I’d like to ask the Minister of ECE some questions.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise me if the department has any strategy for providing teachers’ housing in smaller non-market communities?

Thank you, Mr.

Beaulieu.

Mr. Lafferty.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that housing is a big issue in the Northwest Territories, especially for professional staff that we have in small communities and those most isolated communities. Our department has been working with the communities, with the leadership, with the Housing Corporation. I’d just like to highlight that we’ve met with district education authorities, the council and also with the superintendent this past couple of weeks in Norman Wells. We did highlight housing as one of the priorities of our discussion, and there have been a couple of options that were brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to say that our department is following up on those options. Follow-up meetings will be undertaken, and I will certainly address that with Members here. Mahsi.

Can the Minister advise the House if there is any dialogue that’s tied to developers as far as providing private market housing in non-market communities?

Like I said, the ongoing consultation will be between the superintendents, the DEAs and our department. It’s all preliminary right now. Certainly the private contractors will play a role. We are working closely with the Housing Corporation as well. They have dialogues with local contractors in the communities. What it comes down to now is forming a partnership with the communities. We are in the process of forming a partnership with both ECE and the Housing Corporation and with the small communities that were faced with housing shortages.

Can the Minister advise the House of anything specific that he can mention in the

House about what type of work has occurred between ECE and the Housing Corporation in this area?

I appreciate the Member’s questioning of this area. We have had a dialogue with the Housing Corporation and our department, and we are coming up with options. We are doing some pilot projects in one of the communities where there is a loan guarantee from the Housing Corporation on to the contractor in the community to build units. That’s an area that we are focusing on, as well as an immediate plan. For long-term plans we are coming up with options to consider from the superintendents, the DEA chairs. Certainly those will be taken into consideration to deal with the housing shortages in the Northwest Territories for all 33 communities.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister commit to a continued dialogue with the DEAs on housing teachers and report back to the House within six months so that we can get an update on any progress on housing for teachers?

This is an important topic. It’s one of the priorities of the Northwest Territories, so certainly, yes, I will commit to keeping the Members informed of the progress we’re making.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.

Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement I asked the Minister of Health about my x-ray machine in the community of Tuk, if she could look into the problem and get back to me early next week and let me know how much longer this will affect my community.

Minister of Health, Ms. Lee.

I’d like to thank the Member for bringing that matter to my attention. I had a chance to meet with him and the mayor of Tuk this morning for breakfast, and that issue was brought up too. I am in the process of finding out details on that, and I’m hoping that I can have answers for him by the end of today.

Supplementary question, Mr. Jacobson? Okay. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As everyone who owns a house or a car knows, fuel prices seem to continually go up and down, and

there’s no stability. Many people are familiar with the issue of last product in, first product out, so that’s sort of the pricing principle. As many people know, especially here in Yellowknife, when the ice bridge went out, no new product was trucked in to Yellowknife — I can tell you that — but the prices fluctuate. Based on that sort of pricing model, it seems completely unreasonable that fuel prices were going up and down.

I wrote the Minister of Finance about some pricing regulations and possibilities. There are other provinces across Canada, five to be exact, that regulate to some degree fuel prices, and that’s motor fuels as well as home-heating fuels.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is: will he look into this issue to see if we can create some type of stability here for the Northwest Territories, sort of something to take the volatility out of the ups and downs of the fuel pricing?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Mr. Speaker, the area of fuel prices in the Northwest Territories is impacting across the territory, especially in our more remote communities.

The factor of the free market plays a significant role in the larger communities, where private businesses bring the product in and sell it to consumers. We’ve looked at other jurisdictions where they’ve had what would be considered moderate as a potential price control.

The fact is that when you look at the other pieces of legislation out there, it’s not very clear, and it’s not necessarily price control. There may be a delayed impact, but there’s still an impact of that. When you do a price comparison across the country, there are still a number of other jurisdictions that are in the neighbourhood of beginning to pay the price that we’ve seen, at least in this community. We have to remember that in our smaller communities, we even pay a higher price as well.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to say that the Minister is completely wrong, but I just don’t believe him.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that a PUB type of system will help protect and stabilize prices. Five out of our ten provinces in Canada can’t be completely wrong by finding an approach to balance this out. It would still allow that industry to raise prices, yet it would put the onus on them to bring a mild amount of justification.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all of that said, would the Minister of Finance reconsider his position in the context of providing a stable, protected environment for our consumers in the Northwest Territories?

We are open to looking at ways where we can mitigate the impact of the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. What we do and the impact of what we do is something we have to look at.

The research we’ve done to date shows, in some of these cases, if you set up a structure that starts limiting the free market capability, we end up putting other pressure on ourselves. Jurisdictions have found that if you tighten up the market so much and regulate it as a government, you reduce that free market capability, and they go out and sell their product in other places where they do make their money and then put an additional squeeze on our own constituents. So we have to take that in consideration.

We would be willing to look at it under the refocusing or the cost-of-living scenarios that we have to look at as a government.

Mr. Speaker, that’s the approach I’m looking for, so I will say that, hopefully, this will be my last question. Is that a commitment that they will include that into that process, or is that sort of, “We’ll think about it”?

Mr. Speaker, we’ll be willing to look at it. Within the cost-of-living strategic initiatives there are a whole number of areas, and we definitely have to look at how we impact the lives of people in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Premier has now pretty well heard consistently from most of the Members of this House that there’s some unhappiness over here about the consultation and the communication since the 16th Assembly

took office. Now, I don’t want to say that this is a universal problem. I mean, certainly some Cabinet Ministers we’ve been working with have been doing a great job. They get back to us. They communicate.

But how we communicate and work together as Cabinet and committees and in that structured, formal framework that we work within.... Collectively, there has been something lacking here. So I hope that the Premier is starting to get that message and won’t deny it.

Example: Maximizing Opportunities, Managing This Land, Reducing the Cost of Living and Refocusing Government. Why can those committees, chaired by different Cabinet Ministers, not include, as has been requested, representation from Regular Members on this side of the House?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of Cabinet committees that are established that look at budgetary issues, legislation, policy. There is no joint committee process. There are a number of areas we’ve worked with; for example, Members on the climate change piece have put that together. There has been the Mackenzie Gas Project joint committee. So those things we can be looking at to salvage.

There are some areas where, as we’re getting underway with the new way of doing our budgeting process, those strategic initiatives fit at this time. I’ve said to Members already that once we have that up and going, we’ll be sitting down with Members on a more regular basis at some point to go through the items before they become even a draft main document. But that will take commitment from Members to agree to sit down and have those discussions and meetings about timing and how we go through those initiatives.

There has been a lot of emphasis put on changing the way we do business. The reason why I referenced those four committees is because they are strategic initiative committees that are supposed to take the strategic priorities of this government that we collectively agreed upon. These were formed after that to try and bring focus to the various Cabinet committees. We don’t want to sit on every Cabinet committee, but some we have requested, and we have met with no favourable response, no agreement. It is an interesting dynamic.

When I was in my Member’s statement referring to the fact that maybe Cabinet is a contradiction in consensus government, the Premier seemed to have a bit of a scoffing reaction to that. I suggested committees of oversight, like they have at municipal councils. Tell me why that would be such a foreign thought.

Committees of oversight do exist. The Standing Committees on Social Programs, Economic Development and Infrastructure and of Priorities and Planning are looking at what the government is doing and keeping us accountable. Let’s also remember the fact that it wasn’t that long ago in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories when Ministers of this government went down to Ottawa and sat at those tables. In fact, we didn’t sit at the tables; we sat in the hallway. Let’s be realistic. If we’re going to talk about being a grand municipal council instead of a territorial government, we’ll get even less attention at the national table. So when we talk about credibility of this government and the views of this government, we have to keep that in mind and how we structure ourselves.

I believe there needs to be a process established over the life of this government to make some changes in the future of government operations, and maybe one of them is actually calling into question consensus government. I’ve said that I’m consensus to the core in how we do business, and I tried to operate in that. Although there have been a few Members who’ve said they’ve been walking in the blind with what our plans are, I would dispute that fact, and I can show and I’m prepared to get the times we’ve sat down with committees. We’ve put initiatives on the table, we’ve waited for response, and we’ve made some changes — the same process we’ve used in the past. I want to incorporate and get more dialogue between committees through these initiatives. I’m looking forward to that piece of it.

The Premier refers to getting a seat at those FPT tables. I would like to suggest that all that money that is spent to take Ministers, deputy ministers, officials down to all those FPT meetings, which they run up and down the country going to, is of limited benefit to this government. We’ve got huge problems and issues that we have to work out right here at home. Maybe Ministers would have more time to pay attention to what’s going on in the Northwest Territories if they weren’t running off to every city in the country, getting together with FPT Ministers. I would suggest that they are of limited value. You can read the communiqué that comes out at the end. You could probably just bring it home, and that would be good enough.

We are all equally elected Members of this Assembly. When we get here, we expect to have effective and meaningful input. I would like to refute the Premier’s insinuation that any offer that’s been made to this side of the House has not been fully received and accepted and participated in. The prime example for me is....

Do you have a question, Mrs. Groenewegen?

Yes. I’d like to ask the Premier: going forward, what areas or avenues does he see available to him to set the example as the Premier of this government to provide more opportunity for a government of inclusion?

The fact is that we are trying to go down that path. I’ve offered to Members a different approach to take to the budgeting exercise. As I said yesterday, I was told to get the budget done; be ready for May–June. We’ve done that. I’ve said to Members that would put us back into the same old way of doing business as the Government of the Northwest Territories. We’re in that, and that process has not changed. I would like to see a change going forward. As I proposed to Members, when we do these strategic initiative committees, the lead chairs and deputies would be

going to committee on a more regular basis to help get their information for proposals as we begin to draft it.

The typical process would be that letters go out to the departments in June. Departments start doing that exercise. Members see the draft of this plan in September. Then they make remarks, and we make some adjustments. We want to change that process.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Third supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier didn’t have time to put together a budget that was going to be palatable, that was going to be reasonable, then we should have gone with the status quo. What we’ve ended up with is something not very acceptable. I know we asked for a compressed process. We expected better than this. We didn’t get it.

Would the Premier agree to return to an interim status quo budget until such time as we can come together and not take these very, very drastic measures that are proposed in this budget?

No.

Oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier, and it gets back to my Member’s statement talking about the Deh Cho Bridge project. We’re all well aware that the project is moving ahead and going forward. During the past four years I’ve probably asked close to a hundred questions on the Deh Cho Bridge project itself, trying to get a better understanding of what the government was doing and why it was doing it.

On February 8 I asked a number of written questions to the Premier in regard to what level of detailed information the government and Department of Transportation had at their disposal in order to sign the concession agreement on September 28. I just wanted to mention that a response to a written question that was tabled in the House yesterday is missing a response to question 2. The government admits to basically not having any updated cost-benefit analyses prior to signing the $165 million deal. As I said earlier, that is just absurd.

I know the Premier is committed to doing a post-mortem on the accountability to try to find out exactly why this happened and how it happened, how public funds were put at risk. I’d like to ask the Premier where he is at in this post-mortem on this bridge.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m working with the Department of Executive, pulling all the dates, times and all of the process that unfolded, looking at our legislation, looking at the process and looking at how we can tighten it up. That work is ongoing. I’ll have to get an update here within days, and I can get back to the Member as to when we hope to bring on our responses forward to committee. The work is ongoing.

We have to be clear on this. We’re also trying to relook at history here. There were all kinds of meetings, as we tabled in this House back to Members, about meetings, times, events. If you want to relive that again, the dreams about bridges, the fact is that the Government of the Northwest Territories.... If we held ourselves to the same measures that some Members are trying to hold government to on one project, we would have to close three-quarters of our communities and move them into Yellowknife or maybe move Yellowknife or the Northwest Territories into a small community in Alberta or B.C.

When we talk about the message we’re trying to send to Canada and the fact that we need investment in the Northwest Territories in stuff like hydro development, in stuff like the Mackenzie Valley Highway — when we talk about the cost per capita, they could easily come back to us and say it’s not cost-effective to invest in the Northwest Territories. But they do, because we are part of Canada, and they recognize that difference. We’ve got to start doing that same thing in the Northwest Territories.

I don’t dispute the fact that we should be doing some of that fine work that the Premier talks about, but we should have a foundation of information in order to base our decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier pretty much a point-blank question: how could any government sign a $165 million concession agreement three days prior to an election, with a five-year-old piece of cost-benefit analysis work being their only instrument that they have at their disposal? How could that happen? How is that good government, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, like I’m telling the people of Canada, the federal government and the Prime Minister, the Mackenzie Valley Highway is of national interest. It will help us economically, and it will help us develop the territory. That project is in a similar fashion; it’s not only one piece that you make your decision on.

Where’s the vision? We need to ask ourselves: where’s the vision for the Northwest Territories? Do we want to stay with a “hat-in-hand” mentality,

going to Ottawa saying: Give us more; give us more? Or instead: Give us the tools, and we can build the Northwest Territories.

The Premier has a good point there: we need to come up with a vision; we need to engage the stakeholders here in the Northwest Territories. In this project the stakeholders weren’t engaged. They were engaged in 2002 and 2003. The government has yet to prove to residents in the North Slave region that the cost of living will not go up as a result of this bridge being built. Where’s that evidence, Mr. Speaker? I’d like to ask the Premier that question. Thank you.

I think that question has been answered a number of times — of course, not to the satisfaction of the Member. I think all you have to do right now is drive through some of the business parking lots and look at all the tractor-trailer units parked in their parking lots, because they had to stock up for the closing of the ice crossing. Let’s ask the businesses that.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, that’s the problem: they didn’t go back out and they didn’t ask the businesses. They asked them in 2002 and in 2003. They didn’t go back out, prior to signing that concession agreement on September 28, and talk to the stakeholders in the North Slave region.

I would like to ask the Premier: what is the timeline for coming back with this look into exactly what happened, so the residents of the Northwest Territories can finally get a better picture of how exactly the government put $165 million at risk? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I told the Member in an earlier question already today, earlier in this line of questioning, that I would be going back to the Executive to get the timeline and come back to the Member. I’m prepared to do that.

But let’s be realistic here. We’re talking about an investment in the Northwest Territories. The Member sees it as risk. I think we’re making investments in the Northwest Territories for the betterment of the Northwest Territories, for the long-term credibility and development of the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation some questions, most particularly on the appeal system.

Also, I would just like to thank him for coming to the Nahendeh riding. We did visit a few communities there, and we look forward to a return visit.

The continued concern that I get on a daily basis when I travel in my communities is basically appealing decisions by the housing corporation board. They are wanting to follow up on issues. I’m finding that an appeals system — and it’s something that I’ve been pursuing for some time now — if it were in place, would address a lot of these concerns from constituents and concerned citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commit publicly that as the Minister responsible for the Housing Corp., we’d like to continue to conclude our trip, which was interrupted. I’ll commit to that.

The issue of the appeal process, as well, the Member has raised before, and it’s a good one. It’s one the Housing Corporation has put on their work list, and we are looking forward to being able to come back to committee, and to this Assembly, in the fall. We’ve indicated, as well, to the Member that we’d like to be able to look at processes that are already there that we could either pattern ourselves after, such as the Student Financial Assistance appeals or the Income Support appeals process. We recognize that the Member has raised a very good point, and it would give another avenue for due process for clients.

Quite often it’s simple things that constituents are appealing to the Housing Corporation and the managers, but once that manager makes a decision, he’s not going to change his mind. So they’re coming to me, as their MLA, to say, “There’s a glitch here in the system. I’ve been asking about this renovation,” or “It needs repairs.” Often it’s simple things, and having an outlet for constituents to address those concerns is very important.

I’d just like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, what type of appeal system does he foresee being implemented?

Mr. Speaker, as I’ve indicated, we’re going to look closely at the appeal system that is now there for Income Support — there’s another one for Student Financial Assistance — and we’re going to do a jurisdictional check as well. The intent is not to try to recreate the wheel or reinvent the wheel, so we’re going to take the best from the systems that are there. We’ll be sharing that work with the Members and the committees.

Once again if the Minister can let me know, and let the House know: how soon will

they begin this work, and when can they implement such a system?

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this budget process and as we move forward, that item has already been identified. As the business is laid out and the work is laid out for the coming year, that’s one of the items we intend to be able to bring back in the fall, with a clear outline of what’s being recommended.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Will the process include any public consultations? Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, the intent will be to come up with what’s being recommended, walk it through, give the committee and the Members a chance to look at it, and in due course, subsequent to that, of course, we’ll be looking to respond to the committee’s feedback. As we move forward, that type of communication and consultation process will be built in.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

My question today is to the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, and it is related to my Member’s statement yesterday concerning federal responsibility for Indian and Inuit health care costs.

The federal government has limited growth on their portion of the Indian and Inuit health care at around 2 per cent. Real growth in health care is around 7 per cent or more. As a result, the GNWT is falling further behind. The feds owe our health system more money to support our health care system — around $95 million to date.

So my questions are: what is Health and Social Services doing to collect these outstanding dollars? What is the status of any negotiations that are going on between the department and the federal government? How long can we wait, or expect, or.... How long is it going to take before we develop some sort of funding model to flow a larger portion of funds to us so that we’re not relying on the 2 per cent?

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Ms. Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Member that this definitely is an issue that is on top of our agenda, not only for myself, as the Minister, but for the Cabinet as a whole. The Premier has brought this issue up in all of his meetings with the Prime Minister and the Minister of DIAND. I am working on meeting with the Minister of Health, the

Hon. Clement, as soon as we can arrange a meeting to speak about this in person. I also need to clarify that the issue here is about a gap between the funding that we get from the federal government for our aboriginal peoples, but it’s really not an outstanding bill where it’s about just collecting it. It’s a disagreement, and it’s a dispute. It’s a gap, because the federal government placed a cap. They put a cap on it, and we need to renegotiate that.

So I think it’s really important for the Members to know that we need to renegotiate it. It’s not a matter of sending an invoice and collecting the money and actions that we need to do that. There’s a lot more complexity to this, and we have been spending lots of energy on it.

I do understand that it is a gap. I understand that right now their increased costs are based on around 2 per cent, and we know that the real costs of health care are increasing about 7 per cent or more a year. I understand that.

The gap is real. You need to find a way to renegotiate that cap that they have placed on you. So I’m once again going to ask: what kind of timeline are you working on to develop or increase that cap, or negotiate an increase to the cap, so that we can stop losing money that they clearly owe us?

From our point of view, our timeline is as soon as possible, but obviously, there are lots of parties involved. Not only is it the federal government, but all the other governments that fall under this agreement. It is an agreement that we need to open up and renegotiate. We have asked for that negotiation to happen. We have not heard back yet.

So timeline.... We will work on that as much as possible, because it is a crucial issue. We are looking at all options available to the government, to see what additional pressure and stress we could put on this so we could come to a resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and the Premier. Again, because of communications or lack of same, our public has been left trying to sort of work by Braille, if you will, to figure out on what basis this government has made projections that put us into deficit a couple years or three years into our term here. This has obviously cost the public and non-government organizations, volunteer groups, a lot of resources as they try and solve this mystery.

Will the Premier commit to immediately providing the public, who are our partners and our clients, with full information that clarifies the basis on which these projections were made, and provide the sources of the information? I know the government has chosen to flip back and forth to suit their needs between the Main Estimates and the Main Estimates as revised, so I’d like that to be clear and provided immediately to the public, so that they can give us the feedback we need and are responsible to bring to this House.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Roland.

Mr. Speaker, we have provided, in tabling the documents…. It’s the first time we’ve tabled this set of documents so that they’re available for public review. The Budget Address, as well, has a lot of information on the stats and where we’ve come from. It’s not a myth out there. We’ve had to build on.... Based on our assumptions and knowing that our formula financing going forward is fixed — there’s little adjustment to that, and our growth of expenditures is there — we’re going to run into problems. So we have to take action now, before we end up in a situation where all our flexibility is gone.

During good times we should be planning and making sure we don’t end up in bad times. So we’ve had to take the steps to limit our growth or manage our growth, which means there are some changes, and reinvest some of those dollars into priority areas. We’ve got lots of information here that’s available to the public. If there’s specific questions, as we go through each department, more detail will be made available through Members’ questions to Ministers and their deputies and senior staff here. That is available to the public as well.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge I’ve had some remarks from the Premier. I also acknowledge that there’s tons of information out there — big thick documents. Certainly the Budget Address I find very murky. It basically talked about the top 6 or 8 per cent of the budget. I’m asking the Premier: will he provide the public with exactly the information on which the projections were based — the graph and the sources of it, the tables that show the decline in revenue and the sources of the decline in revenue and so on, the exact basis? In science, conclusions are not acknowledged until they're duplicable. To this date there is no duplicability, if you will — oh my gosh, the Hansard...

Laughter.

...to this projection. So I ask the same question again.

Mr. Speaker, as we have in past, as governments have practised, part of the Budget Address is a document on the future, the

fiscal forecasting, the fiscal strategy that’s been put in place. In fact, the fiscal strategy is outlined in the document that was tabled, part of the address that’s available to the public. In the back section under B-3, it shows in the graphs that if we don’t make any changes, that’s where we would end up. Those are based on the information we have available right now through our formula financing, with our agreement with the federal government, our own-source revenues, and estimates are made.

We also have to mention that science says we come from monkeys.

I have to say, going back to some of the remarks I’ve heard from the Minister and the Premier.... I don’t, of course, debate the need to live within our means and so on. That’s not what this is about. This is about clarity and communication.

The public has gone to hire economists from afar to try and make sense of this murkiness, and it’s still not clear. Somehow there seems to be a gap between the Premier’s understanding of the situation and the public’s. Will the Premier address this gap and make it plain?