We can commit to providing a

breakdown of those amounts to the Member or the Members

Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this

time I’m going to have to move a motion.

I move that the 2008–2009 Main Estimates be amended by deleting $1,500,000 from the activity “Tourism and Parks” under the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment — capital investment expenditures on page 9-7 of the Infrastructure Acquisition Plan for parks renewal.

Motion is in order.

Motion’s being circulated. To the motion, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and

foremost, I am going to support the motion to delete this money. I think this motion, as many other motions that Regular Members have passed, speaks volumes to the involvement that Regular Members have had. Personally, I worked in Parks for eight years, and I know my colleague Mr. Abernethy worked in Parks. A number of us across here, if not all of us, understand and appreciate what investing in our parks system and in our tourism industry means to the Northwest Territories. However, when we’re presented with a plan that we haven’t had any input into, we haven’t had any discussion about, and the projects end up coming in…. We only see the information the department provides us. If ITI wanted to move some money around for an RV park here in

Yellowknife, I think they perhaps would have the ability to do that without much trouble, even with us passing this motion.

I understand — and just going back to the last interim appropriation — the government approved in the area of parks renewal $2.318 million. That provided some renovation money and upgrade money across the parks system in the Northwest Territories.

I know the department has an ambitious plan of spending $4.5 million on this strategic investment area in tourism and parks. I do want to say to the government that I support and applaud that effort to spend more money in the parks, but I think it should go through the proper channels and go through a business planning process where Regular Members can have some input into where the money is being spent — how we’re going to arrive at our end goal of spending that $4.5 million the most effective way that we can. With that, I’ll leave it to my colleagues to speak to the motion as well. Thank you.

To the motion.

Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

will be voting to support the motion as well.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure. Along with my colleague Mr. Ramsay I think that investment in parks is very important. I would suggest that right now, in a time of some critical restraint on the part of this government, perhaps it’s not the highest priority.

I just have to comment as well on the fact that the information that was brought before the standing committee did not in any way indicate that there was investment money there for the Fred Henne Park. Maybe there’s other money from within under tourism product diversification or some other place from which they could get money for this venture. We have heard a lot about that particular expansion. But for something to come up like this at the eleventh hour that’s never been referred to before, to say that money was going to be…. The information given to the committee was that the money was going to be spent on something, and on the very last day we have a vote on this in the House, for information to come forward to say, “Oh, there was money going to be diverted to something else,” that is not acceptable.

I’ll be supporting the motion to delete. Thank you.

To the motion, Mr. Bob

McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This

strategic investment represents proposed capital plan investments over the next three years, and it’s critical to strengthening and renewing elements of our parks system.

Together the strategic initiatives identified make up an essential component of our tourism infrastructure in the Northwest Territories. Without this investment we are in danger of compromising our existing investment of time and money that we as a government have dedicated to building and diversifying our tourism sector and investing in the economic growth and diversity of our communities.

Implicit in this proposed investment are specific initiatives that we have identified which will be eliminated should this investment not be possible.

For the record, I’d like to highlight the strategic initiatives that we have identified for investment over the next three years.

One, much-needed upgrades to the Sixtieth Parallel Visitor Information Centre. This centre is the welcoming centre for visitors travelling north along the Mackenzie Highway. It is a gateway to our territory and is a key component in linking visitors to the NWT with parks, campgrounds and communities. This facility is in dire and clearly evident need of repair. It is a 40-year-old structure that requires extensive retrofitting and upgrading. More importantly, this facility does not portray a good first impression for the travelling public. We have invested heavily in attracting increased load traffic for our region. Our work was reflected in a 32 per cent increase of visitors at the Sixtieth Parallel. We must follow through on this investment and take the necessary steps to ensure that the first impression these travellers have of our region is professional and informative.

Two, the rescue of the Fort Smith Mission Historic Park. The old mission site in Fort Smith and its buildings were purchased by this government to be preserved as a representation of the culture and heritage of the Fort Smith region. It provides a significant feature and attraction for tourists visiting the Fort Smith region, and we have been working with the Northern Life Museum to restore the seven buildings that make up this historical site.

Three, a protected area park. This government has committed to the protection and conservation of special areas in our territory under the Protected Areas Strategy. This strategy allows us to use the Territorial Parks Act to identify and protect areas that are important to our wildlife, economy, culture, environment and values. We are anxious to advance this work quickly in the interests of developing our natural tourism infrastructure, advancing the economic returns of investment in

this sector, while sustaining historic and cultural ties with our environment. We need to complete the PAS process in areas that will complement our department’s commitment to meet the growing demands for ecotourism and outdoor adventure.

Four, airport and road signs. Signs are a key element in the competition for tourism dollars. The GNWT operates the signs program on the NWT highway system and at key entry points to our territory. There are two issues driving the need for investment in this area. First, existing signs are aging and dilapidated. Second, we need to respond to an increasing complaint from tourists travelling in our region who say that we need to increase and improve our signage to allow them to fully connect at NWT tourism projects.

Five, the government’s Tourism 2010 plan identifies infrastructure as a critical pillar in our tourism product.

Six, an RV park for the North Slave region. There is an overwhelming need for additional or expanded RV facilities in the North Slave region. This demand is driven by both an increase in road tourism to our territory and a rising local demand that reflects the growing population of young families. An additional 70 per cent increase is now forecasted in the demand for RV camping facilities in the North Slave region by 2015.

Tourism is an export industry bringing new dollars into our economy, and it is the largest renewable resource industry in the Northwest Territories, far exceeding the returns from trapping, fishing and forestry combined. Parks infrastructure is an extremely important tourism attractor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the motion,

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. Just briefly I’d like to speak to the issue of tourism and the environment. It’s dear to the heart of many of the people that I’ve heard speak in this House. We talk about the need to get people on the land. We talk about the need to promote renewable resource industries that are going to take away the focus from oil and gas and minerals and all the other extraction activities that leave such a big footprint on the land.

The tourism piece, the parks piece is probably the most undernourished part of the government that we have. It’s always been cut. It’s always been ignored, because there are other priorities. We’ve reached a point, like we have in a lot of other cases, where we have an accrued infrastructure deficit here.

We also have an opportunity. We’ve been talking for years about the Protected Areas Strategy. We’ve been talking to the federal government, about the federal government, complaining about the process. We finally have some money in the budget — territorial money in the territorial budget — to look at a protected area park, the first one in the Northwest Territories. Wrigley is in line for that type of consideration, yet we’re going to turn our back on it to make some kind of political statement that has been made a number of times already in this House.

The issue before us is: what value do we place on our parks? What value do we place on the environment, that we all speak so much about, and at what cost are we going to ignore it? I would encourage folks to reconsider this. I mean, this doesn’t come this way very often. We’ve been waiting, in many cases years. The fact that we will finally be able to stand up and look people in the eye that we’ve put money into a protected area park would be something that is long, long overdue.

We have the legislation. We have the programs. We never put in any money, and we never use the tools to do that. So what statement are we making about the value we place on that type of activity? I think it’s worth while to proceed with those, and I would encourage Members to consider that.

To the motion, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d

like to offer a few words and ask the Members who are supporting this motion to reconsider.

Mr. Chairman, obviously, as minister of health one doesn’t need to say a lot about the benefits of parks and opportunities, RV sites and other outdoor activities, that we would like to encourage our residents to partake in. I understand that although we have a lot of RV sites and parks all across the Territories — and I’ve seen a few of them when I’m driving on Highway No. 3 — the RV site in the North Slave area is the only one where the supply doesn’t meet anywhere near the demand. As Mr. Miltenberger stated already and as Minister Bob McLeod said, this area has been one that has been neglected in terms of capital investment for many, many years.

In my time here — this is my ninth budget — I think this is the biggest investment the government has proposed, and it’s one we all should pay more attention to. I should also tell you that a month ago I had the occasion to attend a meeting of the public on the Reid park issue. I have to honestly say that that was the biggest meeting I have ever attended, including the public school and Catholic school issues. I got introduced to a whole new area of public interest about camping and the importance of access to camping for families with children and

families who want an opportunity to take part in outdoor activities that are convenient and accessible.

Now, I know there’s a question being raised here: that the details were not known as to exactly what this money was. This is something new that’s being said in this Chamber, that I’ve not heard before, which is what the budget process is. As far as I know, Members come down here and we ask questions back and forth. You get more information from the Minister, and that helps you make your decision. I would just like to encourage the Members to rethink what this item is about and that it’s a start of the process.

Half the projects of this kind need a multi-year plan, and this is part 1 of the plan to expand the park system and access and taking steps on the protected air strategy. The next business cycle, the next budget, doesn’t come around for another year. I think there are some people out there who might consider that this is an urgent matter.

With that, I would encourage the Members to rethink and to think about not going with this motion.

Interjections.

Let the Members speak

to the motion, please. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do support the

motion. I feel at this point that $1.5 million is — I don’t disagree that we need to invest in our parks. I think we do, but I think that given our current financial situation, this is a strategic investment that needs to be delayed for a bit, basically delayed because I think we should be retaining staff positions as opposed to putting this money into parks.

I also wanted to point out that for ’08–09 there’s a total of $3.8 million proposed in the budget. If we delete $1.5 million, there’s still going to be $2.3 million invested in probably 15 different projects in our parks.

Lastly, I wanted to mention that there seem to be two projects at the Visitor Information Centre at the 60th parallel. There’s what’s been suggested will go into the visitors centre from the $1.5 million that the motion is referencing. There’s also a total of $710,000 for the Visitor Information Centre at the 60th parallel, a project that starts in ’08–09 with $10,000. So it’s not like there’s nothing going to be happening there. There’s certainly going to be something starting to happen there. That said, I’ll repeat that I am in support of the motion.

To the motion,

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, will be supporting this motion to delete the $1.5 million. Members on this side, including myself, expressed great dissatisfaction with our budget process to date. Here again is another instance of us not getting any details, especially on this line item. The Minister is providing details at the eleventh hour. That’s not how consensus government works.

Consensus government is working with this side of the House, working with all Members and trying to get agreement on line items and to work on the budget. If you don’t want to work with us on the budget, then we come to these kinds of situations where it’s: “Look, I’ve got no involvement. I’ve got no ownership. If I had ownership in this line item, then I’d vote against it, but I don’t.”

With that, it’s a plug for consensus-style government. This side of the House, well, especially me.... My vote is going to be in support of this motion. I hope that Cabinet gets the message that we’ll agree with your budget if you agree with us. Simply said, there, Mr. Chair.

To the motion,

Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my

colleagues have pretty well said it. I’ve heard remarks from both sides of this House, and I give credibility to a number of them. But we’re given a blunt target here, and we’re having to use a blunt instrument to deal with it. I prefer to think of my vote as voting for all of these things, many of which the Minister from Thebacha outlined. They’re some of the values that I represent. They’re represented in all of these tourism and parks improvements and renewal projects.

There are many of them here, but none of them come anywhere close to $1.5 million. They’re all very specific. What I’m seeing is clarity with them. Then I get to this parks renewal: $1.5 million with no clarity whatsoever. I’ve heard some of the things that are mentioned in it, and some of them I fully agree with, but again we’ve got a blunt instrument as the only instrument we have to bring to bear here. On that basis, I also will be supporting this motion.

To the motion,

Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, will

support the motion. I agree that parks renewal is very important but not essential. I think that at this point we’re having many issues with the budget. We’re having difficulty retaining our staff. We’re putting lots of families through a lot of issues, obviously, with the layoffs and so on. This type of initiative is something that could be deleted from

the budget and reintroduced in more essential areas.

I think this could be brought through the regular business-planning process. It’s an opportunity for us to see how one budget year evolves without trying to put a whole bunch of new initiatives into it and to determine the impact of the cuts that are currently in place and also to look at this as a potential to have 15 PYs, approximately, in the government that were cut, maybe some that were essential as well. So I, too, will support this motion.

To the motion,

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This initiative falls under the Maximizing Opportunities Strategic Initiative, which we worked on as government. I’ve heard from Members on a number of the initiatives saying that it was done in secret, in Cabinet rooms, that there’s been no input. But much of this has been stuff we’ve heard about from the people of the Territories. We’ve heard about our tourism industry, that we haven’t invested. When they compare us to the Yukon, we’re substantially underinvesting in the area of tourism. We want to diversify our economy. The one opportunity we start to look at and put some money in — I’m somewhat disappointed, I’ll say, by the fact that Members use this as the opportunity to send a message.

Members can say, “Well, give me what I want, and I’ll agree with your budget.” If we did that, we would have to in fact, Mr. Chairman, look at old-style politics. We would look at going away from a plan of change. I see these initiatives as the start of change to the way we do business as the Government of the Northwest Territories. We’ve heard from people in the Territories talk about doing things differently, and this is not just about what we heard three months ago or six months ago. Many of us have heard this talk for years. Some of them inspired us to come to this table. For years we’ve watched the process unfold, almost hypnotically, about going through this process.

With this section of the budget, finally we’d have some of our past supporters of tourism or even today’s supporters of tourism see some investment, as small as it is. We’re nowhere close to where we should be investing, but we’re starting to make that investment, and that’s going to be shut down. We talk about: let’s not change things; let’s keep things the same. Yes, there are other areas of importance, but there’s never enough money.

When you look at the investment in the parks section, the parks section is seeing $50,000 here, $25,000, $30,000; the odd time you get $100,000 or $200,000 on a big enough initiative. Usually it’s been in the plan for ten years or so. Some of this

stuff has been around as long as that, and it’s finally making a level there, as we heard.

When I was involved in the tourism sector, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I caught on to very quickly as an operator was the fact that first impressions count for a whole lot. If your first impression wasn’t a good one, you were working your whole trip to convince your guests that it was a good trip. But if their first impressions were already that this was a pretty good trip, that it’s looking good, the fact is that your job was a lot easier, because the product almost sold itself.

We’ve got some work to do here in the Northwest Territories, and we’re trying to do that through this piece of it. We’re starting to enter fields — for example, in the protected areas piece — and occupy some of those fields. It starts with some small steps, and that’s what I see with this: the possibility of starting that change to the process of how we do business and investing in critical areas. As it was said already, parks and tourism don’t normally fall high, even on good days, in budget expenditures. They’re very high on the radar when it comes to meeting the five criteria, when it comes to capital, and that is public safety and asset safety and so on. Those are things we have to consider, and they usually don’t make the cut when it comes down to the final choices we make as an Assembly. Some of the parks we have invested in because of the claims process, for example. Those are things we have to consider when we do this.

I know Members have made up their minds already, and I respect everyone for making up their minds on issues. As much as it may not have been enough in the eyes and the minds of the Members when we brought forward the draft business plans for review and waited for comments back, information was included. We made some changes, and we’ve committed to make some more changes through this process. I was hoping Members would see that as the start of investment in this area, which has been lacking for many years.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like we’re going to get that, but I’m hoping Members would consider that. Yes, things will be delayed for a year, and the costs will go up in some areas. Some areas will just have to drop off, because other priorities will take over. But this was an opportunity to see some investment in an area that’s been lacking for many years, since the days of capital reductions in ’95–96, I believe. We’ve tinkered with it. We’ve added small segments. Here’s a chance. We had a chance to put in a little bit more, and we’re being told that’s not an important area.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I request that as we vote on this, we’ll do it with a recorded vote.

Next on the list I have

Mr.

Abernethy, then Robert McLeod and

Mr. Hawkins.