Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Economic Initiatives

The committee is generally supportive of the departmental efforts in the area of business and economic development. It is particularly pleased with the support for entrepreneurs and economic development program, SEED, and sees it as an important tool for expanding local economies, particularly within the smaller NWT communities.

Committee members raised issues related to the potential overlap in services for the Business Development Investment Corporation, Community Futures and other business development support services. Recommendations have been made in the past for the department to consider establishing a one-window approach for these services at the regional level. The committee encourages the department to consider ways to streamline these services in order to ensure better coordination and to avoid duplication.

Tourism and Parks

The committee raised concerns about the proposed Cultural Interpretation at Parks Program as a new strategic initiative. Under this initiative the department is proposing to develop cultural programs at a number of territorial parks to increase visitation and improve the overall park experience for tourists. Members support the concept but noted that this could be achieved using existing resources; for example, campground operators or cultural organizations could apply through the Tourism Product Diversification Program to deliver a range of cultural programs within the parks. Members recommend that the

department pursue other means to support this activity.

The committee also recommends that the Parks Renewal Strategic Infrastructure project be cancelled. Members noted that at a time of fiscal restraint there are greater priority needs that could be addressed through this level of investment. Under the Territorial Parks Act there are regulations that support the creation of wilderness and cultural conservation areas, natural wilderness parks and protected areas. While ITI is responsible for the creation and regulation of territorial parks, ENR has the responsibility for conservation and protected areas. Members discussed the overlap of responsibility between the two departments and recommend that there be a review to determine if conservation goals can be effectively met through ITI.

At this time I will pass the report back to our chairman, Mr. Ramsay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maximizing Benefits from Resource Extraction

Committee members noted with concern the lack of proposals to increase revenues to the government from non-renewable resource extraction. Members identified a number of potential revenue streams, including owning equity stakes in diamond mines and oil and gas production, implementing a mineral or resource tax and exploring opportunities to expand secondary and tertiary industries related to diamond and oil and gas production.

Mr.

Chairman, that concludes the committee’s

comments on ITI’s Main Estimates. I’d just like to thank Ms. Cate Sills, our committee researcher, and Ms. Patricia Russell, our Committee Clerk, for all of their help and efforts through the process.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

With that, I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Investment if he’ll be bringing in any witnesses.

Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman.

Does the committee

agree that the Minister bring in his witnesses?

Sergeant-At-Arms, could

you escort the witnesses in.

Mr.

Minister, for the

record can you introduce your witnesses, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me

on my left I have Mr. Peter Vician, deputy minister of ITI, and on my right I have Ms. Nancy Magrum, the director of shared services

with ITI and ENR.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Welcome, witnesses.

Let’s be brief. We’ll allow all Members to make general comments, and at the end the Minister will have an opportunity to respond to the general comments of the Members. So with that, we’re open for general comments. Is the committee agreed to go detail?

We can turn to page 10-

7, Department Summary. We’ll start there and defer that till the end. So moving on to page 10-8, Active Positions — By Region. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. My

comments in this section are going to sound very similar to the comments I’ve made in the other departments. I’m trying to reconcile in my brain the reductions in positions. Looking at this page, it looks like you’re reducing by four positions, yet I’m under the understanding that over five incumbents have been notified of potential layoff status. So first and foremost, I want to know exactly how many positions are in fact being eliminated from the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment and of those positions which ones are vacant, which ones are filled, and what process or criteria were used in determining which ones should be eliminated and which ones should be kept within the department.

Minister of ITI.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Six

positions are being eliminated: the manager of IS in Yellowknife, an assistant deputy minister position in Yellowknife, an executive secretary position in Yellowknife, an oil and gas specialist in Inuvik, a Mackenzie Valley pipeline officer specialist position in Hay River and a corporate service clerk in Norman Wells. All positions are vacant: three in Yellowknife, three in other communities. In addition to these six, the BDIC is also reducing one position. The position is a manager, Canada Business Centre, and that position has an incumbent.

Our approach was to look at vacant positions, and the process that we went through is that there are no positions with affected employees in the 2008–2009 budget. Upon notification of the proposed reductions, ITI senior management locked down to review all programs and services areas. Certain programs and services were identified as to be excluded because of recently made commitments;

for example, support to tourism diversification, support to entrepreneurial and economic development programs, Take a Kid Trapping. We looked at programs where activity or subscription levels had decreased, where program reductions would have less of an effect on services to communities. We avoided any areas where recent, major strategic areas were announced; for example, the energy plan, Tourism 2010, the business program review. We avoided any areas where there is a legislative requirement. We asked: could the department continue to operate without this program and service? Throughout the process we kept watch on the people and positions and tried to avoid any position cuts that involved a layoff. Proposals were consolidated and provided to the FMBS for FMB consideration. That was the process we used, Mr. Chairman.

I’m still a little confused. Are all six

vacant now? Were all six vacant at the beginning of this process? I’m curious, because I’m under the understanding that six employees of ITI were in fact notified that they were potentially affected employees. And if all your positions were vacant, I’m not sure why you’d be notifying any employees within your department that they’re getting laid off.

The reason for that is that all

employees potentially affected both in 2008–09 and 2009–10 have been advised. That’s why the Member has the number that he arrived at.

So you’re notifying people whose

positions are potentially affected next year when we haven’t done the budget exercise for next year or the business plan for next year. I guess I’m curious as to why you felt it was necessary to notify people in the ’08–09 fiscal year when there’s no certainty that those positions will in fact be affected in ’09–10.

I guess we’re adhering to the

direction or some suggestions that we heard from the union and also from some of the Members across that said that we should in all cases try to minimize the reduction of employees and that, through this potentially affected exercise, we were able to advise employees that were potentially affected, except for those positions that were reduced through motions from the House. We haven’t been able to deal with that yet.

That answer doesn’t make any

sense to me at all. I guess I’m wondering why you’ve taken the leap to go into the ’09–10 year when we’re still doing the ’08–09 year, and there are six individuals there that you’ve told their jobs are going to be eliminated. Do they know that their jobs are being eliminated in ’09–10 or, rather, potentially eliminated in ’09–10, given that we have done neither business planning nor budgeting at

this point? It still seems a little premature. I’m not sure the union would tell you to lay off anybody at this point in time. In fact, if you listen to the rhetoric out there, it’s kind of exactly the opposite. So if you can help me understand any of that, that’d be great.

We are talking about

potentially affected. In the Budget Address, for example, we have made reference to reviewing the Business Incentive Policy. So that could mean people involved there could potentially be affected.

I know I sound like I’m repeating

myself, but let me see if I can get an answer on this one. Who gave you direction to notify the people that their positions are going to be eliminated in ’09–10? Who gave you the direction to let them know that they’re potentially affected at this point when, obviously, it’s a little on the premature side?