Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome back to the House.

I would like to begin by providing my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Deh Cho yesterday. I know we all have a great deal of important business before us, so I will try to be brief.

Rule 23 lays out a number of occasions when a Member shall be called to order. Mr. McLeod cited a number of these occasions in presenting his point of order, and I want to quote them fully. “In debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member:

1) makes allegations against another Member, a

House officer or a witness;

2) imputes false or hidden motives to another

Member

3) uses abusive of insulting language of a nature

likely to create disorder

4) introduces any matter in debate that offends

the practices and precedent of the Assembly.”

Mr.

McLeod’s point of order is in response to

comments made by the Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy, during debate in Committee of the Whole on June 10, 2008. The committee was discussing a motion to delete a number of capital projects from the Tourism and Parks activity of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment’s Capital Acquisition Plan. Mr. McLeod, in stating his point of order, cited the following comments by Mr. Abernethy from page 106 of unedited Hansard: “I clearly understand why the Member for Deh Cho is upset. We are knocking off $300,000 for the 60th Parallel Visitors Park.”

In reviewing these comments, I examined closely the rules cited by Mr. McLeod in his point of order, and in doing so, I considered the following questions. Did Mr. Abernethy make an allegation against Mr. McLeod? Did he input false or hidden motives to him? Were his remarks abusive or insulting?

Despite the suggestion of some Members to the contrary, I find that the answers to each of these questions is clearly no. Mr. Abernethy made no allegations against Mr.

McLeod nor were his

remarks abusive or insulting. Although his reference to the Member for Deh Cho’s feelings may have been incorrect or unsubstantiated, I cannot see where they imputed a false or a hidden motive to him.

The remaining question, then, is whether the Member offended the practices and precedents of the Assembly by suggesting how Mr. McLeod and other Members felt about a motion when these Members had not spoken to the motion. Mr. McLeod, in stating his point of order, did not reference precisely which practice or precedent he felt had been offended. He also made reference to his rights and privileges as a Member, which are more appropriately addressed by way of a point of privilege. This has made it difficult for me to rely on past rulings or specific parliamentary authorities as a guide.

It is my view that although it is certainly curious and unusual for a Member to speculate on the views of other Members who have not yet expressed these or any other views in the House, it is not necessarily unparliamentary to have done so. After all, the option was open to each of the Members singled out to stand in the House and correct the record if they disagreed with Mr.

Abernethy’s

speculation.

The comments of the Member for Weledeh were also helpful in adding some perspective. Mr.

Bromley observed, “Taken in context and

perhaps with a lack of experience in what’s totally appropriate protocol, the Member’s statements were really meant to be more vicarious and consoling than accusatory.” This view was supported by a number of other Members in

debate. The importance of context is supported by Marleau and Montpetit who, at page 526 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, note that “the codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not [the remarks] should be withdrawn."

Mr. Abernethy, in speaking a second time to the point of order, stated convincingly that he had no ill intent in making the remarks and did not intend them to question the integrity or credibility of the Member for Deh Cho or any other Member. I found his remarks to be sincere, and I accept them at face value. I hope that other Members will come to the same conclusion. I find there is no point of order.

I would like to thank all Members who offered their views on the point of order. I particularly appreciate the respectful and balanced tone that was, for the most part, used. Thank you, Members.

Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The lead Minister for the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative Committee, Ms. Sandy Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to take the opportunity today, as the lead Minister for the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative Committee, to provide an update on the actions associated with this initiative.

The Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative is one of five strategic initiatives the government is investing in to advance the vision, goals and priorities we developed with all Members of the 16th Assembly. This initiative includes actions that address the reality of the high cost of living in the Northwest Territories.

There are a number of important issues that need to be addressed as a part of any strategy to fundamentally alter the cost structure of living in NWT communities. These issues include transportation costs, energy and utility costs, market development and competition for goods and services, employment and income levels, and the cost of government programs and associated tax issues.

In addition to addressing these longer term issues, the Government of the Northwest Territories also has a range of Income Security programs, like the Territorial Power Subsidy Program, Income Support, housing programs and the cost-of-living

tax credit, that all subsidize the cost of the living for our residents.

While issues around the economy and refocusing government are being considered by other initiative committees, the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative Committee is focusing its action on energy and transportation costs and ensuring programs that subsidize the cost of living are as effective as possible. The actions planned under the Reducing the Cost of Living initiative include improving transportation access to communities, addressing factors that impact the cost of goods, improving shelter and supporting individuals and families.

Mr. Speaker, significant infrastructure investments are planned as part of the action to improve transportation access to communities and better connect them. Investments will be made for additions and improvements of winter roads, construction of various all-weather bridges, surface improvement of highways and improvements at airports. We all know that improving connections to communities is a costly endeavour, but our approach is to continue to improve our transportation infrastructure to the greatest extent we can.

High energy and utility costs impact the cost of living throughout the Northwest Territories. The government has many programs and initiatives designed to address high energy costs in both the short and long term. Enhancements to existing energy conservation and efficiency efforts and expanding the use of alternative energy sources such as wood pellets are some of the new investments proposed.

Plans are also in place to undertake a review of electricity rates, regulation and subsidy programs to ensure our system is efficient and that rate structures and subsidy programs reflect today’s realities and the high cost of living in our communities.

To ensure our communities are sustainable in the long term, a comprehensive hydro strategy is under development that includes continuing our work on community mini-hydro projects. Another key effort is the work underway to assess the opportunities for natural gas conversion in diesel communities once the Mackenzie Gas Project proceeds. The Reducing the Cost of Living committee is being supported in the energy area by the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee, which is leading the detailed analysis and discussion on energy issues.

Mr.

Speaker, the quality and cost of shelter

continues to be a problem in many communities. Some of the activities around utility costs and transportation will help address this issue, but other

activities are planned to continue to address housing issues in our communities. Future activities under this action will need to include housing strategies aimed at quality of housing. A combination of new construction and greatly enhanced maintenance and repair activities will address core need, expand homeownership repair assistance and alleviate some of the infrastructure deficit in public housing. These strategies will need to build on the recent Affordable Housing Initiative that has led to substantial new construction of housing in communities throughout the NWT.

Income Security programs are a cornerstone of the government’s support for individuals and families. These programs are designed to help people become self-reliant. Implementing the next steps in the new income security model is a significant component of the action of supporting individuals and families. These next steps include aligning the other income security programs, including public housing rental subsidies, with the new income security model and increasing support for case management to improve regional delivery of Income Security programs.

Mr. Speaker, while we call this initiative Reducing the Cost of Living, it is clear there are great challenges and no easy solutions to support our residents wherever they chose to live in our territory. Solutions that address the fundamental issues related to cost of living will take commitment and time. The actions we have planned, we believe, will help address the high cost of living in the Northwest Territories and contribute to achieving our goals and vision of strong individuals, families and communities in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Ms.

Lee. Item 3,

Members’ statements. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’d like to recognize the service to the North of the outgoing commander of Joint Task Force North, Brigadier-General Chris Whitecross.

Since she arrived in 2006, General Whitecross has travelled widely in the North, elsewhere in Canada and overseas. During the past two years the North and the concerns about Canadian sovereignty and security have been of much greater interest to Canadians everywhere. Wherever she has gone, General Whitecross has been a strong advocate for the North and for the Canadian Forces in this part of Canada.

In the North the Canadian Forces are represented by over 1,500 Canadian Rangers, over 1,600 Junior Canadian Rangers and over 400 cadets. In my riding there is an active Canadian Ranger patrol and also a Junior Ranger patrol group.

The Canadian Rangers are Canadian Forces reservists, and they are the eyes and ears of the Canadian Forces in the North and provide assistance to regular army troops when they operate in the North. As volunteers, Canadian Rangers support search and rescue in most communities in the North. The Junior Canadian Rangers is the largest youth program in the North and is based on community values and helps pass on local traditional knowledge and values. Both the Canadian Ranger and the Junior Canadian Ranger programs are strong and effective in the North and make a real contribution to local safety, national sovereignty and preservation of land skills.

As Commander, General Whitecross has helped inform decision-makers in Ottawa on northern concerns. She has fostered strong ties with other government departments, both territorial and federal, and improved relations with the regions and communities. As a woman in this position of authority and command, she’s been inspirational to women in the North.

Mr.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to

conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

Thank you, colleagues. General Whitecross has also served in the public as a volunteer with St. John Ambulance and Rotary International and as an official during the Arctic Winter Games.

On behalf of all Canadian Rangers and Junior Canadian Rangers in Nunakput and the Northwest Territories, I’d like to thank General Whitecross for her work in the North, and I wish her and her family every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr.

Jacobson. The

honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about the quality of drinking water, particularly in smaller communities. Two communities in my riding have had problems with their drinking water. In one community the water is quite discoloured. The school is even now boiling the water before allowing students and staff to drink it. In another Nahendeh community the well that supplies the community with water is quite old and the water is

very hard. This has caused pipes to corrode, and people are worried about the quality of their water.

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions I raised earlier in the week, the Minister outlined the steps communities that have concerns with their drinking water should take. I understand that community governments have the primary responsibility for providing clean drinking water to their residents, but I also believe the management of water quality is a shared responsibility between communities and the Government of the Northwest Territories. I think that more needs to be done to make sure the smaller communities have the support they need to be effective water-management technicians.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that appropriate training, tools, support and resources are in place for communities and that there is adequate oversight on the part of government to make sure our community water supplies remain safe. I ask that the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs work with his colleagues in Public Works and Services and the Department of Health and Social Services to review the support available to communities and ensure that the tools they need to do the job will be in place. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr.

Menicoche. The

honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, today I’d like to speak about the budget process and notification letters sent out to employees. We’ve had much discussion about this in the House in the past three and a half weeks. The fact is that the government sent out notification letters to potentially affected employees prior to letting Regular Members know about it.

It took over three weeks to get any response from the government. Regular Members were left for three weeks answering calls and e-mails from constituents who had received those letters. We did not have any prior knowledge of where and who these notification letters were going to. It is clear that the government has pre-empted the 2008–2009 budget. These potentially affected employees are being moved around prior to any final decisions being made by this Legislature.

As if this is not bad enough, they are also notifying employees who may be affected by the reductions in the ’09–10 budget. This is completely and utterly unjust — not to mention confusing — to Regular Members, Government of the Northwest Territories employees and the public. I just don’t understand how a duly elected body like the 16th Legislative

Assembly can make decisions in isolation from corresponding legislation being discussed and

agreed to by all 19 Members of this House. It is just not right. The residents of the Northwest Territories deserve better.

Where did the direction come from to proceed with notifying employees for next year? Certainly Cabinet did not let us know. The Regular Members have had to find out through questioning various Ministers through the budget exercise currently under review. And, Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that employees are receiving notification letters for the ’09–10 budget year. Just on Tuesday I was left wondering again: what is this Cabinet thinking when the Minister of Human Resources, when answering questions during the ITI Main Estimates reviews, states: “I would have to confirm whether in fact we are sending [out] notices”? And this one: “In the case of ITI, they would have received written letters, but I don’t know about the other departments.” If the Minister of Human Resources doesn’t know whether or not potentially affected employees in the ’09–10 budget are all receiving letters, then we have a problem. I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be some type of plan or coordinated approach over there in Cabinet to deal with these issues. We’ve been here for three and a half weeks and I just don’t see it. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to respond to the Minister’s statement in regard to reducing the cost of living. There are a lot of good things in the statement, but I think we’ve got to face reality. There are differences by way of geographical differences in the North. We all have different costs associated with logistics: moving goods and services, the high cost of energy and the high cost to operate in a lot of our communities and regions throughout the Northwest Territories. I think we have to be realistic when we deliver programs and services, that they can actually fit every community in every region in the Northwest Territories — which, realistically, we know they don’t. We can talk about highway strategies; we can talk about hydro strategies. But at the end of the day, if it’s only going to please the few in the southern part of the Northwest Territories and do very little for the people in the North, I think it’s no longer a strategy; it’s simply a reality that basically does not fit.

We talk about reducing the cost of living in the communities where we all know the highest cost is, where the highest operational costs are, and where there are the highest costs of goods and services for individuals to purchase. Yet I hear we’re looking

at the possibility of conversions to gas and other types of energy initiatives, like hydro. I think before we jump into that basket we should learn from the experience in Inuvik by way of the conversion process or learn from the experience in Norman Wells, where they became too dependent on gas. When the tap gets turned off, there’s a major cost to convert.

The other issues were on transportation. We talk about connecting our communities. The only thing I see is connecting existing highways by a chipsealing program on existing infrastructure and very little by way of really connecting communities — in particular, the gravel sources around our communities, Tuk and Aklavik, that I moved a motion on in this House. Yet, again, there’s nothing in the statement about that type of connecting communities — gravel sources and connecting us to existing highway systems. I think it’s critical that we do things by way of consensus, but again we’re being told on this side of the House: This is the way it is. This is what the government is going to do. Here’s your check sheet. That’s exactly where they’re going, with no consultation from this side.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Robert McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Prime Minister Stephen Harper did something that no other Prime Minister did before him. He stood in the House of Commons and formally apologized for the government’s role in the assimilation of aboriginal people.

I was especially interested — and I watched a few clips afterward — in the reaction of a lot of the aboriginal leaders and a lot of those who went through the residential school system. Many said that while the apology was good, it will never do anything to close the door on this part of our history, but they were glad to see the government formally acknowledge they played a large part, and this would help them on the difficult road they have to healing.

I was especially impressed yesterday with a couple of Members from this House who spoke very passionately about their experiences in going through the residential school system. If you want to bring out the emotion in a lot of aboriginals, you bring up the residential school system and it seems to happen. I spent a few months in the hostel. I was nine years old. I ran away too much, so they just gave up on me at the end. But you see, I had the luxury of having family in the community that I could run away to. A lot of these folks didn’t have that opportunity. They were taken from home. I know of

an elder from the Yukon who was taken away from home at six years old and didn’t see his hometown again until he was 15. This was in the early days of the residential school system.

I went to school with a lot of these people. I played hockey with them. Some of my best friends today were from the residential school system. So there was some sliver of good that came out of that.

This is a reason we’ve had so many suicides and addictions and family problems. We can’t blame it all on residential schools, but it had a large part to play in it, because it took a lot away from a lot of people.

I admire the resiliency of so many people who went through this. They’ve gone through the rough times that came along with it. They’ve changed their lives. They’ve turned it around. These are the people who know the value of treatment and addictions treatment. They are the ones who are continually pushing for treatment in the home community.

Mr.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to

conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

I was saying that these people know the value of treatment. They know the value of having that treatment in your home community, your home area, because it has happened before. A good way to solve the problem is to take them out and send them away: is this what we’re proposing to do again? That’s why some of the aboriginal groups are trying to put healing centres in their home region, their home territory, something that this government has to pay close attention to.

The apology and all that went on yesterday will never close the chapter on this book. As Mr. Menicoche said yesterday, this is a chapter that should never be closed. This is something that should always be taught in the schools to the children, because they come to appreciate and realize what people before them have gone through. This is something that should always be taught, because if we have to learn anything from dark days in our history, we have to ensure that those days never happen again.

Thank you, Mr.

McLeod. The

honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In considering ITI in Committee of the Whole, a topic was discussed that left me thoroughly confused.

We have heard that no changes will be made to the Business Incentive Policy until extensive consultation with stakeholders has taken place. Even then, any changes proposed would not take effect until the 2009–2010 fiscal year.

These actions are curious on several fronts. I’m referring to the actions of the Department of ITI. First, we haven’t passed this year’s budget, let alone the 2009–2010 budget. Second, we don’t know what is going to happen to the BIP if we are sincerely embarking on a meaningful consultation with stakeholders. Third, I believe the employees associated with the BIP — and this was very confusing — have already received notification of positions being potentially affected. If we follow what has happened to other potentially affected employees and the premature implementation of redeploying these employees into new positions, this could create a very difficult situation.

The handling of this initiative to review the Business Incentive Policy has been completely inappropriate. Much unnecessary confusion and stress has been created for BIP-registered businesses and the employees in our public service charged with managing this program. This is just one of many demonstrations of this government’s seeming inability to manage the operations of this government.

What are we going to do? The program laid out by our Cabinet colleagues appears to be unfolding and marching ahead in spite of the calls for consultation and clarity from this side of the House. We are all looking forward to returning to our constituencies this summer, but given the actions of this government that took place immediately upon our departure after our last session.... Although I’m looking forward to going home, I’m afraid of what could happen in the ensuing months until we get back together in this House.

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

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I’ve been using my Member’s statement quite a bit lately to discuss the treatment of GNWT employees in relation to the budget reductions. I want today to also follow up on statements made this week during Committee of the Whole by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment as the committee reviewed that department’s budget.

During our discussion on the department’s affected employees, the Minister stated — and I quote the unedited Hansard — “...there are no positions with affected employees in the 2008–2009 budget,”

meaning all the positions are vacant but will be eliminated this year. Shortly after, in answer to questions from my colleague Mr. Abernethy about how many employees are affected and/or have received notice that their position is affected, the Minister said, and again I quote from the unedited Hansard: “The reason for that is that all employees potentially affected both in 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 have been advised.”

I have to say that the Minister’s statement made me think: What? We’re laying off people for next year’s budget? Not only are we causing angst and emotions among employees affected by reductions in this year’s budget, but we’re creating havoc with the emotions of even more employees by advising them of potential layoffs to take place a year from now — this for a budget that hasn’t even been developed or printed yet, not to mention it’s a budget unseen by Regular Members. Are we trying to drive people from the public service? This is one sure way to do it.

The Minister also stated Tuesday, “That was the practice we’ve been following,” and “It was felt that it was important that we advise the employees.” Who made those decisions, and on what basis? It is unclear right now if this action cuts across all departments, but I know for certain that ITI and Transportation employees have been notified that they are potentially affected in the 2009–2010 year.

Regular Members have had no input into the proposed budget for 2009–2010. They’ve had no chance to discuss the department’s business plans with the appropriate Ministers, yet departments are advising staff that positions will be eliminated in April 2009. What was it I said last week? Oh, yeah; I said: Where in this scenario is the opportunity for us to comment on the proposed options and implementations? I can only come to the same conclusion today that I did last week: in this scenario there is no opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to

conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

The actions taken by some departments to advise employees affected by reductions in the 2009–2010 budget a year in advance are ill-timed, insensitive and unconscionable. They have put unnecessary stress on our employees and their families. Small wonder we’re not the employer of choice anymore.

Thank you, Ms.

Bisaro. The

honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Mr. Speaker, today I’d like to talk about the strategic initiative committees - Building Our Future, Maximizing Opportunities, Managing This Land, Reducing the Cost of Living and Refocusing Government. In general, I actually like the concept of these committees. I like them because I believe they are a way we can actually start digging into government and changing the way we do business. I do share some of the concerns that Members on this side of the House have. I think they need a little bit more tweaking here and there, but in general, I like the concept, and I’m glad they exist, and I’m hoping they’re going to do good things.

However, as a Member on this side of the House, I do have one fundamental problem with them. To explain that, I’ll just go back a little bit. In October, 18 Members decided who would be the Cabinet Members. We gave those Members a hard job. They are responsible for taking our direction, and that is all 18 Members’ — not just the 11 on this side but all 18 Members — ideas and concepts and implementing them through the public service, which basically means taking the strategic direction of this House and putting it into practice. They run and manage the departments, which is hard and takes a lot of time.

The strategic initiative committees are about strategy. They are about strategic initiatives. I feel and believe that Regular Members should be included in those committees, given that it is strategic direction. It is not implementing our strategic direction. This is actually setting some strategy and setting some direction and selecting some activities that are going to go forward in business plans. I believe, as Regular Members, we deserve the right to be involved and cooperate and collaborate in setting that direction.

Then Cabinet will be able to take that direction and implement it within their own individual departments, which is the job we’ve given them and the job they’ve accepted. I really would like Cabinet to take a long hard think about the fact that these are strategic initiative committees and think about actually allowing us to participate as active, full members on these committees. Not all of us — maybe one or two of us per committee, maybe one per committee — but someone who could certainly be a liaison between the 11 of us and Cabinet on each of these strategic initiative committees.