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.

Thank you, Mr.

Abernethy.

Mr. Beaulieu.

Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. On April 1 of this year, with the exception of education, all GNWT government services for Lutselk’e were transferred from the South Slave to the North Slave region.

The community has been asking for this for some time, and now it has become a reality. The leadership feels this is a good opportunity to become more involved with respect to the delivery of GNWT services for the community residents.

In conjunction with this transfer, the leadership has taken a proactive approach with this issue and has been discussing the issue of implementing a community services board–type approach that would see the community assume full responsibility for the management and administration of some or all of the GNWT programs and services currently being managed by the GNWT. Doing so would allow for an improved community-based decision-making process that would enable the community to better manage the needs of its residents.

The administration model that the community is considering would be very similar to that of the current Tlicho Community Services Agency. The Tlicho Community Services Agency has been operating since 1997, so the model is already in place.

Lutselk’e is a community of 400 residents, not all of whom are band members. The only elected government is the Lutselk’e Dene Band, which is responsible for the delivery of many programs and services through contractual arrangements with the GNWT. The chief and council are also responsible for all of its band membership no matter where they reside. They’re also responsible for the management of all land resources within the traditional territory. In short, the Lutselk’e band is very busy and has wide-ranging government responsibilities.

With Lutselk’e being a community with only one governing body, the Lutselk’e Dene Band, and with the recent election of the new chief, former MLA Steve Nitah, and new council, the conditions and timing support the wishes of the leadership for the community to take advantage of this opportunity.

When the community wishes to take the next important step, there will be a transition period, a learning curve, that will present its own set of challenges for both the community and the GNWT. It is during this period that the community will need the support and assistance of this government to ensure a smooth and successful transition.

Mr.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to

conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

Thank you, colleagues. In my recent statements about government programs and services in small communities I talked about the need to engage communities in finding solutions. Here is a perfect opportunity for that process.

Thank you, Mr.

Beaulieu. The

honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’d like to talk about trust and consensus government. The Prime Minister’s apology yesterday to our aboriginal people for the shameful injustice done to them was entirely appropriate and widely endorsed by Canadians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

It led me to thinking about how this situation could possibly have developed, and this led me to think about this government, our responsibilities and our decisions and, further, the real need for effective consensus government and to consider the challenges we have faced in the short life of the 16th Assembly, both in our internal relationships and

our relationships with our public.

We live in a world of great complexity and information overload but with an increasing capacity of our communities and partners to take on expanded roles and responsibilities. Mistrust can form, from political and management systems within our broad society that shield or even reward deceivers and within which misinformation can be a powerful force. There is no denying increasing levels of mistrust in our political leaders — that’s us. There is an opportunity for this government and this consensus approach to get it right, at least to improve the process and the level of trust we enjoy.

First, to deal with the issue of trust requires transparency, and this House goes some way to providing this. But also we need the ability to monitor ourselves, our performance, to learn from our mistakes and to experiment with new ways. To monitor performance, we need a forum for the three pillars of government, the private sector and the non-profit sector to present and discuss information and perspectives. I note that this requires commitment of support to non-profit sectors to ensure and enable their ability to fulfill their important role.

We also need to learn from our mistakes. Our system is young, still untried and striving to improve in a challenging world. Perhaps something like a small committee of Cabinet and Regular MLAs

could capture the lessons learned along the way and recommend adaptation to it.

Finally, we need to experiment, to try new approaches and new bodies within ourselves to incorporate our learning. Consensus government is both an opportunity and a challenge. Let’s be sure to engage with both its form and its content to foster increasing trust and innovative…

Mr.

Bromley, your time for the

Member’s statement has expired.

Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr.

Bromley. The

honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Merci, M. le Président. Today I wish to speak about the use of locum nurses. I think we all know that nurses are the backbone of delivering health care in the Northwest Territories. They are the first line of contact in smaller communities, and these communities rely upon them to keep them healthy and to make sure their residents get the level of health care they need.

In the larger communities with hospitals nurses are an absolutely essential part for the smooth operation of those facilities and often in achieving those patient outcomes. I know that I speak on behalf of probably all Northerners when I say we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those persons who take up that vocation of nursing. However, we need to do a better job in reducing stress and making a stress-free environment, because the current staffing model is inflicting serious problems on our nursing situation.

We’ve all heard stories of nurses who have trouble accessing vacation time or professional development opportunities because of the shortages of nurses to cover them off. We’ve also heard stories of nurses employed by Stanton who are reluctant to answer their phone after hours because they know someone from the hospital’s calling them to work overtime when they’re on either their family time or their day off.

We continue to hear the frustration on the part of nurses employed by the authorities in our hospitals and in our communities about the agency nurses that are better paid and do not have to pay for their expenses, such as accommodation and travel. Mr. Speaker, this is a swivet that needs to be dealt with in a timely way.

Between burning out our nurses with the overtime they work and the morale-breaking effect surrounding them, the usage of locum nurses is a

financial cost that is hurting our system. It is clear we need to examine this and overhaul the process we are using. The nursing staffing model that’s used in our communities and hospitals will be our end. We need to fix it.

I seriously know that hiring more resident nurses in the NWT would result in a lower overall cost to our system, and it certainly would dramatically improve the working relationships we have in our workplace. I will be encouraging the Minister later — as well, I’ll also be encouraging the Minister of Finance — that this is a business model that makes sense.

Thank you, Mr.

Hawkins. The

honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to name 20 people right now. From Chief Albert Wright School: Twyla Etchinelle, Kyle Yakeleya, Brendan Norn-Lennie, Vanessa Kenny-Andrew. From ?ehtseo Ayha School: Carla Kenny, Doris Sewi, Valerie Makeinzo, Sheldon Takazo, Shane Naedzo, Chelsey Elemie, Louie Nitsiza, Connie Modeste, Kayleen Kenny. From Mackenzie Mountain School in Norman Wells: Evertt McCoy, Joel Erb. From Chief T’Selehye School in Fort Good Hope: Nathanial Kelley, Lindsay McNelley, Lloyd Edgi, Ian Jackson and Carrie Kakfwi.

Other Members talked about a time in their life when their parents had received them in their loving arms and grew with them into their lives. These young people I named are today going to be celebrating, with their communities, achieving in an education system, recognizing their accomplishments to get a grade 12 diploma and continue on with their life.

These young people have struggled through the education system, through growing up in the small communities. I’ve seen them. Actually, Kyle is my nephew. I remember him being six years old and growing up. I know the troubles and the challenges he went through, and obtaining his grade 12 is remarkable. All of these children we have in the Northwest Territories have gone through some difficult times in their communities.

My message to these students in the Sahtu region, and to other students, is that life is out there. Life will be challenging. There are a lot of successes in life. Take these challenges with the goodness of your heart. Pray for some powerful guidance in your life that will help you deal with things. Things are tough out there. However, there are successes out there. Many of our people here today have recognized the success of the people of the Northwest Territories.

I wish them well, and I thank the parents, the teachers and the families for supporting these young people’s lives. God bless you all. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Item 4, reports of standing and special committees. Item 5, returns to oral questions. Item 6, recognition of visitors in the gallery.

I’d like to welcome our guests in the gallery today. I hope you’re enjoying the proceedings.

Item 7, acknowledgements. Item 8, oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My

questions today are for the Premier. It gets back to my Member’s statement and discussions we’ve had in this House regarding the deliberations over the ’08–09 budget and notification letters that were sent out to employees.

I know, going through the process, that there have been decisions made by the government to notify employees not only for this year’s budget, but if you look at Transportation and ITI, there’s a clear indication that notification letters have been sent out to employees who are going to be affected in the ’09–10 budget.

I’d like the Premier to explain to me and explain to the House how the government can operate like this without us having passed the legislation that would give them the authority to do these things.

Thank you, Mr.

Ramsay. The

Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Members were aware that when we looked at our target for reductions and reinvestments in the Northwest Territories, we talked about two years of planning and implementation that would happen. We were fully aware, from past experience, that with some of the reductions that are accepted in one year the full impact doesn’t occur until the following year. So the numbers of potentially affected employees — and that’s the term we use, “potentially affected,” until the budget passes — was discussed. All employees were informed of being potentially affected. So ’08–09 employees, ’09–10 potentially affected employees were notified.

I am fully aware that those employees cannot be removed or their positions terminated until that budget is passed by the Legislative Assembly, but the numbers we’re using for potentially affected employees are the numbers that Members are aware of.

Yes, there was a concern about timing of that notification. Members were to be made aware before the message got out. That didn’t happen. But the fact is that since that information got out, all the numbers there are included in ’09–10, except for those that haven’t had any decisions made. For anything further we would have to come back in our ’09–10 business plan process coming up.

The Member is right; notifications went out to potentially affected employees, but the only ones who are approved in ’08–09 will be the ones that get implemented through this process.

That, to me, is very confusing. I’ve been here for four and a half years, and I can only imagine how confusing it is to our public service.

I’d like to know — just so we’re clear here — what else is happening out there that we don’t know about. I’d like the Premier and maybe the Minister of Human Resources, who didn’t seem to know what was going on, on Tuesday, to give us a list of people who have received written notices of notification and those who have received verbal notifications, as the Minister of Human Resources referred to on Tuesday. Can we get that list?

Mr. Speaker, we have shared the list of potentially affected employees — ’08–09, ’09–10 — with Members. There are initiatives that have to be reviewed on which no decisions have been made. For example, the Business Incentive Policy is one of those. We’re going to go out with consultation. No final decisions have been made on that. We’re going to work with committee. We’re going to go out to the public and the business community to get input. Once we decide on how that program gets changed, that’s when it goes into the business plan process.

Clearly, Members have been given the information of potentially affected employees. It included ’08–09, ’09–10. We laid it out the same way as we laid out the fact that the reduction targets would have to go for two years. From past experience of governments that had to make decisions on reductions, it’s fully realized that some of the impact of making a decision this year will not be felt till the next year. But the initial impact starts this year. In some cases, that will happen.

In other cases, where it’s ’09–10, clearly a decision for an ultimate change in that program and delivery and the people affected will not be made until that ’09–10 budget comes before this House.

Mr. Speaker, yes; we have received the information on reduction exercises in ’08–09 and ’09–10. I think the Premier maybe is missing what I’m asking for here. I’m asking for employees who have received notification letters. It’s one thing to show us in the information we receive from you guys that these are the reductions. Are we just to guess which employees are going to get notification letters? Some are; some aren’t. As we move through the process, we’re seeing that’s the case. Some are getting verbal notification. Some are getting written notification. So what is it?

I’d like to know: who is the lead Minister responsible for coordinating this effort government-wide? Is it the Premier, or is the Minister of Human Resources?

Mr. Speaker, this scenario started as a result of when we first talked about the fact that we were going to have to reduce our budgets, the fact that we had to live within our means, and it would be over two years. We were going to try to find enough money for reinvestment scenarios as well. We haven’t met our target, and we’ve had to lower our reinvestment target as well.

The fact of how we did it was laid over a two-year process. The list we’ve shared with Members — the decisions and direction we’ve set…. Members have been notified of that. We will get the information to the Members to clearly establish the fact that the list we’ve given Members is the same. No other discussions have been made on any further reductions in future years, because we’re going to go into a business planning exercise coming up.

In fact, we’ve sat down now, as a result of some of the back and forth in Committee of the Whole, to clearly set out the guidelines as to what the process is, and we’ll share that with Members as well.

For the record, when we talked about reductions we had to make as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we were urged by Members and the UNW that if employees were to be affected, we give them as much time to do their planning and to know they were potentially affected. We’ve done that. We’ve been following that practice. It is different from what we’ve done before. With the confusion it’s caused, for future practice in this area we may have to go back to the traditional way of doing business.

Thank you, Mr.

Roland. Final

supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to know which Members the Premier is referring to when they consulted with us on sending out notification letters and what form that was in. Maybe I wasn’t at that meeting; I don’t recall that.

The implementation has started; we can’t deny that. Again, people are being moved around. This is happening government-wide. I’d like to know which Minister — is it the Premier, or is it the Minister of Human Resources? — is responsible for sending out notification letters to employees. Can we get a list of notification letters that have gone out to each individual employee? We know they’re impacted — that we can read — but where have the letters gone, and who has been verbally told that their job is going to be affected in the ’09–10 budget as well as this one?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A couple of questions there. I’ll allow the Premier to answer one or both if he wants.

Mr. Speaker, from the list that was shared with Members, potentially affected employees were all given notification: ’08–09, ’09–10. That’s information we’ve shared with Members. There are other decisions that are yet to be made that we’re not making decisions on. It has to go through the business plan process, and that authority then has to be given in the next budget cycle.

We’re going to get the full list again and share it with Members to ensure that everybody is working from the same sheet as we plan to do our business. In fact, as Members go into the business planning cycle, any new initiatives will be put on that table for discussion and input as to whether we go down that path or not.

Thank you, Mr.

Roland. The

honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I just want to raise the issue again of Highway no. 7 and how the muddy sections are really impairing movement of people between our communities of Fort Simpson, Fort Liard and Nahanni Butte. I’d just like to know: can the Minister provide me with a detailed strategy of plans for the repair and reconstruction of these deteriorating sections of Highway no. 7?

Thank you, Mr.

Menicoche. The

honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for raising this question in regard to his constituency and the Liard Highway.

The department did review the locations on the Liard Highway and identified the areas that do need reconstruction, some major reconstruction, in terms

of upgrading the road we have. We have kept the road open to light traffic. We’re hoping that in the next couple of weeks we would lift the ban on heavy use by vehicles.

The department has outlined a two-phase approach to reconstruction and fixing up the Liard Highway. We hope to do the first and second phases within one month’s time. I would be happy to share the detailed information with the Member so he can communicate this to the good people in Nahendeh.

Mr. Speaker, that was my next question, to try and ascertain the timing of when they’re actually going to do the repairs. I’m glad to see it’s going to be done in about a month. Will the Minister advise the affected communities — Fort Liard, Nahanni Butte, Fort Simpson — of the timeline and of the work plan as well?

Mr. Speaker,

the

Member has raised a good point here. He has brought it up before, and we certainly listen to his concerns. We have stepped up in terms of our communications in terms of notifying the communities that are going to be affected in that.

We’re hoping that Mother Nature is on our side in terms of re-fixing up the Liard Highway. We would again reassure the Member and the communities of Nahendeh that our department is notifying the appropriate people in the communities in terms of any type of changes to the road reconstruction.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise me and the public as to why it’s taken so long to begin these repairs on these sections of Highway no. 7?

Mr. Speaker, one of the factors that remained out of our control was the weather in terms of the rain we had in the fall time and the early spring rain we had. The thawing out of the roads is because of the way these roads were constructed. When we took them over, we started to notice that some of the roads weren’t properly laid down in terms of building these roads, so we have to look at some of those sections here. It’s also because of, as I say, the weather we are dealing with. We are doing our best with the contractors and the staff to fix this road once and for all so that we can start doing further justice to the Deh Cho Trail, as it’s known.

Absolutely, and I think it’s critical to residents of Nahendeh that the road will be reconstructed and not just repaired. If I can get that from the Minister one more time.

Mr. Speaker, with all of our infrastructures, one of our priorities is to protect our existing infrastructures as we look at other

areas in terms of balancing our investments across the Northwest Territories. I want to let the Member know and let the people in Nahendeh know that since 2004 this government has spent over $16 million in reconstruction of Highway no. 7, so we are looking at road reconstruction. It’s right across the board. That’s one of our efforts for the safety of the travelling public on the Deh Cho Trail or any other road in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr.

Yakeleya. The

honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today in my Member’s statement I talked about the use of locum nurses and the stress it puts on our territorial system. My question to the Minister of the Department of Health and Social Services is: what work has been done on doing a cost-benefit analysis, weighing out the cost of locum nurses and the stress on the system due to overtime and other expenses related to that?

Thank you, Mr.

Hawkins. The

honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is an ongoing effort and process to hire as many nurses as possible so that we reduce the vacancies, reduce the use of locum nurses wherever possible. All the health authorities have made some progress in that area. Since January we have hired 58 nurses within all of our health authorities. Currently we have about 42 positions out of 60 filled in the communities. We do have stats that show the use of agency nurses has declined considerably.

We do understand the nursing profession is in constant stress. It’s a national and international market. Our latest stats show that the average overtime — down at the Stanton Hospital, for example — is about two hours less than the national standard. We understand we need to continue to work on that, and we believe we are making some progress.

Mr. Speaker, I should thank the Health Minister for that answer, because someday I will ask that question. I’m sure that’s an important question to ask. But my question wasn’t answered. Actually, it wasn’t even close to being answered. Has any work been done on a cost-benefit analysis to compare things such as locum nurses, the cost that is incurred on our system versus a cost to the system such as overtime and other costs related to that? Has that benefit analysis been done?

Absolutely. A hundred per cent. It’s being done every day.

The Minister sounds like she knows the details of that, so I’d like to know what the details are of that when we compare the two.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no

question: locum nurses cost more than regularly staffed nurses. Everybody knows that.

Thank you, Ms.

Lee. Final

supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see the Minister chooses to answer my oral questions the same way she answers my written questions: avoidance and whatnot.

What is this Minister doing to change that fact? I have heard that Stanton as well as other places could reduce the amount of overtime, stress on local nurses and the stress on the system at large if that was changed around. What is the Minister doing to hire more nurses to make sure we get these locum nurses out of our system?

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Member that since January 1, 2008, 58 indeterminate or term health care professionals have been hired in eight authorities. We have hired 24 nurses at Stanton, two in Tlicho, eight in Deh Cho, 14 in Beaufort-Delta, four at Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority, three in Fort Smith and three in Sahtu. I’m telling the Member I agree with him that we need to continue to hire more nurses, and we are doing that.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Mackenzie-Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just following up on my questions yesterday to the Minister of Transportation. I have been making inquiry in regard to the ferry service. Where there was scheduled service the last number of years, now all of a sudden it has been changed. I’d like to ask the Minister: exactly when did they change the scheduled service that was in place for the last three or four years? Now they’ve gone to a different system. Why was the public not notified?

Thank you, Mr.

Krutko. The

honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The previous government had made a change in terms of the ferry services. It was on a scheduled service. When I did check into

it, it was changed over to the demand services. It is my understanding from the department that changing over to the demand side has benefited the operations, benefited the travelling public. It seems this is a way to have the service run in the Mackenzie River at the Tsiigehtchic, Fort McPherson, Inuvik locations.

Mr. Speaker, people in the Mackenzie Delta knew when they were able to catch the ferry on the Inuvik side. They knew on the hour, and you were able to be there. You were on the half-hour in Fort McPherson. You knew the ferry was going to be there. Now that they’ve changed the system, it is confusing to everybody. On the other hand, it’s going to cost this government in excess of 40 per cent more to operate on basically an as-and-when and not through a scheduled system. If we’re talking about saving money, it’s the perfect opportunity for this government to show we’re setting an example.

I’d like to ask the Minister: are you aware of the 40 per cent savings on the scheduled service by way of the operational costs over that of a ferry on an as-and-when-needed basis?

Mr. Speaker,

the

Member raises a very good point in terms of the cost efficiency and savings to the operation, even to the services to the travelling public on the Dempster Highway. We have done an analysis. We have looked at the efficiency of our operations in terms of on-demand versus the scheduled services. If the travelling public in the Mackenzie Delta through to Inuvik — the residents of Inuvik, McPherson, Tsiigehtchic and the businesses — do wish to look at a scheduled service, then we certainly would be happy to sit down and look at the options of changing from on-demand back to a scheduled service. There are pros and cons. However, if that is the wish of the constituents of Mackenzie Delta, we’re very happy to sit down and look at this and implement this type of change.

Mr. Speaker, if something is working perfectly, you’d think you’d allow it to continue on. There was nothing wrong with the system. The system was working; people had basically adapted to it. They knew when the ferries were going to be there. Because of this change, it has caused some chaos in the regions by way of medical travel, people trying to set up their appointments, people travelling to make their appointments in Inuvik, and also for meetings in our communities.

I’d like to ask the Minister here today: will you seriously consider going back to the scheduled service that was in place for the last four years? Why did they have to change it? I’m asking you to implement the system that was working before.

Mr. Speaker, I will seriously consider going back to a regularly scheduled service. As I said before, the previous government had changed the schedule due to some safety concerns. We were receiving more complaints on the regular scheduled services. However, I guess that’s the change. I am serious, and I will change it if that is the wish of the constituents of Mackenzie Delta.

Thank you, Mr.

Yakeleya. Final

supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, this system is going to save the government money. It’s going to save people’s lives from speeding down the highway to make the connections with those ferries, and at the end of the day we’ll also have a system that works. Maybe I’ll have to ask the Premier to get some action on this. Why are we getting away from systems that work? Then the Minister has to go back and consult more. We’re wasting time. Implement the system that works.

Mr. Speaker, as I’ve let the Members know today, especially the Member for Mackenzie Delta, there are certainly things that need to be considered. There were strong reasons why they changed the system to what we have today. If there is a strong feeling from the region in terms of what we’re hearing from Mr. Krutko, we certainly would look at the system and change it back to what it was before. However, we need to clarify some things in terms of making this change.

Thank you, Mr.

Yakeleya. The

honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to keep my questions very, very short. They’re to the Premier. We talked extensively about the letters sent out to potentially affected employees. What does “potentially affected” mean?

Thank you, Mrs.

Groenewegen.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The potentially affected employees would be those who are possibly affected pending the outcome of our decisions in the House. As we shared with Members, the letters have been put in that format about “potentially affected.”

Mr. Speaker, so “potentially affected,” then, means subject to the outcome of discussions in this House, subject to the passing of

the budget. How many letters were sent out to potentially affected employees?

Mr. Speaker, letters went out to those we’d agreed were going to be a part of this budget and the ‘09–10. We had talked about the fact that we’re going to try to achieve our targets, but we knew clearly that we wouldn’t be able to achieve those in one year. So we’ve had to go over two years. As I stated earlier, at some point we make a decision, even in the ‘08–09 budget, and the department starts to reduce that area of program delivery.

Potentially affected employees can be affected both mid-year and as late as we are in this fiscal year. We know that even though departments have this goal, it’s going to take some time to finally achieve that target once approved in this House. The list we gave to Members has been used, and those are the people who were notified. As I had committed to the Member earlier, we’ll get that, once again, to the Members, and we’ll confirm and make sure that everybody is on the same page.

Mr. Speaker, my question was very succinct: how many people received a letter as potentially affected employees? The Premier didn’t answer that question, so let me say that around 135 employees received letters. We’ll just use that because I didn’t get an answer. The Premier can correct me if he wants.

If these were potentially affected employees, subject to the outcome of the budget debates and the passing of the budget, my question is: how many have already in fact — not potentially — been affected, have moved around, have been redeployed, have been affected to date?

Mr.

Speaker, one of the

reasons for informing employees early of their positions being potentially affected was to give employees an opportunity to look at other options they may have, whether it’s within the department, moving to another community, deciding for early retirement. All those things can be considered. Departments have been encouraged to find placements for those potentially affected employees.

Now, arrangements may have been made with those employees as to what’s happening. We’ve had some employees who, when they were notified, have looked at further education opportunities through our system and have been granted that area. There are a number of things that have happened, but that has been with the work of those who are potentially affected.

Thank you, Mr.

Roland. Final

supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to assume that if I worked for the territorial government and I got a letter saying that my position was potentially affected, I might begin to look around at other options and other scenarios, because I may have a family to feed or I may have a mortgage payment to make.

Now, I’d like to ask the Premier: did the people who have already taken reassignment or early retirement or who have looked at other options do so on a completely voluntary basis? I think there is a legal aspect to this. I’d like to ask the Premier. Did the Cabinet and did the Premier seek a legal opinion under human relations/human resource law and labour standards as to whether or not it was an okay practice to tell people: Heads up. You might be losing your job, but here are some opportunities to take advantage of in advance? Did anybody seek a legal opinion on this action?

Mr.

Speaker, as a

government, when we set direction in a number of areas, we have our Justice department sit with us and give us advice on a daily basis when we look at decisions.

Did we go out and seek a special opinion? No, we did not in this case. We sat down with union representatives. They informed us that if employees are to be affected, the earlier the notification the better. So in fact we’ve met the criteria that are in place and extended it, in fact, by going out early on.

In discussions with the union and with Members, they’re saying that if there are to be potentially affected employees, give those potentially affected employees early notification as much as possible. We’ve gone down that path, and now we’re dealing with some of the fallout because it’s a different practice that’s been put in place.

The other piece of that is the fact that as we continue to go down this path, we have to review: is this a way of doing it, or was the traditional way the better way of doing it — that is, sticking to the 21 weeks’ notification?

Thank you, Mr.

Roland. The

honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My

questions are also for the Premier.

We agreed in our early discussions of our goals and priorities that there are a number of cross-departmental issues we wanted addressed, one of which is support for the voluntary sector.

Given the collapse of the Volunteer Support Initiative, despite the government’s adoption of it and claims of support, what is being done to bring government-wide coordination to addressing that situation?

Thank you, Mr.

Bromley. The

Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the commitments we’ve made is to look at our involvement. There are a number of factors here.

We’ve had the groups come together and work together, and they’ve put themselves under the umbrella of the voluntary sector. When there’s a group of non-government organizations, those are the ones that get contracted to deliver a service on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories in a number of cases.

The Government of the Northwest Territories over a number of years has worked to strengthen our role and position with these groups as well as with the voluntary sector in a number of areas. We’ve committed to looking at our relationship there, how we focus and where it is positioned. Is it still in Municipal and Community Affairs, or should it be under Executive, as some Members have said? We’re prepared to look at that, and that’s the initiative we’re going down, to have another look at this, especially in light of the news that came out about Volunteer NWT making their announcement about shutting down because they have no additional funds or that their funds have been totally reduced by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, yes, the shutting down of that initiative seems to fly in the face of the remarks of the Premier.

Given that the lowest unemployment rates in Canada and one of the highest average incomes in Canada are in the Northwest Territories, right here, can the Premier possibly think the feds backing out of their funding for this initiative is possibly justification for our failure to support this sector?

Mr. Speaker, for the record, the federal government did not renew their commitment. Our government has to deal with this on an annual basis as well. From time to time we’re given money that has a window to it — three years, five years — and we know it’s going to come to an end. We do put pressure on to try to continue programs. We’ve got some issues we’re going to have to bring to the table around existing arrangements we have with the federal government that could have a further negative impact on us.

This sector and that group were definitely affected. Then last year, short term, we put additional money

on the table. That was one-time money as well, and everybody was aware of that.

In our system, with the arrangements we have, we’re going to look at how we strengthen our relationship from the Government of the Northwest Territories. We can’t tell the federal government how they should do it. We write letters of support and try to encourage things, but from our side we’re going to look at our arrangement and try to see where we can strengthen the relationship.

I have to re-ask that question. Does the Premier possibly think that, given that we are one of the richest jurisdictions in Canada, we can possibly use the feds backing out of their commitments as a reason for us not fulfilling ours and stepping in where need be, more than on a one-time basis?

Mr. Speaker, let’s set the record straight as well. Yes, on the books the Northwest Territories is one of the better jurisdictions for GDP. Does that turn into more money for the Government of the Northwest Territories? I

share my message with finance

ministers across this country who say: Just because it looks good on paper, that doesn’t make it a fact that our bank account is growing.

We’ve had to make decisions, and we’ve made a decision in this area. We continue to support at the level we have in the past. In fact, through our initiatives we’re going to look at how we can strengthen our relationship.

For the record, we haven’t backed out of our deal or arrangements. We’re going to look at how we strengthen it. Is it coming up with additional money to keep Volunteer NWT in place? Well, that is an area we haven’t addressed.

Thank you, Mr.

Roland. Final

supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier for those remarks.

I’d say we probably need some innovation in our revenue generation. Does the Premier agree that a fully functional and self-representing voluntary, non-profit sector is a key component to government effectiveness?

Mr. Speaker, of course. In every one of our communities, especially in our smaller communities, where the services aren’t as abundant and we don’t have the benefit of all the groups that can collect in the larger centres, it’s very important.

We’ve worked with Municipal and Community Affairs in those areas, trying to strengthen our

relationships, and in fact, as mentioned, we’re going to try to step up in a number of areas.

Does that mean we can just come up with money to match an existing process? We haven’t done that in this budget. If Members want to continue the existing process, then through the business plan that’s an option. We work with Members, and if there’s support for that initiative, then that can be reviewed.

But going ahead in this budget, we’re setting out a process where we have as the GNWT the existing relationship, and we're trying to see where we can improve and strengthen that. That is a commitment from this government.

Thank you, Mr. Roland.

I’d like to take a moment to welcome our guests in the gallery today. I hope you’re enjoying the proceedings.

The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s well known that some of the problems of our budget are due to the fact that we have revenue problems. Revenue problems are directly related to our corporate taxes and how we receive them.

Our budget clearly outlines that we’re losing about 50-some million dollars in corporate taxes this year. My question to the Minister of Finance is: what is he doing on revenue options? What is he doing to put new revenue options on the table for the Territories to go forward so we can make up for these ups and downs in our revenue stream?

Thank you, Mr.

Hawkins. The

honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad, obviously, that the Member has looked at the Budget Address I gave a number of weeks ago. I talked about coming out with a paper that would address potential new revenue options. Once we go to committee and look at where things are sitting now and what options are out there, we'll take that paper out to the people and businesses of the Northwest Territories and get a response from there and look at where we will put some focus and energy.

There is a whole number of areas that can be looked at for potential revenue generation. The thing we have to look at is how much of that spin-off

has a negative impact on the cost of living of individuals and businesses in the Northwest Territories.

Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the

answer, but it didn’t have any details. When are we going to see any options here that are laid out? One of the challenges I have to face day to day if — if — I support this budget, of course, is that I have to face people who ask me: What did the government do to potentially raise revenues in some form or another to help avoid some of these cuts? It’s not just about the layoffs; they’re closing off programs.

Mr.

Speaker, as I stated,

we’re preparing a paper to go forward to committee. Once we have committee agreement that we can take the paper out to the public, we’re going to do that. By going into detail now, if I start running down the track and listing carbon taxes, listing a higher corporate tax, listing a higher payroll tax, a tobacco tax and so on and so forth, I’ll be accused of making decisions by myself.

Mr. Speaker, part of the challenges I’m having here with this issue is the fact that if I look through the budget, you don’t even see your sin taxes challenged in this budget. Why weren’t sin taxes raised in this particular budget? Why aren’t there new initiatives on the table now going into this budget year?

Mr. Speaker, let me refresh the Member’s memory. When we talked about this two-year plan of trying to live within our means — reduce in a number of areas, reinvest in areas — we made a commitment that in ’09–10 we’re going to find an additional $10 million a year to add to the revenue base. Maybe the Member can recollect that now and remember that we had a discussion about coming up with another $10 million.

Further to that, in the Budget Address I said that we would look at new revenue options and be prepared to come back and go out to the people of the Northwest Territories so that they can have their say in this area as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Roland. Final

supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we get enough at the cost of the Minister, so certainly if we get a dig now and again, that’s okay too.

The issue really is: when are we going to deal with this issue? The fact is that there are no revenue-generating initiatives in this. We’ve heard: We’re going to think about it. We plan to do it. We hope we’ll get $10 million in our revenue stream. But people are asking: When? From my point of view, I

need to know when we’re going to do this. Mr. Speaker, will the Finance Minister tell us today when we will see this discussion paper?