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.

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.