Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to proceed with the consideration of the capital for Municipal and Community Affairs, then move on to the Department of Justice. Time permitting, we would also like to go to Human Resources today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Is committee agreed?

Thank you, committee. When we return from break, we’ll go to Tabled Document 66-16(5) with MACA, Justice and HR. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Prior to the break we agreed we’d continue with Tabled

Document 66-16(5), NWT Capital Estimates 2011-2012, with the Department of MACA. So we’ll move to the Department of MACA to page 4-2. We are going to defer the first page, 4-2, and we’re going to move straight into detail. Is committee agreed, 4-4?

Okay. Activity summary, regional operations, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Krutko, I apologize. I forgot to ask the Minister if he wanted to bring in any witnesses. Minister Robert McLeod, MACA.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I will, I would.

Committee agreed that we bring the witnesses in?

Agreed. Thank you, Mr. Minister. If I could get the Sergeant-at-Arms to please bring the witnesses in. I was just a little excited. Get on with it, you know? Good chair, good chair.

Thank you. Mr. Minister, can I please get you to introduce your witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have with me Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. We’ll go to Mr. Krutko, first on my list.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question to the Minister is in the area of a study that was done a number of years ago by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs with regard to dust control alternatives. A cost-benefit analysis was done in 2005 by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. Back then, during the 14th Assembly, one of the big issues for the small communities was dealing with the area of dust control. Today we still have that same problem in our communities, especially when we talk about the health of our communities and the well-being of people in those communities.

I know the department has requested that the Department of Transportation, working along with the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, reinstates such a program or initiative. So I would just like to ask the Minister or the deputy where we are when we find ways to deal with the dust problems we are having in our communities, especially the health of our communities and the problems they are seeing with dust. There have been studies done in Europe and other countries that definitely show a direct correlation between ailments like lung disease and dust in those particular communities. I think that’s something we

have to be aware of in the Northwest Territories. So I’d like to ask the Minister if his department has talked with the Department of Transportation or is working with the Department of Transportation and the local municipal authorities to deal with dust control.

Maybe just wrapping up, this program that went into place during the 14th Assembly, there were nine

communities identified. A majority of those communities have had some means of chipseal or were using different dust suppressants in the communities. But the communities that were chipsealed back then, most of them are at the sixth or seventh year of those streets being chipsealed. It has served its life. Now basically they have to either redo the streets or replace the chipseal with something else. So I would like to ask the Minister if the department has looked at coming up with a solution to this problem by working with the communities to deal with it.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this is one we continue to hear about, is dust control. As we’ve heard from the Minister of Transportation earlier today, there is opportunity for communities to piggyback on work that’s being done on highways close to their communities. That means that they can get a better deal trying to access dust control. Chipsealing, more specifically, is one of the cheaper routes to go. There is an opportunity there for them. As far as MACA instituting the program, I’ve said on a number of occasions that communities now have it within their authority to have that as a priority to put that into their business plan. We’ve seen in some cases where communities are starting to identify dust control and putting it into their capital plan.

I think the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs and Department of Transportation have a lot to offer in technical support and having the capacity in their different organizations to assist communities. Communities don’t have engineers. Communities don’t have the technical staff on hand. I think that’s where the departments can play a very important role in this. I’d just like to ask the Minister to find a way to assist with the human resources aspect of the engineering people who deal with the technical side of laying chipseal or dealing with the area of dust control for our communities.

That’s one thing MACA sees their role as now, is to provide advice and expertise to the community or work with them to define the appropriate people to do the jobs. We see where our role is at now. I’ll actually have Mr. Aumond expand a little further on that.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Aumond.

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Krutko.

Again, in closing, this is more than just a dust problem; it’s a quality of life issue for our communities. I think that the communities that have had an opportunity to see the chipseal laid in our communities have seen the improvement in the quality of life in those communities. It also deals with the area of cleanliness and the ability for people to walk up and down the streets without having to worry about mud, dust, and being covered in those types of materials due to road traffic. I’d just like to ask the Minister that we don’t go back to the drawing board.

Like I said earlier, there was a study done in 2005 by EBA Engineering on behalf of the Department of Transportation. I think that’s where we should start. We should move forward and work with the respective departments of Transportation and MACA and the communities. Let’s move on this.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll commit to the Member that we’ll see about finding some of the old reports and dusting them off and seeing if there’s information in there that we could possibly use to assist communities in identifying dust control. I see I’ve got a copy coming already.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Menicoche. Just a reminder that we’re on page 4-4.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Municipal and Community Affairs has a lot of... Because I have the riding with the most communities, I often hear lots of concerns, especially during my last visit to the communities. They just revolve around the New Deal. The concern is that they’ve been operating for about three or four years now and they’re not really convinced that there’s enough O and M funding in there for them to run their communities. The biggest one for me is I hear consistently about the cost of street lighting. I’m not sure if it’s an arrangement with NTPC or not, but there is proof out there now

that the amount of money that’s actually funded for O and M for street lighting does not actually keep up with the actual costs. I’ve raised it during committee about when the New Deal will be assessed and re-evaluated. I think the Minister said it would be at the 10-year mark. I really think that we need an evaluation or mid-term evaluation soon to look at the O and M costs that the smaller communities’ concerns are realized or met. Perhaps someone from the department can do that.

The communities with the most concerns are communities like Wrigley, where they are currently in a co-management process. The community of Jean Marie River raised that with me, Nahanni Butte, and Trout Lake, of the smaller communities. Because of these realities, they really feel that they’re struggling to make their O and M needs met. In fact, they’re frustrated. Jean Marie River even said, take the deal back; only because they’re struggling with that. It may be a capacity issue. Has this been explained to them enough?

In some of my communities the reality, too, is that they’ve been changing management every six months. That’s not helpful at all. I believe MACA can be helpful, as well, in guiding the communities and letting them know how to best manage their communities. That’s why I feel that just because they’re changing management doesn’t mean that they have to run into financial troubles. I don’t know if all communities are using the same financial package for each community, but I believe we have to assist them more, because they are asking for assistance.

In terms of O and M and the maintenance of those communities and their assets, maybe the Minister can detail for me again what kind of, it will probably be complicated, but what is the basic formula, how was it derived. Did they use one year’s data, three years’ data, five years’ data? It sure doesn’t appear to be meeting the needs of the communities right now.

The last thing we want to do is have our communities in trouble. My communities are feeling stretched with the amount of resources that are transferred to them and they really don’t feel that it’s enough. Maybe the Minister can detail for me how the formula was reached, what kind of historical methods were used, what’s currently in place to assist communities that are feeling in trouble, and how do we best manage that. They continue to raise with me, on a monthly basis, that the street lighting costs are exorbitant.

Did the government have a different deal with the NWT Power Corporation than the communities have right now? A community like Wrigley, it’s said that I think in the line items it’s --I’m just rounding up figures here -- in round terms I think it was, like, $15,000 a month for power, but they’re actually paying $23,000 a month for the power to supply

street lighting. There seems to be a big aberration there.

Of course, that’s something in the details that when the community signed on the New Deal they can’t really see until they start experiencing it for themselves in a couple years’ worth of data. That’s a huge cost. They’re managing it. They did run into financial difficulties. They are in co-management at the community of Wrigley. They will probably be out of it in about eight months. However, just because they’re able to see things on a monthly basis, this is what they see.

For me it’s about, okay, if this is the reality, then let’s re-evaluate the New Deal as soon as we can or else re-evaluate, especially in the community of Wrigley, how they’re paying the power costs. They may even be thinking, okay, at $23,000 a month, that’s almost running the whole O and M for the NTPC for that month in the community of Wrigley. Is the payment out of line? It really has to be looked at and I urge the Minister to do what they can, not only for the community of Wrigley but all the smaller communities that are struggling to make ends meet with the O and M payments. There has to be an assessment done and I really feel it should be done sooner than later.

Just with that, if the Minister can comment on those questions I have and how we can best manage this situation.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MACA will do what it can to work with the communities to assist them with some of the capacity challenges that they face working with LGANT and NWT Association of Communities. We’ve had the human resource plan that’s out there and it seems to be working well. We have people working with the smaller communities.

As far as the Member’s particular question goes, the actual formula for O and M, I’d be able to provide the details. The Member is right; it is quite complicated. It takes a lot of things into consideration. I have no problem providing the information to committee as to how some of the numbers were reached.

I could tell the Member, though, that as far as him wanting us to have a look at the different things, it is our intent in 2011-2012 to do an overall review of the New Deal. It’s been five years since it’s been in. We want to look at the capital funding allocation formula, how we reached that, and we also want to look at the O and M part of it. I can assure Members that this is something that the work will begin on very soon.

The Minister said soon. Does that mean he’ll begin some work during the winter months evaluating those communities? It doesn’t

have to be a big thing. I think if they evaluate one community, pick one like Wrigley or any one of my communities in my riding and the concerns are going to be the same there. There doesn’t have to be a big study. They can wait and do their five-year evaluation. However, I think that the needs of a community like Wrigley have to really be examined and evaluated, because they are experiencing higher costs than the O and M that’s being provided in the New Deal. There has to be a reason for it, or perhaps it’s consistent. Perhaps there’s a root cause. That’s something I believe that work should begin immediately. I’d like to ask the Minister to consider that and put forward some kind of plan for this coming winter.

We’ll have all the work completed by the end of 2011-2012 as far as all the evaluations go. We will continue to work with and monitor the communities. Some of the communities in the Member’s riding were band communities, so they’re fairly new at this. Some of these just became incorporated. The regional office has offered to work with the communities that have just come on, do another information session with them, and basically just give them more training as to what to expect and what their roles are. As far as the overall evaluation, that will be completed by the end of 2011-2012.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a few points. Some of my points are very similar to my colleague Mr. Menicoche. I have concerns with the street lighting as well. I’m not 100 percent sure if that’s now a community responsibility or a responsibly for the Power Corp. I’m still not 100 percent clear on that. I guess I’d ask the Minister if they could just go back and evaluate the whole area of poles and lights and so on, but the bottom line is to light up some portions of the communities that are in the dark in the wintertime. It is a little hazardous, no doubt about it, when you’re walking around in the dark and there are lots of fast moving snowmobiles and so on out there and four-wheelers. So it’s a concern. Some of the elders that are out exercising and walking have expressed the concern that they are not comfortable in walking on some streets that are completely in the dark. I’m not saying that this is the responsibility of this department necessarily, but I think this department would be a good place for us to start, and if it involves the corporation, that’s kind of outside of our mandates in here and the community, then this department could maybe spearhead something that eventually, at the end of the day, puts some streetlights up in the communities.

The other area of concern, which again I brought up before, is that I realize that the New Deal is going to

be evaluated in another year or so, but I think that certainly consideration should be given to annual increases to the capital. It’s not real common practice to sign an agreement that’s static for five years. It basically says here essentially signing to erode your own budget each year by at least the inflation rate. It’s something that I think that Municipal and Community Affairs, when they’re discussing the evaluation and then what’s going to happen in the next five years, if there’s another five-year deal signed, actually that’s something that certainly should be taken into consideration and something that MACA should be working on with the communities.

Then I have an actual question on the amount of money in the infrastructure contribution to hamlets versus a settlement when the only thing that changes is the name moving from settlement status to hamlet status but it’s the same community. That has occurred in Tu Nedhe twice this year. I think when the municipalities signed on to get hamlet status and the other one incorporated as a hamlet status, there was a thought that there would be more money all the way around, and I think there is, but I’d like to actually know what the formula is. Like, how do they determine it and what the actual increase would be.

My last comment is that when we evaluate after five years we should drop the name “new.” Just call it “The Deal,” because it’s been five years, it’s not new anymore. But that’s it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’ll change the name from New Deal to Good Deal.

But going back to the streetlights, it’s the same thing as I responded to Mr. Menicoche. I mean, there are opportunities where the community can work with the Power Corp, but I take the Member’s point. Maybe we need to sit down with all parties that are affected by this, because it’s a whole ownership issue and that’s something that I think we need to clarify. So I would be willing to commit to the Member that I’ll try to get all the information clarified for him.

When you talk about settlement to hamlet, and even the Member had indicated that there is more money, and he’s absolutely correct. When you go from a settlement to a hamlet, the amount of money you get increases. I’m talking about the increases to the capital budget. I mean, with the overall territorial government capital budget coming down, it’s getting to be awfully difficult, but communities now have received a lot more than they’ve ever received before. I think it’s almost $12 million annually more than they used to receive before the

New Deal. It’s been one that’s worked out well for the communities.

We’re really encouraged by the communities, the projects that they’re doing. If they need a project a year or two down the road, they’re saving up their money, so there are opportunities for that. It is one that’s actually still fairly new, but I think the communities welcome “The Deal,” and once they get all the capacity challenges faced and taken care of, I think this is one that we’re going to see a lot of positive results come out of. There will still continue to be challenges, but MACA will do what it can within the department to assist the communities that continue to have challenges. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a general question in regard to the infrastructure funding for communities. I think it’s well known, I don’t think it’s anything new to the Minister, that communities suffer an infrastructure deficit. Every community in the NWT, every community across Canada is suffering from a lack of infrastructure or aging infrastructure or infrastructure that needs upgrading and/or renovations. It’s my understanding that the amounts of infrastructure contributions to communities have been the same amount for about five years. There hasn’t been any increase for quite some time. It’s also my understanding that at this time, or maybe soon to be happening, that there may or may not be a review of the infrastructure contribution formula, that formula that MACA uses to determine how much money each community gets.

When I asked the question or made some comments at the start of this capital budget, I was advised that there is a review perhaps happening biannually. I’d like to ask the Minister or the deputy minister, when will the current infrastructure contribution formula for communities be reviewed to see whether or not it’s still applicable to today’s economics and the numbers of infrastructure buildings that communities have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. That’s similar to a question that was asked earlier today. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a commitment to review the overall New Deal after five years. Budget year 2011-12 will be the fifth year, and in the fiscal year 2011-12 all aspects of the New Deal will be reviewed. Thank you.

Thank you to the Minister. My apologies. I was listening but I obviously didn’t listen very well. I didn’t hear that question earlier.

Five years seems like an awful long time, though. With communities taking over government buildings which used to be handled and maintained by

GNWT and they’re now taking them over, and it’s happening more and more as communities get more used to having the autonomy and the responsibly and the control over their own assets, it’s something which I think the department ought to consider, whether or not five years to review is too long a time. I would think, particularly for infrastructure, there ought to be a review of the formula in a much shorter period of time than five years.

I appreciate that the Minister says we’re going to get a review in 2011-12, but that means there won’t be any change probably until the next budget. That’s probably too long away and I would encourage the department to start the review in this budget year so that we can get some kind of an increase. It may have to be a supp so we can get some kind of an increase in the fiscal year 2011-12 within that actual year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Five years was the initial program. The initial review was going to come five years after that. I mean, who knows? It may be something that could be done, as the Member says, biannually. Five years, actually, was one that was agreed to in concert with the NWT Association of Communities. They felt that was a fair length of time, because there was a lot of responsibility devolved to the communities and thought five years would be a good indication of how this was working and doing a review and see where we need to go from there. Thank you.

Just a quick follow-up. I’d like to know from the Minister whether or not there is any possibility that the review could be started and could actually be done between now and the end of March of 2011, which would be the end of this fiscal year, so there could be an evaluation of the current infrastructure contributions to communities, that there perhaps could be an amendment to those contributions, an increase, hopefully, and that we could maybe fund that by way of a supp in the next capital year. So basically I’m asking if we can increase the $28 million that’s showing in this capital budget in ‘11-’12. Thank you.

It’s not our intention at this time to increase the $28 million. Part of the challenge is capacity within the department. We still have a lot of the federal money that we’re working with. Again, we feel that five years is a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the progress of the New Deal and see where we need to go from there. If it means increases, then that’s something that we’ll have to come back to the Assembly for. Thank you.

I’m disappointed in that answer. I’m not asking for a review of the total aspect of the New Deal, but simply a review of the infrastructure contribution, the capital part of contribution that this government gives to communities. I think that

certainly could be done between now and the end of March.

We do supplementary increases for all manner of things, and communities and their capital structures are a huge part of the Territory and our residents, and they’re the basis on which most of us survive and live. So I would really encourage the Minister to rethink and just evaluate the infrastructure contribution formula only by March 31, 2011. Thank you.

We could evaluate the infrastructure agreement, but it’s not our intent... I mean, we’re looking at three or four months to try and get this in. So it’s not our intent at this particular time to try and make an increase to the infrastructure budget until we do the overall evaluation. Thank you.

I understand, I understood the statement the first time, but I guess I have to encourage you to change your intent, which you’re not willing to do. So I will agree to disagree with you. Thank you, that’s just a comment.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Just a comment. I have nobody else on my list. We’re on page 4-4, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment, $28.002 million. Agreed?

Okay, that concludes our detail. Can we go back to page 4-2 to do the summary page? Municipal and Community Affairs, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002. Agreed? Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t think it quite concludes. We were on regional operations and we had community operations to conclude.

I don’t have anything on that page. Thank you, Mr. Bromley, there is no dollar figure on that page so there’s nothing to discuss. Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request permission to go back to 4-4. I understood that there would be questions on 4-7, but I would like to ask one on 4-4 in the absence of that opportunity. Thank you.

Is committee agreed we go back to page 4-4?

Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Bromley, on 4-4.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to bring up something that I have brought up in the past with this department. That’s that it’s not really

fair for communities with greater capacity, due simply to their size, to be the sole beneficiaries of reduced costs and greater local benefits associated with higher building standards and efficiency standards. I think that nor really is it fair that use of NWT funds, tight as they are, should be directed towards inefficient infrastructure. So once again I would like to ask this Minister what has been done to introduce the building standards that the larger communities enjoy and that the GNWT enjoys along with the reduced costs of operation and the greater local economic benefits associated with labour intensive work on efficiency and so on. What are we doing to start setting those building standards for communities that will bring those benefits? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The communities have all submitted their energy plans and we continue to share best practices with them. The Member talks about the large communities as opposed to the smaller communities, and I give the smaller communities a lot of credit. I mean, they know their communities, they know that if they build a building that meets all the standards, that’s very efficient, that it’s a benefit to them and I can’t see a lot of the communities... I believe those days of building a building where the air just flows right through are long gone. So I give the communities a lot of credit and I think they’re doing an excellent job of working with the Arctic Energy Alliance coming up with their energy plans. So they realize that there’s a huge savings to them too, especially to some of the smaller, more isolated communities where things cost a lot more. They, I think, realize that it’s beneficial to them to build a good quality building, because it’s obviously going to bring their costs down. Thank you.

I’ve heard this line repeated often by this Minister, so I would like to ask, would this Minister commit to providing Members with documentation that in fact all of the community infrastructure being put in by communities are meeting the NWT standard of 25 percent better than the model in the National Energy Building Code?

The line that I’ve repeated often is that I give the communities a lot of credit for putting in good quality infrastructure. We don’t regulate the standards, so we’d be unable to provide that information to the Member. Thank you.

My understanding was that Municipal and Community Affairs worked closely with communities on infrastructure advising. Is this Minister saying that he does not know and cannot determine what quality of buildings are being put into our communities?

We’re well aware of the good quality of buildings that are going into our smaller communities. The Member was talking about building standards. I was saying we didn’t regulate building standards. We don’t impose it on them. It’s basically a community’s decision and the communities are knowledgeable enough to realize that they need to make a good investment into sound infrastructure to help their overall cost in the long run. Thank you.

I’ve heard this line many times from this Minister and I’m looking for evidence. I think we’re an evidence-based government and I would like to request that the Minister provide Members with the degree to which community infrastructure is meeting the NWT standards. I’m not asking him now in this question to introduce standards, I’m asking him to provide evidence for the statement he repeatedly makes.

These are government assets and we work with the communities to advise them of best practices.

I think as you go travelling to more of the smaller communities, you’ll see the standards of building that they have put in. I think they’re being standard. If the Member’s looking for blueprints or plans, it’s maybe something that I would have to work with the communities to see what we can provide to the Member.

I appreciate that offer to work with communities to provide that data. Thank you. I’ll expect that soon.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Just a comment. I have nobody else on my list. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m wondering, in our advising to communities, what are we doing to bring the concept of full-cost accounting to communities so they actually can bump up their capacity to that of the larger communities and understand the benefits that can accrue with a higher building standard approach and energy efficiency approach. Are we offering courses on full-cost accounting? The reason I ask that is I am often met with sort of blank looks when I try to bring up that discussion. I know the department has a School of Community Government. Do we have courses such as that? What action is being taken to ensure we’re putting good infrastructure in place?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.

I guess to summarize, would that be a no, we are not providing any explanation or education on full-cost accounting?

I appreciate that. The last part of this is that the deputy minister mentioned the community energy plans and I think the Minister did too, and the capital plans. Were there any standards provided to be met in the development of those plans in terms of energy efficiency or whatever?

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Bromley, your time has expired, but I will allow you one more question. You’re good? All right. We’re on page 4-4, activity summary, regional

operations, infrastructure investment summary. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things. I guess, first of all, I wanted to ask the Minister if he could provide an update to the House on the situation at Northland Trailer Park here in Yellowknife and whether or not there’s been any plan formulated on how to deal with the infrastructure requirements of that trailer park here in Yellowknife.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The City has made application to the federal government for some of the Green Fund, and we have supported that and are waiting to hear back from the federal government.

I look forward to hearing back on how that rolls out.

Just a couple of other things. I just wanted to voice my concern over the dusty conditions in small communities. I’ve had the honour and the privilege to serve in this House for the past several years and the opportunity, as well, to travel to a number of small communities. We get in there oftentimes in the spring or summer. The thing that is always... I’m left with the impression that things are really dusty. It detracts from the quality of life in our small communities. I think the department, we can try to put it all back on the communities, but I think at the end of the day the Government of the Northwest Territories has an obligation to partner with the communities to get, in a meaningful way, dust suppression occurring in our small communities around the Territory. I would be very supportive of a program that would enable that to happen and trying to find the dollars to make that happen. It’s a health issue for people with respiratory illness and it also leads to increased incidents of respiratory illness in small communities. It would build up pride in the communities. I think equipment would last much longer.

It was about three or four years ago we were in Tulita and they had applied, I think it was E35 dust suppressant chemical to their roads. What a difference that made walking around the community and vehicles driving around the community, not throwing up the dust you would normally see. It’s something we should pursue as a government. I really do believe that’s the course of action we should take. We should try to find the dollars to make it happen. If we’re not going to, and this is the last time we’re going to go through this process as the 16th Assembly, if we’re not going to do it, I’d like

to see that included in a transition document for the next government to actively pursue that for small communities.

Tulita was a good example. There are a couple other communities that I’ve been in where the communities took it upon themselves to deal with the dust control. They’ve actually done a very good job. Jean Marie River I think this past year has put a dust suppressant down that I understand has worked quite well. Fort Providence as a community did some groundwork and they’re going to do some chipsealing next year.

Communities are starting to realize that it is a health issue, as the Member and a few other Members have mentioned. They’re starting to include it in their capital plan. We’re starting to see some good results out of this. I think as more and more communities in the future realize they have the authority to determine, well, yeah, let’s put dust control in, I think we’ll see more communities doing that.

Part of our role at MACA would be assisting them with some of the expertise and some of the costing and just giving them an indication of how much it may cost to apply the materials.

I agree the communities should be partners, but I really think, and my belief is, that the Government of the Northwest Territories, in some way, shape, or form, has to be there with dollars. I know the New Deal is there, but communities are being forced to decide on important community projects over dust suppression, and oftentimes the dust suppression doesn’t quite get to the top of the list, even though I spoke of the benefits of having dust suppression. We need to come up with a way to fund in partnership with communities if they want to have the GNWT partner with them. I’m talking about some substantial dollars, not just hundreds of thousands. It’s probably going to cost the government $3 million or $4 million to do it in a meaningful way in partnership with communities. That’s something I’d like to see happen. I know the Minister is trying to say the communities get their money and they should do it, but what I’m saying is the communities get their money. Let’s find some of our money, partner with them and do it in more of a meaningful way so that we ensure it gets done in some of the small communities. That way it will get done.

The communities have used some of their infrastructure dollars that they get from this government. Some communities have an opportunity to use the gas tax money that they get. Some have used Building Canada Fund money to do some of the work on their roads. As a department we have absolutely no infrastructure dollars. I mean, $28 million right down to the last $2,000 goes to the communities. We leave it to them. If there are ways to identify or go after more funds to assist the communities, then that’s something that MACA is always going to do. If

there’s federal money available, it’s something that we continue to try and get our hands on as much money as we can and then we’ll flow that to the communities.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Ramsay. We’re good. We’re on page 4-4. Mr. Krutko.

One of the other areas that I think we as a government need to put a lot more focus on is the fire departments and training that is required in communities, especially looking at front-line workers and the people who have to deal with them. In most cases it’s a volunteer fire department. A lot of people volunteer, but they need the training. They need the capacity to do their job. They need the equipment to make sure that when they put their lives at risk responding to a fire, we equip them with the equipment they require. The same thing for ambulance services on the highways. We do have to work with communities and community governments and the local fire chiefs and volunteer firefighters in the communities to give them the capacity and the tools to do it. A lot of it falls under the fire marshal’s domain. With having the fire marshals going into our communities, that’s something that’s required.

I’d like to ask the Minister what we’re doing to ensure the communities have the capacity to respond to fires in their communities, that people are qualified with training for local firefighters, volunteer fire departments, and giving the communities the capacity to respond to highway accidents and making sure that they have some means of dealing with the ambulance services of some type, which in most cases are handled by the local volunteer fire department.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn’t agree with the Member more on the need for improving our training to fire departments and assisting them with training. There’s a whole new program that’s coming forward. We’ve identified the need to improve the training that we provide to small communities. The assistant fire marshals in each region are coming up with training plans and we’ve identified some dollars that would be put towards this, obviously pending Legislative Assembly approval. It is one that we’re quite aware of and we know that communities are challenged, so I think we’ll see after the next fiscal year a move towards more regional-type training, working with the assistant fire marshals, going into the communities and working with them to identify some of their needs, some of their equipment. It is one that we recognize is quite a challenge and we’re moving in that direction and starting to work with the communities to deal with them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Just a reminder to Members that we’re talking about capital here today. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is around the area of capital with regard to fire equipment and making sure people are equipped to do their job. More importantly, we had an instance here in Yellowknife where two firefighters lost their lives. There was a major review done on that through the Workers’ Compensation Board. There was, basically, an injunction filed against the City of Yellowknife because of the incident, and there were a whole bunch of recommendations that came out of that inquiry. I think, if anything, we should learn from that and make sure that we do give those firefighters all the support we can and, more importantly, that they have the training that they need to respond to a fire and when they find themselves in a dangerous situation.

Again, I think it’s important that we, as government, who are responsible for giving the volunteer firefighters the tools and the equipment and the training that they require, but more importantly, with the situation that occurred here in Yellowknife, and again because of that, it’s an incident that we don’t want to happen anywhere else, and more importantly, we have to learn from that, and more importantly, take what the recommendations that came out of that inquiry, and more importantly, put them in place so that we do protect our firefighters throughout the Northwest Territories.

Again, I’d just like to ask, what are we doing as a department to follow up on those recommendations that were put in place and also in regard to the consequences of the review by the Workers’ Compensation Board and, more importantly, the recommendations that came out of that inquiry and ensuring that we are following those recommendations going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Part of the duties of the assistant fire marshal will be going into the communities and assessing some of their equipment, working with the communities to identify the life of their equipment, and possibly working with the communities to put that equipment into their capital plan. Obviously training, as the Member said, is huge. No point in having a fire truck in the community if you don’t have the training for it. That’s where we see in this part of the new program that I had mentioned to this House a few minutes ago, is training is a huge part of it and it’s something that we’re focusing on, and I think in the coming fiscal year we’re going to see progress in the area of training. That way, we don’t have situations where we have firefighters that are

untrained trying to operate equipment, going into buildings. We want to make sure that we stay away from that. It is something that is in the works. Equipment is a huge part.

I’ve been in a couple small communities where they’ve shown me the equipment that they’ve had and how they need to be trained to operate it. We take those very seriously and that’s part of why we wanted to make sure we had all the proper training in place for the equipment that’s there. Thank you.

My final question is: How many fire departments do we have certified at this time? That are certified, that are trained and do have the certification required to actually be certified firefighters in our communities.

I’m not expecting those folks’ questions. We don’t have the information, but I would be willing to provide the information to the Member as to the number of fire departments we have and what kind of capacity they have. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. We’re on page 4-4, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002 million.

We’ll go back to the summary page 4-2, Municipal and Community Affairs, departmental summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002 million.

Does committee agree that we have concluded MACA?

Minister McLeod, on behalf of committee, I’d like to thank the witnesses for coming in for today. If I could please get the Sergeant-at-Arms to please exclude the witnesses, that would be great.

Next on the agenda is the Department of Justice. Minister Lafferty, do you have witnesses that you’d like to bring in today?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I do.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Does committee agree that we allow Mr. Lafferty to bring in his witnesses?

Sergeant-at-Arms, if I could please get you to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Thank you. Minister Lafferty, if I could please get you to introduce your witness for the record.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have Bronwyn Watters, the deputy minister of Justice.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. We’re going to defer page 7-2 until we have completed the detail. Is committee agreed?

We’ll move along to page 7-4, activity summary, community justice and corrections, infrastructure investment summary. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to community justice and corrections, one thing that we’ve been pushing for years from a community perspective is having more say in the judicial process, but more importantly, finding ways instead of incarcerating people in large facilities, to start looking at community-based justice programs and incarcerating people closer to their homes, either on-the-land programs or also working with community justice committees in regard to having community sentencing circles. I’d just like to know where is the community involvement when it comes to community justice, because it seems like we’ve strayed away from the old notion of on-the-land camps by way of offering inmates opportunities to serve out their sentence in wilderness camps and also looking at programs such as the program through the Tl’oondih Healing Society in regard to a transitional justice program for people to transition out of the justice system back into their communities. I’d just like to ask what are we doing in regard to those types of initiatives to include the communities in the justice system.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. This has been an area of interest to the Member and also the Members as well. The community-based programming has been very successful to date in the Sahtu region. It was unfortunate that we lost an elder, but the program still continues. It is open to other regions, as well, if they are interested in pursuing the community-based programming to deal with the corrections offenders.

We are currently finalizing our review of the community justice programming and we felt that we needed to undertake that review to find out which community is not working effectively and probably needs some support, and which community has been very successful. Those are in the final stages and we will be sharing that review with the Members next month, in November. That is the feedback from the communities, the people that are involved.

We definitely want to have the community involved when there are offenders from the communities,

how we deal with those offenders so they can be reintegrated back to the community.

The Sahtu region, again, has been very successful to date. We want to continue that process.

Mr. Chairman, again, the communities want to be involved in the justice system. They want to do their part in regards to finding ways to bring down crime rates in our communities and also trying to deal with the biggest affects on incarceration in the Northwest Territories. It is basically alcohol and substance abuse. Most of our communities have taken it on themselves. Two communities I represent, Aklavik went for a plebiscite last year but didn’t quite make it. Again, our communities are trying to do their part by bringing forward plebiscites by saying we don’t want alcohol in our communities. If we do, we want to have some controls in place, but more importantly, we want some means of prohibition to not to be seen to not doing anything, but doing their part also through the hamlet council, the band councils, the community leaders and also enable to work with the Department of Justice, the local RCMP, local detachments to assist them in doing their jobs to improve the quality of life in our communities.

I think that is something that we really have to focus on. Look at the justice system, not from the corrections system and Supreme Court or courtrooms, but look at it from a community perspective outwards and how we can look at justice that flows out of our communities, deal with the problems of crime in our communities and find preventative ways to prevent crime in our communities.

I know we spend millions of dollars in corrections forces. We are spending millions of dollars in regards to incarceration. Is there a possibility of looking at pilot projects with those communities, invest some of those dollars to keep those people who basically may have challenges?

We have a high number of individual inmates in jail with FAS, no fault of their own. It is basically a problem we see throughout our whole system. I would like to ask the Minister and the department, is there a possibility of doing a better job working with communities to find solutions to these problems and reinvest some of those dollars than having people incarcerated, have community-based solutions to bring down our crime rates and prevent crime in our communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I’m not sure that is capital. It sounds more like O and M, but I will go to the Minister for a response.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to see more money. The Member is referring to millions that should be

going to the communities. I do agree with that. If we can develop preventative measurements, preventive programs, that is what our vision is, I do believe, with the Members and also our department. That is the very reason why we are doing an overall review. With the outcome of the review, of course, it will take some investment to make some changes.

We want to have community members involved as well. We do have coordinators and community justice committees that are in some of the communities that were in place, established, working effectively. Some weren’t. Those are the areas that we will continue to strengthen. I think out of this particular review, we want to strengthen our Community Justice Program, which the Member is referring to. Most definitely we want to see more programming to the communities, because I am a firm believer, also, that prevention is the way to go and try to prevent even the young ones going through the court process creating more criminal records. We need to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Chairman, we do spend millions of dollars in correctional facilities. I notice that we are looking at more money going into correctional facilities. I think that we have to reprofile those dollars to make use of those facilities that are useable.

Like I mentioned, the healing camps. We are also looking at alternative means of having people that basically have minor offences, that they don’t have to serve their time, taking them out of the communities, find a way that they can serve their time in our communities than having all of these expenditures made to fly these people out; court costs, incarceration costs, a cost of $85,000 a year to keep someone in jail. That $85,000 could be invested in our communities to keep those people at the community level, work with the communities to work with these individuals and make the positive choices in their lives and turn their lives around and find solutions at the community level. For $85,000, we probably could do a lot more in our communities than being able to have a person incarcerated in a larger facility such as Hay River and YCI. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this could be part of other departmental initiative as well. We are currently working with Health and Social Services. As the Member did touch on FASD and FAS, the clientele that we have and we do recognize that there are in a system in Fort Smith. There are certain programs for them as well. But with incarceration of certain individuals does cause costs to our department at the correctional level. One of the focuses will be possibly to divert the funding to the community programming. That is our goal. We continue to work with the judges, the NWT Supreme Court judges, to identify the importance of

having community-based programming. Again, we have been successful in achieving that. We want to do more of that in the regions.

Mr. Chairman, the last issue I would like to talk about is community policing -- my favourite subject -- for Tsiigehtchic. I know this issue has been bounced around this House for a number of years. I would just like to get the Minister to give me an update on what is the status of community policing for Tsiigehtchic. There was an issue around housing in Fort McPherson getting an extra member. I would like to know. Can you give me an update on what is the status of that? When can we see police services in Tsiigehtchic by way of the Fort McPherson detachment?

Mr. Chairman, the policing services have been provided from out of Fort McPherson. I need to get more detailed information as to the specifics of where it is now. I will get that to the Member.

Mr. Chairman, this particular issue has been brought to my federal/provincial/territorial colleagues just last week. I did raise communities without detachments. We do have them in the Northwest Territories. Again, pressuring the federal government of the importance of it. We also talked about First Nations policing policy as well. It is all interrelated to the communities without detachments. We are doing what we can to provide policing services and will continue to do so. We will provide more detailed information to the Member. Mahsi, Mr. Chairman.