I’ll commit to the Member to get him a complete list of sites in the Sahtu, federal and territorial, as they currently exist today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to that list. The Doi T’oh Territorial Park and the Canol Heritage Trail are 942 square kilometres. Can I ask the Minister if he would provide a remediation, contamination report on the cleanup, because this is in discussion with this government here, as regards to our responsibility once all the checks and balances have been signed off and we take ownership of those two areas?

I once again recollect flying down, having the benefit of being able to take a tour of partway into Doi T’oh Canyon into Godlin Lake with the Member, and it is truly spectacular country. You can see the remnants from World War II. That is still a federal area. As the Member has pointed out, there is a considerable amount of remediation that has to be done. When that is done to the satisfaction of all parties, then the territorial government will look at taking over the remediated site. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We need to look at this issue. I would

suggest a broader perspective of why we have placed such a high cost on alcohol. Having spent a good number of years in social services, five and a half years as Health Minister, I can tell you it’s because the abuse of alcohol costs this government over $100 million a year, probably more if you add in all the costs related to hospitals and FASD children. We just approved in this House, I think about $11 million for residents down south, the majority of which, if you checked the case files, would have alcohol abuse in there somewhere.

So, we have deliberately placed the high price on some of the things that are causing the most trouble in our jurisdiction. Those two things are alcohol and tobacco. Northerners have a prodigious thirst and a fairly prodigious propensity to smoke or use tobacco, all of which we know, when they’re abused, can be deadly.

We have made a conscious decision for many, many years now to stick to that. It’s the same concept as a carbon tax. If you make the price high enough, it’s supposed to drive down consumption. It hasn’t quite worked yet, but it’s still something we see as a very, very big issue.

So in regards to this issue, we have offered up an incentive, as the Member has indicated, 50 percent, but the bottom line rationale is what’s the impact of alcohol on our society and our government and our coffers as a government, and it’s dramatic, and that’s why we are where we are. I’m not sure there would be the public will to start cutting taxes for alcohol. Thank you.

A very thorough response, but again, we’re trying to start a start-up company. While the admitted markup for beer produced in the NWT has been substantially reduced, as we indicated, it still stands out in significant contrast to lower rates for micro-breweries in every other Canadian jurisdiction.

Can the Minister indicate, what is the competitive advantage of having the highest micro-brewery tax rate in the country while trying to encourage business manufacturing, jobs, tourism potential and attracting what he has proposed, a 2,000 population growth? Thank you.

The direction that has been chosen by the government consistently over the many Assemblies that I’ve been here and prior is to see the need to try to control the abuse of alcohol. One of the ways we’ve chosen to do that is to put a tax on it that would be a disincentive to use, in addition to all the education and all the programs we have trying to work with communities for healthy babies and smart choices and active living.

So, we have two issues. The Member wants us to have a very modest tax regime to encourage the

production of alcohol, and I’m saying I think we have a broader societal obligation and a governmental obligation, and that’s to try to manage the devastation that’s caused by alcohol abuse.

We do recognize the value of this type of business. We do provide some incentive. But if, once again, we’re going to make a decision to cut taxes on alcohol, we can’t just pick the micro-brewery. I would suggest we need to have a very broad policy discussion about what is our approach going to be across the board, because it would be a dramatic shift if that’s what we decide to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As of December 2014, the GNWT updated their tax regime to a three-tiered system. This was allegedly to match the start of production of the new brewery. However, after speaking to the manufacturers myself, they feel that the 2,500 hectolitre maximum threshold would be met in no time and just when this company is considering market penetration to the South.

Can the Minister indicate how can our local manufacturer, a micro-brewery, expect to be competitive with southern micro-brewery producers when we have the highest energy costs of production in Canada, we have high transportation costs, and now we have the highest micro tax regime in the country?

If there is consistent will expressed by committee, SCOPP, for example, that we need to have a review of the tax rates on alcohol production, beer production, and if they make that clear to us, we will have a discussion about that. But I would suggest to the Member you can’t just pick a micro-brewery and talk about some kind of modified favourable tax rate. We would have to be prepared to talk about taxes on alcohol, what’s our position on alcohol, how do we want to manage the business piece along with dealing with the incredible social impact that we know exists in every one of our communities. In fact, the Member for the Sahtu just passed a private member’s bill to make sure that people in his region would have a say and a right to some direction being provided in terms of access to alcohol. This is a very, very important, sensitive subject, and I don’t think it would be good management, good government for us to talk specifically about let’s look at a specialized rate for micro-breweries.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very much aware of the social impact of alcohol in the Northwest Territories. Sitting on the standing committee, I see all too well all the issues around the Northwest Territories. I believe that this is not impeding this. We’re talking about an industry.

Cleary, this government has an opportunity to do the right thing and to re-evaluate this tax regime on micro-brewery manufacturing in the Northwest Territories.

Will the Minister commit to re-examining this tax regime and to bring our tax system with what is considered standard best practice for this type of small-scale brewery?

If this House represented by the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning writes to us as a government, to me as the Minister of Finance saying that it is the will of this Legislature that we look at adjusting the prices of alcohol to be more favourable to the producers of the alcohol, then of course we will look at engaging in that discussion. But I would point out it will not just be focused on the business opportunity that may be provided by providing some kind of tax incentive to a micro-brewery, that I would suggest that it would become a much more fundamental policy discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions today for the Minister of Human Resources. I’d like to ask some questions about the policies that I referenced in my Member’s statement.

I’d like to, first of all, ask the Minister in regard to the Human Resources Manual. I found it extremely difficult to get information when I was researching policies in HR, and I found the HR Manual had absolutely no information on voluntary separation. I had to then go and find a number of policies elsewhere, which I did find but took a little digging.

I’d like to, first of all, ask the Minister why do we not have all HR policies in the HR Manual so everything is in one place?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister of HR, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The section on voluntary separation, the Staff Retention Policy and so on are in the Collective Agreement that we have with the UNW. The voluntary separation is also a policy that we’ve discussed with the UNW as per the Collective Agreement, and it’s in Section 27 of the Public Service Act. However, why they are not all consolidated, if they are not all consolidated in the HR Manual, I don’t have the answer for that at this time. But I will ensure that if there are policies that are scattered around in the act or in the agreement and not all in the Human Resources Manual, I will ensure that they are put under one consolidated manual.

I couldn’t quite hear the Minister at the end but I thought he said that he was going to encompass in the HR Manual all the policies, all the various policies that we have, the one for voluntary separation, the one for affected employees. I can’t remember the names, but there are two or three other ones.

Is that what the Minister said, that he is going to encompass all policies in the HR Manual, and if that’s the case, when will that be done?

Anything that should be appropriately reflected in the HR Manual, if we have to take sections of policy out of the act and so on and incorporate them into the manual, we will do that. I will have the department begin work on that as soon as it is possible for them to begin work on that.

Thanks to the Minister. There are specific policies that are listed, so I don’t think we have to take anything out of an act. I heard him say when we’re going to start but I didn’t hear an end date, so that will be interesting.

I’d like to ask the Minister another question about it. I don’t believe this is a policy, but it’s something that has come to my attention. I do believe that we have a fair number of GNWT employees who work for the GNWT but do not live in the NWT. They have moved out. They may be contracted on an annual basis but they are not living here. They are working from home in Calgary, in Montreal, in Edmonton, any number of different places.

I’d like to ask the Minister, do we have a policy or is there a policy that governs NWT employees, GNWT employees who do not live here but work for the GNWT?

There are individuals who would work for the GNWT who would have their jobs specifically in a down south location; however, employees who work for the GNWT who have their jobs here should be working here. I’ve only heard of one employee who was working at a distance, and that was an individual who was working in Alberta for the GNWT, and I was looking into that to see how that was possible and why that was happening. My preference, of course, and the preference of this government is that if the individuals are working for the GNWT, then they be located at their job sites in the NWT.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.