Bob Bromley

Just a couple more quick ones and then I want to follow the Minister’s comments up, which I appreciate, by asking for his assurance that he will be referencing the committee reports today and the Auditor General’s comments and principles on P3 partnerships, and making sure that those are well referenced in the model that we finally adopt, and that in fact we will not be going out to private partners and adopting their advice on a model to be followed by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask a couple of questions on this project, as well. The $4.2 million being proposed here for this payout brings a total, as I understand it, to about $17.4 million for the Taltson project. These, of course, are all public funds that are going towards an unregulated power project with a partner that has no funds to contribute. Although I believe they did bring some modest, or were instrumental in helping the government bring in some federal dollars, modest though they might have been.

Where are we at in terms of paying those dollars back? Is the project still...

I’m not sure whether the Minister is avoiding the question here or just choosing to give unrelated answers, but I did point out very clearly that I’m not talking about meeting with Aboriginal groups. I see that that’s well identified here. I’m talking about, if you want to call it, a necessary component of negotiations towards a final agreement that is delivered by consulting with the public and developing our common understanding amongst all NWT residents about what we mean when we negotiate for authority for sustainable resource development, resource and land management regimes, and this is...

I’m not sure what the Minister was saying there. Was he saying that in fact his first answer was being adjusted here, or was this $572,000 identified just for meeting with the two Aboriginal partners towards resource revenue sharing? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just on the issue of the funding for the devolution negotiations, I’m wondering if the dollars that have been identified for working with the partners… I believe there’s about $572,000 for working on negotiations related to resource revenue sharing. Does that include potential partners or is that identified for just the government working with the two Aboriginal groups that have signed onto the AIP? Thank you.

Thanks for the commitment from the Minister, once again. Mr. Speaker, last session I spoke of overlap and duplication and the development of programs for men who use violence with a GNWT program that had been developed without even the knowledge of all coalition partners. The coalition was created as a clearing house of this work and is recommending a three-year community-based pilot program to create a territorial program standard. Will the Minister commit to working with his Cabinet colleagues to support this program and ensure that the departments use the coalition forum as their partners...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are following up on my Member’s statement yesterday on the report from the Coalition Against Family Violence. They are for the Minister of Health and Social Services and Deputy Premier. Recent statistics, sadly, show that family violence continues to get worse. Two hundred and thirty-eight women and children came forward to violence shelters for the first time in 2010-11; that’s new incidents. NWT women seek escape from violence and shelter at five times the national rate. Ninety-two percent of 27,000 people responding to the 2007 survey said more...

I guess I would call on all of the House to ensure that the Auditor General’s guidance is reflected in that policy before it’s approved.

Just my last question here. Given that $17.4 million has been spent and the development costs for the project were estimated to be $20 million, we’re now over 80 percent expended on the budget for developing the project. Although it’s on hold, I understand from the chairman of the Power Corporation that development, or perhaps the Hydro Corporation development, is still proceeding or explorations towards a restructuring and so on. Again, presumably that would...

I thank the Minister for those remarks. I think many of us are disappointed that this project did not work out better and are still hopeful that something can be pulled out of the fire. I am concerned with one of the justifications for this sort of ongoing funding. That is that our partner is worthy of this investment essentially because they are contributing to project knowledge about financial structuring such as the P3 public-private partnership model. Now, I would hope that the government would not need to go to a vested partner that has everything to gain and nothing to lose, for advice...

Again, I thank the Minister for that somewhat unrelated comment. Thank you.