Wendy Bisaro

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion. I move that clause 4 of Bill 16 be amended by deleting proposed subsections 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for that response. I guess maybe if that information went to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure I did not see it as I’m not on that committee. I’d like to ask the Premier if he would commit to providing the information that went to Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure relative to the amendment of these regulations. If he could commit to provide that to me and Members on this side of the House.

I didn’t hear an answer to the question there. If a department brings forward a proposal, there must have been some basis on which a decision is made to go on one side or the other. I didn’t hear an answer as to what basis that decision was made on.

I’d like to know also from the Premier, when this decision was being considered, was there an evaluation of the risk to the project, for instance, cost overruns, if the project went ahead to construction without approval of bridge design?

I congratulate the department for their hard work to manage the risk in both the current construction phase and for going back to ensure quality in phase 1, but the weaknesses in the management of risk in the other three areas is cause for concern. That concern and that finding and many other findings, Mr. Speaker, deserve comments, but I have no time. You’ve allotted me an extra bit already, thank you very much, and I will have questions for the Premier at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to help out my colleagues. It is on page 3 of the bill. It is at the top of the page.

I wanted to make this motion because I believe... I know this is a recommendation from committee. I sat in on many of the committee meetings. I attended the public hearings here in Yellowknife. I did not travel with the committee to other communities, but I got a pretty good sense, I think, of where people sit in terms of the clause that talked about traditional practice and use of dogs in traditional practices.

It is my belief that we don’t need these three sections in the act...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support this motion. It’s a terribly tragic situation and one which deserves an impartial and an honest and external investigation. I find it impossible to believe that in this situation that there are not some policies, some protocols, some procedures at the hospital that should be amended so that this doesn’t happen again. I support my colleague Mr. Abernethy in his request that we have this investigation so that it does not happen in the future to anybody else, and it’s entirely possible that without any changes to what’s going on at the hospital at this...

I didn’t really hear an answer to my question about what kind of evaluation was done at the time that the decision was made so I guess I’m not going to get one.

I’d like to ask the Premier, in February of 2008 as well we’ve understood from the Auditor General’s report that regulations to the Financial Administration Act were amended and at that time the requirement for 14 days’ advance notice to Members was also waived. I’d like to know from the Premier why Members were not advised of the waiving or the amendment to the regulations even if it had to be after the fact.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are addressed to the Premier today and I want to speak to some of the questions that have arisen from the Auditor General’s report.

In February of 2008, when the project was at financial close and things were in a bit of a critical situation, I believe that the Department of Transport expressed concern that the bridge design was not complete, and at that point, according to what the Minister of Transportation said earlier, there was a decision by Cabinet to go ahead with the project without design approval. I’d like to know on what basis, if the Premier can...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to comment on the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge Project. In general, the findings are not surprising. This massive construction project was forced ahead by this government a number of times, in spite of warning signs which should have slowed or paused the project. Signs such as a financial analysis in 2007, which determined that a conventional approach to the project, instead of a P3, would provide significant savings for the project. Such as, in February 2008 at the time of financial close, the government had not approved the bridge design...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that clause 4 of Bill 20 be amended by striking out “any proceedings before a quality assurance committee” in proposed paragraph 14(1)(a) and substituting “any proceedings before or that have been before a quality assurance committee”.