Debates of August 22, 2007 (day 15)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of what I want to say has already been covered by other Members, so I am going to be very brief. To the motion, Mr. Speaker, how we feel as Regular Members on this side of the House is happy about the bridge but demoralized by the process. That’s how I feel. I mean who couldn’t be happy for Fort Providence and be happy for the bridge? I don’t know whether we need the bridge, but you know what? Representing Hay River, I don’t really care because Yellowknife is paying for it anyway, ultimately.

---Laughter

Well, that $2 million a year, that is only going to offset inflation and the costs going up. That is not really a bad investment of this government. That can be rationalized. But what I can’t rationalize is the attitude on the other side of the House, sitting there, basically thumbing their noses at us over here saying we are doing it, come to the celebration. So, sure, I am going to Fort Providence on Friday. I am going to stand there, I am going to applaud Fort Providence and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and we are going to celebrate the bridge, but I’ll tell you, we are not feeling all that good about it just by virtue of this process which was not transparent, which did not show respect to the Members of this House and that government, for that, should be ashamed of themselves. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to speak briefly to the motion. Let’s take a little look back at history. You know, we go back, we’re either the eighth or the ninth Legislative Assembly to debate whether there should be a bridge or not. It goes back in to the ‘70s. In the 1970s, $6 million was too much to build the bridge. When it was $50 million, $75 million, it was always too much and today it’s too much in people’s minds, but we can’t keep debating these things forever. We have to move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a little bit of background just on this project and point out that this was proposed in 2002 as a P3 project, a new, novel idea of how we could build a bridge. The model was based on a toll of $6 a tonne in 2002. That has remained the same and that is indexed for inflation. That’s always been the agreement based on the consumer price index. Nichols Applied Management did an economic analysis in 2002 and updated it in 2003. A copy of that was provided to Members in the 14th Assembly and again in the 15th Assembly it was provided to everyone. The economic analysis focused on the impact of the bridge on the cost of living and compared the cost of the toll against the estimated savings of the bridge versus the current operation of a ferry and an ice crossing. The overall cost of the bridge was never looked at as a factor in determining the impact on the cost of living. It’s always been based on the toll and we have remained consistent with that.

Let me say that the government, I did, I was there, and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation did a briefing to Members on July the 12th. We went through the economic models. Andrew Gamble led us through that. We looked at the numbers from every which way, we reviewed the financial impact, the costs estimate, you talked about the changes in interest rates, the potential of other projects like the hydro development and the possible Bathurst Inlet port. We talked about all that on July 12th.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that has remained constant throughout this whole debate, right up to the last briefing with Members on July the 12th, was the fact that this is based on a toll per tonne at $6 and adjusted for inflation. Mr. Speaker, the economic analysis, if you think back, go look back at your copy of the report that was done and given to you, you will find that that report shows that all vehicles, private and commercial, would be dollars ahead with the bridge rather than with a ferry or an ice crossing. In fact, it shows that the savings would be greatest for those who use the ferry and somewhat less for those that did the ice crossing. That was all shown.

Mr. Speaker, the communities that benefit most are the communities north of the Mackenzie River. Not just Yellowknife, but also Behchoko, Fort Providence and I would say, and I don’t recall, but the report, I believe also looked at the communities that have their supplies, their goods, their people flown in from the Yellowknife Airport to somewhere on this side. The facts are, for the consumers, the savings from this project outweigh the costs. That was true in 2002; it’s true again. Look at the reports that you have, think back on the July 12th briefing that you had with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and ourselves.

Companies have approached us because we’re running into a crisis, and I mentioned it once before, that last year we had to shut the ferry down because of low water, temperatures are changing. Companies are coming to us now saying, can we run the ferry for 24 hours a day to deal with some of the backlog of traffic that they have today and they anticipate peaking in October? Those are all reasons why we need to move ahead with this. Even if we set aside the tolls, the savings to anybody who lives on this side of the river is great.

Mr. Speaker, some Members have asked about the urgency; I’ve heard Members here, I’ve listened carefully, they’re talking about the urgency of moving on with this. It’s true that the price of the bridge has increased substantially. If we had been able to move ahead quickly with it in 2002-2003, we were looking at about a $75 million bridge where today we’re looking at a total cost of somewhere around $150 million; the contract being a good piece of that, but not all of it. Steel prices are going up; other goods and services in Western Canada are going up. In fact, globally we’re seeing the same thing happen. There’s no easy or quick turnaround. That’s predicted with China, with India, with other places that are big on demand.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the investment by the GNWT of another $2 million a year to make this project move ahead now is a good investment. We’ve got additional revenues from the federal government and this is going to be an investment that in two, three, five, 10 years after the bridge was built we can say that this is the best decision we’ve ever made. We would have said that in the 1970s if the people had built the bridge at that time. We would have said it in 1980s, 1990s, we could have said it in 2002 if we had built the bridge then at the price of it those days. We’ll say the same thing five years from now.

It should also be noted that we are receiving significant financial federal funding increase over the next while. We’ll soon be signing a framework agreement with the federal government on Building Canada, the infrastructure money. There is additional revenue that we are receiving. It may not be tied directly to the bridge, but it’s there.

Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to point out that we have come to an arrangement, come to a deal. We haven’t signed a contract yet, there’s still some paperwork to be done with Atcon Group out of New Brunswick who have stepped forward and offered to build the bridge for a guaranteed maximum price. This is not a management or a cost plus project at all, but it is for a guaranteed price, something which is a big step and I think a big win for us.

Mr. Speaker, in my mind, there’s no reason to defer the bridge. Members may feel they need more information. I’d refer you back to the information given to you, I’d refer you back to the notes, I’ll give you another copy if you want of the information that’s been provided to you. There will always be questions, I’m sure, in people’s minds about it, but I don’t think you’d ever build a project like this without having some uneasiness about whether or not it is going to come in at the prices that we’re voting, and with that guaranteed maximum price I think we’ve got as much assurance as we can.

A further delay is only going to add uncertainty and add more cost. It could easily kill this project and I think destroy the NWT’s credibility. I think we have to stop acting like we’re a little branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and the federal government and act like a government, make these decisions. We have to build infrastructure, we know we have to do it and we can’t be always going hand out to the federal government. Let’s make our own decisions here in this Legislative Assembly and be responsible.

The bridge across the Mackenzie would not only change the physical landscape, but I think symbolizes a lot of change in the political and the economic landscape in the Northwest Territories. This project, along with our work to promote other large transportation infrastructure projects like the Mackenzie Valley highway and the road to Tuk are critical in building a strong and prosperous territory. I’d take the same approach to those projects as I did with the Deh Cho Bridge and I hope the next government does the same thing, just keeps promoting that we need to build infrastructure and we have to get on with it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Members’ comments. I’ve listened carefully. I understand what you’re saying. The Cabinet will not be voting on this motion. It’s a recommendation to us and I appreciate the comments and the positions taken by all of the Members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. I’ll allow the mover of the motion to pose a debate on the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Premier for his comments. I also thank the Members who spoke in favour of the motion that we have before us today. I just wanted to close with saying a few more things.

I know the Premier spoke of making decisions as a territory and being accountable. That’s all fine and good, Mr. Speaker, but at no moment in time were Members of this House, Regular Members, part of the decision-making process to spend the additional $2 million, and that, to me, is the fundamental problem that I have with the bridge project. That was a unilateral decision by Cabinet to go ahead and rely on that five-year-old piece of legislation to negotiate a deal. Like I said the other day, nowhere in the Deh Cho Bridge Act does it say build a bridge, Government, at any price. I think if the price has doubled, there should be an obligation on the government to come back and ask Members if they feel it’s necessary to spend that additional money that’s going to impact the governments for the next 35 years on the bridge project. We’ve never had that discussion. We’ve never had a vote on that. The government never brought that issue back here. We’ve never had a debate on whether or not we should spend $2 million more.

Mr. Speaker, that speaks again to the accountability and the transparency. How am I going to explain to my constituents, many of whom want to see a bridge built, I want to see a bridge built across the Mackenzie River, but not at any price and I want to know how it is that the government can make a decision without including us in the decision. How am I going to explain to my constituents how it is the government got into a deal with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation to build a bridge for $150 million, charge tolls of $6.75 a tonne, which will be more in 2010, without, and I repeat, without going back to the stakeholders in the North Slave region as they did in 2002? The parameters have changed. Make no mistake about that. Things are much different five years later. The consultation wasn’t done. I know Mr. Braden spoke of a press conference and I believe it was Mr. Albert Lafferty from Fort Providence spoke of the more people that understand this project, the more they will support it. I think a quote like that goes a long way, Mr. Speaker. The more people understand what is going on, the more they will support it. I firmly do believe that.

We haven’t heard whether in fact the elders in Fort Providence are happy what the environmental impact on the river might be with a bridge across it, but we haven’t seen that level of detail. We haven’t been able to ask those questions. Again, Mr. Speaker, if I could, where is the economic modelling, where is the economic modelling on the Deh Cho Bridge project? The Premier says it’s the same as 2002, you just plug in new numbers. The tolls are going up, it’s $150 million and he expects us to believe it. He expects us to believe it. Show us the proof. That’s all we want, that’s all I want. I want to be able to tell my constituents the Premier is quick to say the cost of living will not go up in the North Slave region. I beg to differ with the Premier on that assertion that the cost of living will not increase here in the North Slave region with this bridge being built. They have yet to prove that, Mr. Speaker.

So I think the government should come clean on an economic benefit analysis on this bridge before it’s too late, and too late is 48 hours from now, Mr. Speaker. Somebody should be paying attention. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the past several years have been a difficult, but ultimately transformative time for the Workers' Compensation Board, with the recent appointment of a new president, the conclusion of an in-depth performance review by the Auditor General of Canada, the development of a bill to replace the 30-year-old Workers' Compensation Act, and the rendering of court decisions which have declared some of the board's practices flawed;

AND WHEREAS the Workers' Compensation Board has, on balance, maintained a sound financial base and stable premiums;

AND WHEREAS the Workers' Compensation Board faces increasing challenges with the acceleration of resource development in both the mining and hydrocarbon sectors;

AND WHEREAS the Governance Council, under Mr. Denny Rodgers' chairmanship, has demonstrated stability and consistency in their mandate as stewards of the Workers' Compensation Board;

AND WHEREAS consistency and continuity are needed to ensure that the work begun and changes made by the Governance Council are advanced in a positive manner, particularly through the implementation of the action plan to address the recommendations of the Auditor General and the new Workers' Compensation Act;

AND WHEREAS Mr. Rodgers' term as chair of the Governance Council is set to expire October 12, 2007;

AND WHEREAS the 15th Assembly will be dissolved on August 31, 2007;

AND WHEREAS, as a general principle, appointments to positions as significant as chair of the Governance Council of the Workers' Compensation Board should not be revisited during an election period when there are no Regular Members for Ministers to account to;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board extend Mr. Denny Rodgers' appointment as chair of the Governance Council to April 12, 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member from Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unusual, Mr. Speaker, that discussions about the appointment or proposed consideration of any individual be considered on the floor of the Assembly. This is something that is normally handled through another selection and screening and appointment processes. But while it is unusual to bring it in, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that it is an unusual circumstance that this Assembly, and I believe the Workers’ Compensation Board, finds itself in.

As the motion referenced, there have been a number of major shifts and transformations and transitions undertaken and underway within the Governance Council and within the board itself.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Members here have noticed and have been very impressed with and pleased with under the chairmanship of Mr. Rodgers is that the Governance Council has really weathered some fairly stormy seas in the last couple of years and it has done so, I think, with a degree of confidence and certainty that gives us a lot of optimism, Mr. Speaker, for the future of the WCB as it continues to go through these transitions. We believe that it’s really important at this time that we did not want to leave the continuance of this kind of leadership uncertain. While it is, as I say, unusual for this kind of thing to come before the Assembly in this fashion, that it was warranted, it was merited that we send a signal of confidence to our Cabinet colleagues, the Minister responsible as well as to our sister Assembly in Nunavut with who we share the mandate for the WCB. We believe that the organization has shown itself to be in good hands under Mr. Rodgers’ chairmanship and that we would really like to see this continue. Therefore, the recommendation was to extend his appointment, which expires in October, until next April, for a six-month period I believe it is, at which time the next Assembly of the Northwest Territories can get its feet on the ground and consider the formal and extended reappointment of Mr. Rodgers to this organization. So it is a signal of confidence in the leadership that we know is there. I’ve spoke to Mr. Rodgers myself, I know that he is ready to undertake this for another term. Considering the complexity and the significance of this work, I don’t think there are too many people in the NWT who are ready to undertake it. When you have somebody as competent as Mr. Rodgers and is willing to carry on, I say let’s give him that endorsement and make sure he continues to be the leader of the Governance Council for the next appropriate term, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me say this in one sentence: new legislation, new Minister, new government, new CEO. We need stability, continuity, I support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to be very brief as well, although I can’t promise to be as brief as Mrs. Groenewegen from Hay River South. Mr. Speaker, I just want to acknowledge two things. One is it’s not usual for us to have a debate like this where we are mentioning a specific individual to maintain in the position. I think this is an extraordinary effort in that way.

I am also mindful that the Workers’ Compensation Board is independent from the government and I respect that independence. Having said that, I am in support of this motion for the very reason that Mrs. Groenewegen so succinctly and so articulately stated: new legislation, new government.

This legislation we just passed, we just passed a brand new Workers’ Compensation Act. It has been in the works for months and months, if not years. For the last eight years, the board has gone through tremendous workload, effort, issues, and we have worked through all of that. We finally concluded that yesterday and we are in our last 48 hours in terms of the session, even though the Ministers are in place. There is a new government coming in. I know Mr. Rodgers personally and he wouldn’t be doing it if he wasn’t a competent chair. I am going to say I support this motion regardless of who the person is in place. We are looking for stability and continuity. We have a new CEO now that we would like somebody who has been in the place throughout this legislation-making process to be there for just a few months after the next government comes in. Chances are there will be new Ministers getting assignments after the new government and the work can continue and the board and the staff have less changes than they are going to be facing if everybody changes. In that spirit, I will be voting in favour of this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the issues I have with this motion which has been included, is my concern that we do not have a policy that states that no appointments, especially serious appointments, where there is no emergency pending or falling before us, that we should not be appointing a position just before an election. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want anybody to compromise anybody’s appointment by saying it’s a political appointment to gain favour just before or after an election. So, Mr. Speaker, my concerns and points have been raised in this motion. I will be voting in favour with my other colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have considered this motion. There is a process in place for selecting a new chairperson. Mr. Rodgers’ position doesn’t expire until after the life of this government, I think it’s October 12th or 9th. We have checked with the Workers’ Compensation Board to see if there are any reasons with regard to quorums, workloads or activities that had to go on before the new government would be officially in place. There was none. So, Mr. Speaker, we find it very difficult to reach into the next government’s responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, in spite of that, because it’s a recommendation, Cabinet will not be voting on this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. I will allow closing remarks by the mover, Mr. Braden.

Succinct. Thank you. I am just digging around for my thesaurus but I couldn’t find it. My colleagues have raised all the relevant issues. Mr. Handley has spoken to it from the government side. We recognize the process for soliciting ideas and nominations is already underway. We hope that the next government and our sister territory, Nunavut, accepts the discussion and recommendation in that spirit, as one of confidence and a positive outlook for the WCB in the future. With that, I welcome the vote, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Good afternoon, Members. I would like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? We have three items before us today. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the committee wishes to consider Bill 7, Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act; Committee Report 4-15(6), Report on Community Consultation on Proposed Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Legislation; and Committee Report 15-(6), Report on the Review of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s 2005-2006 Annual Report. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Lafferty. Does committee agree?

Agreed.

Thank you. We will do that after a short break. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

The first thing on our agenda is Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act. I would like to ask Minister Bell if he would like to provide the bill’s opening comments. Minister Bell.

I am pleased to come before Committee of the Whole to discuss Bill 7, Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act. This legislation has received an extensive public review. Literally hundreds of NWT residents participated in the standing committee's public review and prior to that in the department's consultations. I think that this level of interest reflects a concern shared by residents throughout the territory about the kind and level of illegal activities harming our communities. By listening to residents' concerns, we can develop solutions that truly address their needs.

The Standing Committee on Social Programs has made a number of important observations regarding this bill, and I thank the committee for its thoughtful consideration of the issues. Members have recommended additional safeguards, and I am prepared to introduce five motions to amend this bill to do just that.

The first motion would automatically freeze a community safety order on an application by a tenant of a residential property to vary the order. This would allow occupants to stay in the property until the application was heard.

The second motion would ensure that when the director applies to court for a community safety order, the tenants or occupants would also receive a copy of the application. This notice would be in addition to any warnings they would receive as part of the informal process. This change reinforces the protections that are already available under the Rules of Court and ensure they have the ability to make their case in open court.

The third motion would allow a community safety order to be appealed on grounds other than a point of law. This provides additional protection for the occupants of the property.

The fourth motion would allow the director to seek a court order if information critical to the investigation is not provided.

The first and last motion would remove the penalties for members of the public who refuse to provide information to the director as part of a SCAN investigation.

These motions help to balance the rights of residents who may be afraid to give information with the needs of the investigator to collect information essential to the investigation.

These motions address concerns the standing committee has raised about the legislation. They strengthen the bill and provide additional protection for people who are affected by these destructive activities.

I think every Member of this Legislative Assembly is aware of drug houses, illegal gambling and bootlegging operations in his or her constituency. These operations disrupt community life and create unsafe situations for everyone who lives there. This government has often been asked to shut these operations down. SCAN is a way to do that, but it would only apply to properties where the illegal activity was ongoing and disruptive to the neighbourhood or community.

Madam Chair, safer communities legislation is in effect in Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. Newfoundland has just passed a similar bill into law, and in Alberta a similar bill is at second reading. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. After a safer communities office is opened, investigators are able to move quickly to shut down problem properties. People often write to the SCAN investigators, their elected officials and even their local newspapers to say that they are relieved that something has finally been done to stop the activities affecting their neighbourhood. If we want a northern example, we have only to look to our Yukon neighbours. In the first seven months of operation, about 100 residents placed complaints with the office and actions were taken to stop disruptive activities at 20 properties. No applications for community safety orders were made.

As indicated in standing committee's report, questions still remain on how this legislation can and should work in NWT communities. These include:

What will happen to families if the primary breadwinner is evicted?

How will this program work with other social services and supports? With the RCMP?

How will SCAN work in our smaller communities?

How will the staffing model be developed? Can we consider a regionally-based, decentralized model?

Will there be a toll-free number for people to use?

What involvement will justice committees have?

Will the Supreme Court travel to communities to hear applications for community safety orders? Will it hear applications by teleconference?

These are important questions that need to be answered as we develop the program. The bill provides the legislative framework for implementation, but it does not include these details of implementation. Extensive discussions need to take place with government departments, social agencies and local leadership. These details will take about a year to work through and would include developing policies and protocols with other agencies, producing communications materials, and hiring staff.

Education is also essential. It is clear there are still misconceptions about this new tool. I have addressed some of these in the document I tabled yesterday. The public needs to know how this legislation will work in their communities.

This bill provides the necessary legislative framework for the next critical steps to be taken. It provides the next government with the opportunity to decide what those steps will be.

It is my hope that the NWT will join the five other jurisdictions in introducing safer communities legislation. Like them, I believe it can be an effective part of the GNWT's effort to make communities safer places for everyone. I believe it is important to have the tools to take action against habitual destructive activities that undermine other efforts to achieve our goal of healthy, safe and vibrant communities. This new tool would be added to the actions we are already taking in partnership with other departments, agencies and communities to tackle these serious issues.

I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Bell. There will be no response from the Standing Committee on Social Programs as the report from the standing committee is already before the House. At this time, I will ask Minister Bell if he has witnesses he would like to bring into the Chamber. Minister Bell.

I do, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Does committee agree?

Agreed.

Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.

Minister Bell, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With me is Janice Laycock and Janis Cooper, Department of Justice. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Bell. At this time I will ask the committee if there are any general comments.

Clause by clause.

Bill 7, Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, interpretation, clause 1.

Agreed.

Clause 2.

Agreed.

Clause 3.

Agreed.

Clause 4.

Agreed.

Clause 5.

Agreed.

Clause 6.

Agreed.

Clause 7.