Mr. Speaker, on my way I saw a constituent, Mr. Archie Smith, who I’m very pleased and honoured to recognize, and as well Mr. Rodgers, the chair of the WCB from Inuvik. I had breakfast with him this morning.
I’d like to recognize two residents of Hay River South: Heather Copewell, who is here awaiting the arrival of a new baby; and my constituency assistant, Wendy Morgan.
Mr. Speaker, I realize Mr. Braden has already been recognized, but may I just take this opportunity to tell him that we do miss him around here. I know we have new Members here. And also to wish him well in his career as a photographer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize the interpreters and interpreter trainees: Alizette Abel; Terry Villeneuve; Archie Smith — the bestest guy; Mary Jane Michel; Bernadette Lockhart; Elizabeth Boucher; Henry Catholique; and Joyce Isadore. Thank you.
If we’ve missed anyone in the gallery today, welcome to the House. I hope you’re enjoying the proceedings. It’s always nice to have an audience in here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re all aware of cost overruns on many of our infrastructure projects, which have been spiralling out of control for a number of years. It’s something we need to be very concerned about and finally get on top of, because projects get cancelled and deferred.
It has come to my attention that one of the contributing factors to this problem is the way the fees are structured for project consultants. The fees are structured based on a percentage, which actually may give the consultant an incentive to encourage cost overruns. Mr. Speaker, that is not the way we should be running these projects.
My question to the Minister of Public Works and Services is: will the Minister commit to a timely review of the fees we are providing to consultants to ensure they are not unwittingly providing incentives for cost overruns?
Mr. Speaker, the government of the 16th Assembly has appointed a committee made up of all the infrastructure departments in the lead, and what we’re tasked with is to review the infrastructure process and the process used to select and determine prices and also do the construction. We’ll certainly, as part of that, consider the concerns the Member is raising, and we will report back as things progress.
I’m glad to hear it’s at least being discussed, but the way the Minister coins it is that status quo will continue to be the process that we’ll live by. I cannot justify that we don’t attach a fixed fee as opposed to percentages, because we cannot justify losing people on jobs over poor fiscal management that this government’s been running by.
So will this Minister, who can do the job, clearly and immediately take on this task and report back to this House on his findings on a way we can save money and fix the process so consultants don’t have the advantage of these projects by encouraging them to go into cost overruns?
I thought I had been very clear and concise when I committed to take that on as part of our review. I’ll reinforce that by saying yes, we will take his advice and follow it up.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not used to a “yes” from this Minister so quickly. Now, what does “immediate” mean in this particular case?
Laughter.
Because at the rate government moves, “immediate” could be the 17th Assembly. So I’d like this Minister’s definition of what “immediate” means. Are we going to see it before the next sitting?
I’d like to respond by saying that the Member can consider it started already. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister Responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation a couple of questions on our residency guidelines.
I’m dealing with an issue back in my riding where a young student went down south, and for whatever reason that student returned to Fort Simpson within two weeks. When she applied for the housing program, they said she was ineligible because she was a non-resident because she moved away. There is something fundamentally wrong with that assessment there, Mr. Speaker.
I’d like to ask the Minister about the guidelines and policies with respect to accessing programming when you’re a student.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m aware of the case that the Member’s referencing, and I have the same question. I’m in the process of following up with the Housing Corporation that leaving this Territory for two weeks should in no way impair a Northerner’s residency. So we’re in the process of sorting that one out.
Just in general terms, what exactly is the policy for our students who are going down south to get trained and wanting to come back to live and work? We shouldn’t be creating barriers for them to live, either. But what exactly is the existing policy, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, under the rules of SFA, as long as a student is on SFA and is training and is eligible for SFA and is down south in post-secondary institutions upgrading their education, they continue to be considered a Territory resident, they’re covered with their health care, they continue to get SFA, and they’re considered to be N.W.T. residents for the purposes of all those areas, including voting. So we’re very clear that if you’re there for two years, four years, working on your Masters, you’re a Northerner, and we want you to come home. Thank you.
It just doesn’t make sense why this rule’s being applied to this student in this case where it didn’t really work out. It happens to many, many students over the course time, where they go down for the course, but it doesn’t work out, so they come home immediately. But she was gone, like, two weeks. We have had employees who take longer holidays down there. Are they non-residents down there as well, Mr. Speaker?
I would like to urge the Minister’s office to review this case carefully and allow this young student, this young adult, to act as their programming and policy intends. Mahsi.
I appreciate the urgency of this issue as articulated by the Member, and I would just reiterate my commitment that this issue is already being dealt with. We have been in contact with the Housing Corporation, and we should quickly get this resolved without too much further ado.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask questions on SFA today, but I guess I’ll just have to ask questions on the Deh Cho Bridge instead.
Mr. Speaker, lots of e-mails have been coming into my e-mail box, and I want to sincerely thank people for taking the time to share their opinions and their questions on this very significant piece of capital infrastructure. I encourage that. Whether it is pro or against, I am very interested in hearing people’s input. I also want to thank people who phoned in this morning and took the trouble to become involved through a phone-in radio show on CBC.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, when the Premier was asked about putting together a projection of what it would cost to terminate the agreement to proceed with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, he indicated that FMBS would embark on that exercise, and this material may be available within a couple of days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he would take the next step in that process by sharing that estimation with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and allowing them to respond as to whether or not they would consider that to be a reasonable determination of costs to exit.
Mr. Speaker, the question asked of them, as I responded the other day, was work we could do for our membership. I am sure, even when the question was asked, that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation’s interest is in looking at what liabilities they may be at risk for.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the agreement with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation does provide for what they call a value for termination on an occasional, from time-to-time, basis.
I would like to ask the Premier: has such a valuation for termination ever been contemplated by this government or shared with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation in order to assess what it would cost our government to terminate this project?
Mr. Speaker, we have not looked at it from a 16th Assembly point of view. In response to the Member the other day, I did commit that we would look at what that potential may be.
I would like to ask the Premier if he would share that valuation that the FMB comes up with, with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation as a next step, to see if they would like to respond to that dollar value.
Mr. Speaker, in a sense there are a number of partners involved in this. We are back stoppers, in a sense, as was pointed out by Members of this Assembly, on this project. Information that we would do, we would share with all parties involved. They haven’t requested this, and I can’t see why we would go to them for their evaluation of our work.
From the FMBS side, we have been monitoring the fiscal impacts of this project and ensuring that we’ve covered off areas of risk points for the G.N.W.T.
The Premier certainly has the opportunity available to him to pose that question to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation after FMBS puts that work together.
Moving on to just a slightly different kind of accountability exercise related to the Deh Cho Bridge, I’d like to ask the Premier if he is aware of the exercise that is referred to as a peer review. There was previously a bridge that was under design and contemplation in British Columbia. It was the $1 billion Golden Ears Bridge. It was in B.C. At one point there was a call for a peer review of the financial circumstances surrounding this project. At the end of the review the entire business model was ordered changed.
Is the Premier familiar with the concept of a peer review of the financial circumstances surrounding this project?
Mr. Speaker, peer reviews are done on a whole number of initiatives. In fact, as we're doing our work in preparing for the business plan, looking at our fiscal situation, deputy ministers would be sitting down together to review each other’s options that they may be working on. We’ve seen that in a number of initiatives throughout.
For ourselves, though, a peer review on the financial side, when you look at it, is a review of the work that's done. There has been a cost-benefit analysis that is public. Yes, when you look at it, the numbers have changed since the price has gone up.
But if we take a Territorial viewpoint here, we would never be able to afford half the communities that are in the Northwest Territories if we stuck to an absolute business model as to what the costs are and the cost-benefit analysis and so on.
I’m not sure what we’d want to do with that area. The information that we're working around has been public.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to my Member’s statement about the road to the gravel source in Aklavik and also about not having it — it’s an essential service — I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation…. In the last couple of years there has been some work that's ongoing between the Department of Transportation, the community of Fort McPherson and the residents of Aklavik for an all-weather road to connect the community of Aklavik to the Dempster Highway. Yet nowhere in the information I’ve been reviewing is there any capital investment in this idea.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation: exactly where is it in the capital planning process that the communities can see some capital investment in developing an access road in Aklavik to the gravel source, which is some 15 kilometres from the community?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Mackenzie Delta for the question in regard to the Aklavik gravel source.
In 1996 the community of Aklavik applied for funding under DOT’s programs in terms of a local program. They fit the funding of what they wanted, and the department responded in terms of assisting Aklavik through an ATV trail.
Since then, Aklavik has gone through many discussions with the department and has requested that the department, along with the government, look at an all-weather road to the gravel source, as the Member has indicated. They want to see where this fits in terms of the plans, in terms of having an access road to that gravel source.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister touched the wrong button with that one. The Community Local Access Road Program as it sits right now only allows a community to access $50,000 a year to put a road in place, yet I notice in the capital plan there is some $500,000 for Nahanni Butte to put a road into that community.
I'd like to ask the Minister: knowing that there is only $50,000 a year and the program hasn't worked, will the Minister consider giving us the same offer that’s being made to Nahanni Butte, of $500,000 a year, to put a road in to the gravel source? Maybe we can do something with that.
I'd like to ask the Minister: is he committed to consider looking at $500,000 a year, similar to what is being offered to Nahanni Butte, to put a road into the gravel source?
Mr. Speaker, the Nahanni Butte road program is a public access road program. The Aklavik road is a community access road program. I would work with the Members here in terms of the issue with Aklavik in terms of seeing what could be done, and I would have to take this up with my colleagues in terms of these programs. There are two different programs we’re looking at in terms of this issue.
Mr. Speaker, again, I believe the Minister said yes. I’d like to thank him for the $500,000, and I look forward to building my road.
Laughter.
I think it’s important, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister realizes that programs and services we do have are consistent and that they are also fairly distributed. I know we are looking at other communities. I know Tuk is asking for a similar arrangement. Again, I think the emergency we’re under is because of the effects of global warming, shore erosion, the amount of floods that we’re starting to see — they’re increasing — and the effect on capital, Mr. Speaker. We spent $2 million in regard to the flood in Aklavik two years ago to haul gravel from Inuvik to Aklavik. That’s a $2 million investment, which could have built this capital investment to get this road in there.
I’d like to ask the Minister: exactly how soon can he respond back to me to find alternatives or options that we can use to find a way to get this into the capital planning process and get this road built so that the people in the community of Aklavik can feel safe and secure in their community?
Mr. Speaker, on the programs we talked about, I would be happy to work with the Member in terms of his issue he’s pressing today for the department and this government. Of course, the department is always looking at ways to improve mobility and reduce the cost of living and have the benefits that go into any communities down the valley here. I’d be happy to sit with the Member, sit with my colleagues here, to see where we could look at requests the Member is asking for from the department, put it in our projects and see where we can move forward with it.
I did receive a letter from the Aklavik Dene Band in terms of their support for Mr. Krutko’s request. We’re taking that very seriously, and we’re looking at it. I’ll be happy to sit with the Member and see what we can do and have a discussion with committee in terms of when we put down our infrastructure and see where the priorities are.
A final, short supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, the community of Aklavik also has this in the strategic plan they developed last August. Again, the community is fully supportive of this. Knowing we are looking at alternative funding sources — we have the municipal infrastructure funding, and we’re talking about the Building Canada Fund — I’d like to ask the Minister to ensure that we do have our opportunity to have access to these program dollars sowe can take on this initiative. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to say to the Member that we received the request from the community of Aklavik. We are considering it within our plans in terms of our priorities, and we’ll look at that. Again, I’m very pleased to see that the community of Aklavik has actually put a number down to contribute to this project. That deals well within the department in terms of a partnership on certain projects.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Public Works and Services. Over the years the G.N.W.T. has used a number of different methods to facilitate and advance infrastructure projects. One of these is a Public/Private Partnership, an example of which we’re currently experiencing.
As the G.N.W.T.’s infrastructure deficit grows ever larger, it is likely that P3 projects or business-facilitated projects will become more and more commonplace. I’m concerned that this government does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to adequately handle and monitor these kinds of projects.
I’d like to ask the Minister: do we currently have any document in place that outlines the process to be followed for P3 projects — things like parameters for agreements between parties, project management and so on?
Mr. Speaker, I’d have to go to the department to see what we have in place, but I’d venture to say that all P3 initiatives are done on a case-by-case basis. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to look into this issue, and I would hope he would do that and report back.
Does the Minister agree that there is a need for developing a policy to administer P3 projects?
There have been very few projects brought forward to this government that are classified as P3. I believe there was one in Fort Smith many years ago. A lot of work was done in the area of policy development in and around P3 projects. The other one is the Deh Cho Bridge, of course. As we move forward, there needs to be more analysis done as the federal government has, as part of the building Canada plan, a funding initiative that’s referred to as the P3 models. We need to move forward if we’re going to access some of those dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the Minister said yes in there, that he would look into a policy. Having assumed that yes, there is a policy about to be formulated, I’d like to know when that might happen and when we could expect to see the completed document.
We as a government have committed to doing a lot of work in the area of infrastructure and infrastructure development and all the different aspects, including planning of budgets and looking at the costs and being able to accommodate the contracts so they get out earlier. I would be glad to try to include…. We’ve agreed that we will be as comprehensive as we can, and I’d be glad to bring the issue of the P3 forward to that committee for consideration.
Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister if he would come back to committee for input, but he’s beat me to the punch, so good for you.
I would urge the Minister to get a policy in place as soon as possible. These kinds of projects are somewhat unusual, and we need to have as much governance, as much of an umbrella for overseeing these projects as possible.
If the Minister could respond to my question in terms of timing — I realize that “as soon as possible” could mean tomorrow; it could also mean three years from now — if he could give me a narrower time frame, I’d appreciate that.
The infrastructure committee has been meeting since this government was formed and cabinet was selected. We have a lot of work in front of us. There is some desire to have some recommendations brought forward. We need to review a lot of the policies. We’d have to upgrade some of the policies. We’d have to also develop new ones. I’m trying to be very careful not to make a commitment we may not live by, but I would suspect that we could start presenting some of the initial findings very soon, hopefully by the next sitting.
