Before we proceed this afternoon, I would like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen, on Thursday, February 14, 2008. Mrs. Groenewegen raised her point of order in response to answers provided by Premier Roland’s Oral Question 66-16(2) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Mrs. Groenewegen raised the point of order after reviewing the unedited Hansard for that day and therefore did so at the earliest possible opportunity.
In summary, Mrs. Groenewegen’s point of order suggested that in his reply to her question, the Premier contravened parliamentary rules by referencing specific matters contained in a document not before the House; namely, the Deh Cho Bridge concession agreement. In debate to her point of order Mrs. Groenewegen requested that the Premier table the concession agreement such that all Members of the House could have access to it in debate.
In rebuttal Premier Roland suggested that his answers were based on information contained in briefing notes and other information items ordinarily given to Ministers in preparation for question period. The Premier concluded by stating that he did not reference a page or any section of the concession agreement.
When debate concluded, I reserved my decision on the point of order to allow time to review the unedited Hansard from Wednesday, February 13, 2008, and rule on the point of order the following day.
In dealing with similar matters in this House, presiding officers have focused on one primary question: did the Member or Minister in question quote from or cite a document not before the House? Rulings by Speaker Gargan on February 13, 1998, and on February 18, 1998, exactly ten years ago, were particularly instructive.
The Rules of the Legislative Assembly are silent on this matter, so in addition to past rulings, I sought guidance from two parliamentary authorities: Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms and House Of Commons Procedure and Practice, more commonly known as Marleau and Montpetit.
Beauchesne’s citation 495(2) reads as follows:
“It has been admitted that a document, which has been cited, ought to be laid down upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.”
Citation 495(5) provides clarity on the parliamentary use of the term “cited.”
“To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate. The admission that a document exists or the reading of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute citing.”
Marleau and Montpetit adds further instruction on the matter of citing documents not before the House and the requirements to table them, quoting from page 518:
“Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled… The principle upon which this is based is that where information is given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable member who may quote the document. A public document referred to but not cited by a Minister need not be tabled.”
A careful review of the unedited Hansard for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, shows no clear indication that the Premier made a direct quote or a citation from any document in his response to the Member for Hay River South’s question.
The Chair concludes that the Premier did not exceed the parliamentary limits imposed by previous Speakers’ rulings or our common parliamentary authorities; therefore, the Member for Hay River South does not have a point of order.
Even if the Premier had quoted from the document in question, the matter of the public interest would still have to be taken into account. While I will not address this directly today, I will remind all Members that one of the things that makes our system of government so unique is the free flow of information between the executive and legislative branches of government. While this is often referred to as a double-edged sword, without it consensus government would cease to exist.
I want to encourage Members on both sides of the House to be diligent in terms of both sharing information when necessary and appropriate and showing discretion when that information is received. Thank you, colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, this week is Education Week and Aurora College Week in the Northwest Territories. It is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate education in our communities.
I would like to kick off the week by providing great news. The graduation numbers for 2007 in the Northwest Territories have recently become available, and they continue to increase. In 2007, 370 students graduated high school. We are now graduating over a hundred more students each year than we did five years ago. I would like to congratulate all of these graduates.
Our students are required to successfully complete diploma exams that meet graduation requirements that are comparable to most provinces. Students who graduate in the N.W.T. with the required course work have achieved a meaningful and important accomplishment that we can all be proud of.
Students are most successful when they have many supports. Education Week is a time to encourage and thank the people who provide those supports.
This week is a time to thank educators for continuing to support our students and families by ensuring that our young Northerners are able to meet the requirements for graduation and can move on to further studies or employment of choice.
The NWT . Teachers’ Association is continuing in their 11th year of the “Thank You for Making a Difference” campaign, and they continue to receive many nominations from across the North by students who want to recognize their teachers for making a difference in their lives.
Northern educators give a great deal of their time, both in and out of the classroom. They are some of our greatest front-line workers in our government’s goal of ensuring that our people are healthy and educated, and they often volunteer in our communities as coaches, for example.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all the Northerners who sit on the Education Councils, authorities, the Commission scolaire and the Aurora College Board of Governors. The time and commitment they give to our system of education and to Northern students is so important. Their willingness to step forward and fill the important role of governance is important for ensuring our schools and colleges reflect the wishes of the people in our communities.
This week is also a time to encourage families and communities to keep working with their children to ensure they get to school on time, are healthy, proud of themselves and their communities, ready to learn, and develop excitement about learning and education. Helping children succeed is important for our future.
The theme of Education Week this year is “Our Community, Our School.” It is about another important component in student success: our schools themselves. We know it is easier to learn in a space that is cared for and well maintained, and our Education Councils, authorities and the Commission scolaire expend a great deal of time and effort in ensuring that that is the case.
This year’s theme recognizes that our schools are an important part of our communities and also recognizes the important role that all community members play in ensuring that our schools are respected as spaces for learning, for cultural events, for recreation and other positive community activities. When schools are successful, they are a centre of the community’s activity and the pride of the people in that community.
During this week Aurora College is celebrating their accomplishments with a number of events, including team-building activities and on-campus seminars. Aurora College continues to be important to the development of the Northern workforce, and I would also like to recognize their contributions during this special week.
In closing, I would like to thank all Members for their support of education, and I encourage everyone — parents, elders and municipal and aboriginal government leaders at all levels — to take time during Education Week and Aurora College Week to celebrate education and learning across the North. Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker.
Applause.
Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to provide Members with information on the 2008 Arctic Winter Games Youth Ambassadors Program.
As Members may recall, in 2007 youth from across the Northwest Territories traveled to the Canada Winter Games in Whitehorse, Yukon. They were excellent representatives of our Territory.
Youth volunteered with the Host Society in a wide range of activities. They demonstrated that they have immense strengths and showed great promise as future leaders.
Building on the success of this project, the Yellowknife Host Society for the 2008 Arctic Winter Games has encouraged youth from all our communities to apply to be part of the 2008 Youth Ambassador Program. Selected youth are given an opportunity to volunteer with the Games’ cultural program and related events at a wide range of venues in and around Yellowknife. They will also be provided with specialized training and be given an opportunity to enjoy other Games’ events.
The Arctic Winter Games require a significant amount of volunteer support. The willingness of the selected youth ambassadors to assist will ensure that the Games are a success and provide these youth with an exciting volunteer experience.
I am pleased that the government has been able to support this worthwhile initiative with funding from the Youth Corps Program. Opportunities like this will help to build future leaders among today’s youth, while ensuring that the Arctic Winter Games are a success.
Yellowknife is home to a potential health and safety risk, Mr. Speaker.
Water and sewer infrastructure exists in one small corner of the city that is well beyond its shelf life and badly in need of repair. These pipes are more than 30 years old and a disaster waiting to happen. Northlands Trailer Park, Condominium Corporation No. 8., sits just outside downtown Yellowknife and provides low-cost and affordable housing to some 1,200 Yellowknife residents. Many are low-income earners or are on fixed incomes.
Because the trailer park is a condominium, it’s treated like a private homeowner. The costs of repairs to their infrastructure must be borne by the homeowners. Estimates of the costs to replace or update Northlands’ roads, water and sewer range from $10 million to $15 million. With about 275 condo members, that works out to a potential $50,000 per member.
These owners are facing a huge personal expense for basic infrastructure needs, and they have been struggling for years to find a fair and equitable solution. I believe that the cost should not be borne by this group alone. The federal government has infrastructure program funding that must be made available to these residents through the G.N.W.T. Nor is the G.N.W.T. blameless in either a moral or an ethical sense.
At the time the Condo Corp No. 8 was formed, the NWT . Condominium Act was very outdated and inadequate. It provided no protection to buyers from less-than-ethical sellers. The Condo Corp got stuck with degraded infrastructure and had no legal recourse with the seller. The city bears no responsibility for this parcel of land because the Condo Corp is treated like a private homeowner.
To the city’s credit, they have been assisting Northlands for several years. City funds have been spent in man-hours and seed money for studies, and the amount is considerable. Northlands’ owners are not looking for a handout, but they are looking for a helping hand.
We are the parent of a struggling child, in this case, and the G.N.W.T. can assist. We can facilitate some of the Building Canada Fund dollars for this project. We can provide funding for community emergency assistance. We can provide a low-interest loan to the Condo Corp.
Government assistance for this type of situation is not unprecedented. In previous years other N.W.T. communities have received funding for water and sewer emergency repairs.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
This is an issue of public safety. A major sewer collapse will create both unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions in the trailer park. It’s not inconceivable that 1,200 people will be displaced from their homes with nowhere to go.
So when planning this year’s budget, consider the plight of the Northlands residents. Be the helping hand and get this infrastructure replacement going before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, [English translation not provided.]
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention that on Friday, February 15, 2008, at 11 or 11:15 in the morning, Tommy King of Fort Resolution passed away here in Yellowknife. Tommy was 65 years old. He was born September 15, 1942, in Rocher River and was one of the last families to remain in Rocher River. He was a trapper. He spent years working for Patterson Sawmill out around Hay River, falling logs and so on.
They’ll be returning his remains to Fort Resolution tomorrow, and then there will be a funeral on Thursday in Fort Resolution.
One of the consequences of decentralization is that even where we have good intentions, it may not work. Such is the case when concentrating Aurora College programs at the Thebacha Campus in Fort Smith.
As much as it pains me to say this — and it does — the Thebacha Campus is not meeting the needs of all Northern students. I’ve had concerns from constituents brought forward to me who fear for their personal safety because of the incidents of violence and intimidation in Fort Smith. This causes them to change their mind and refuse to want to continue training at the Fort Smith College.
How can we expect people to attend these courses and gain qualifications when they’re not welcome in this community? How can we expect students to enroll into programs that take them into greater degrees of isolation?
There’s a clear demand for trades’ training in the N.W.T., yet trades’ programs in Fort Smith have suffered a drop of two-thirds in enrolment last year alone.
I really have to question whether it is the best use of government funding to continue focusing activities and programming at the Thebacha College. Mr. Speaker, with two-thirds of an enrolment drop, I question if funding for instructors and programming drop by the associated amount. I understand the lights and the heating bills need to be left on, but I question the programming.
I am of the opinion that we should be offering more programming at the Yellowknife Campus, particularly in trades, and in doing so, a greater interest in residents would result. They need to expand the Yellowknife Campus. And that has been proven, because it has been deserving of this opportunity for many years. I think good discussion needs to finally, seriously take place.
Mr. Speaker, in tight fiscal times, we need to concentrate our resources where they make sense and question if they being spent properly in that community. It’s not as much in the people as a whole, but if our students are going there and they’re not welcome, we should be asking ourselves hard, tough questions. The program may not run smoothly, but sometimes there’s a bump in the road. Those need to be addressed, and those questions need to be answered.
Mr. Speaker, later today I will have questions for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment to discuss how we can get to the bottom of this and start treating our students fairly.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to use my Member’s statement today to talk about affirmative action or, in some cases, the lack of affirmative action.
I look to a time when most of the jobs were taken up by southerners who were just up here for the money. Many of those people decided to stay and make the North their home, and for that, I’ve always thanked them.
As more and more aboriginal Northerners became trained to take over many departments, Mr. Speaker, I thought we were turning a corner. But I was wrong. After what I heard from this individual with two degrees — a P1 candidate who can’t even get an interview for a management job — I think we’re back in the old days when that was the standard way of operating within the government.
I heard from a young lady who applied for a position with the G.N.W.T. and didn’t even get an interview. That angered me, Mr. Speaker. She attended Aurora College, but she’s not qualified for work with the G.N.W.T. Is this an indication of what we think of the programs that are offered by Aurora College, where we don’t even use some of the graduates?
The qualifications…. Departments are coming up with creative ways to eliminate Northerners from positions. Qualifications are asked that take many Northerners out of contention for positions within the G.N.W.T. Then when some are put into a position, people who have been there for years are asked to train them. Yet they apply, and they can’t even get an interview, or they’re not qualified for these positions and are asked to train someone that comes in.
I want to see Northerners trained for advancement within the G.N.W.T. Transfer assignments should not be a way to get around the system and hand-pick people.
We can contribute, Mr. Speaker. We want to be able to contribute on merit and not just to fill statistics or fill a quota. We’ve come a long way, and we want to be a part of the future of the N.W.T. We have the most to gain or lose from this, because it’s where we’re going to live for the rest of our lives.
Mr. Speaker, I look around in this Assembly and see over half the Members in here are aboriginal. I see the other half that are longtime white Northerners who plan on being up here for awhile.
We should use this as an opportunity to get an indication of where we’ve come from, where we can go, and how we have to use this to protect the people that are out there that are trying to advance within the government system. We have to ensure that we do whatever we can to move these people along, because they can do the job. Like I said, they want to do the job on merit. I see it.
MEMBER’S STATEMENT ON
Mr. Speaker, as I tried to enjoy myself at home this weekend in Hay River, I couldn’t mistake the feelings of disappointment and frustration and unrest over the course that our government has charted for us in relation to the Deh Cho Bridge project. I had many people come up to me and remind me about the Deh Cho Bridge project, because everyone who came up had concerns as well.
I’m disappointed in the leadership, who are prepared to sacrifice transparency and accountability and the right of the people to know. I’m frustrated because, in the absence of clear and full communication on this project, some people are willing to throw up their hands and say it’s too late, it’s too complicated, and it would cost too much to reconsider.
The editorial in today’s paper is right in pointing out that people don’t know if they should be for the bridge or not, because it’s hard to understand the business case, the liability or the benefits.
To me, it’s like someone decided they’re going to build this bridge at any cost. We keep being told that the price has nowhere to go but up if we wait. I think we just saw an unprecedented inflation of construction costs in the past seven years while this bridge was being considered. I’m not an economist, Mr. Speaker, but certainly, if you look to our neighbours to the south — you hear all the news coming out of the U.S. — I would say perhaps that with this run on development, there’s a window ahead for a cooling-off period.
I know that allowing ourselves to lower the bar of what is an acceptable standard of accountability is wrong. It’s demoralizing, because we came here to do a job with good intentions of upholding what we believe in. I’m not prepared to let that go. Mr. Speaker, I can’t do that, because this bridge project process stinks.
People now hide behind the technicality of what they legally can do as opposed to having the courage to rise to the challenge of doing what they should do. What they should do is admit that this government had no business entering into a 35-year financial commitment three days before a new government was elected. They had no business in putting through a piece of legislation which had been passed on the pretense of a $60 million project that has now risen to $150 million. They had no business committing this government to a $9 million loan guarantee which, at numerous times, they said would not increase. They had no business proceeding without government support.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
They had no business proceeding without federal support, even though they said that if federal support wasn’t forthcoming, the project wouldn’t continue. They had no business committing future governments to additional investments of $2 million a year. They had no business exposing our government to financial harm by agreeing to absorb eligible cost overruns as long as they pertain to things that are unforeseen.
They certainly had no business assuming what was most important to Northerners in light of their knowledge of upcoming financial circumstances that resulted in this same government looking for $135 million in reductions over the next two years.
I’m going to speak today about the Deh Cho Bridge project.
I’m very concerned that the government is so far into this project that it now can’t even begin to estimate what it would cost for us to get out of it.
Regular Members of the 15th Legislative Assembly passed two motions in this House — one in May of last year and the other in August — demanding an updated economic analysis and some detail on the concession agreement before it was signed.
Mr. Speaker, we had assurances from the Premier that we would have that type of information prior to the government signing off on that project. As we all know, the deal was signed on September 28 — three days, 72 hours before the election on October 1.
The former Premier stated in the House on August 21 that:
“When we come to negotiations, we don’t negotiate this in public any more than we negotiate most things that are negotiable in public. We are elected. We will do the negotiations. We will assess whether or not it is viable. We will go ahead based on whether or not it makes good economic sense.”
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen, I am not an economist. But I do know that if you are going to go from a project cost of $50 million to $60 million to $150 million and the net positive benefit of $38 million to a negative impact of $50 million, then it would be most prudent — especially if it’s not your money but that of the residents of the Northwest Territories — to just say no to the project before signing off on it.
Mr. Speaker, it may be wise of us to ask for DNA samples from all the Ministers so that they can’t conveniently claim it was the last government to sign the agreement and thus there’s nothing for them to do.
There are some things the Premier and the cabinet can and should be doing. They should order a peer review of the financing of the project. They should develop a policy on future P3 investment and involvement. They should determine who is accountable for signing off on that agreement three days prior to the election.
Mr. Speaker, we’re a small government. As I see it, we’ll be on the hook for the project if traffic volumes don’t materialize, if there’s a design defect five years from construction, or if interest rates climb.
If we index our $4.5 million of government money over the next 35 years, that’s $264 million. Can we afford to do this? I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker.
[English translation not provided.]
The G.N.W.T. drug plan is administered through Sun Life insurance. Its administration seems to be rather complicated. If an employee needs prescription medication, they have to pay the cost out of their pocket. Once they fill out the form and send it to Sun Life, they will be reimbursed for 80 per cent of the cost. It often takes two months for people to get their money. That is two months where people are short on their budget, two months waiting for reimbursement of a drug benefit they are entitled to.
Now let’s look at a chronic illness like diabetes, where the patient needs insulin daily. The N.W.T. extended health care plan covers the cost of insulin, so G.N.W.T. residents get the full amount for insulin reimbursed through the public extended health care plan.
But now let’s see what happens if a G.N.W.T. employee has diabetes and needs insulin. First, the employee has to pay the $800 per month for the insulin out of their pocket. Then they wait for two months for 80 per cent from Sun Life. Only after this wait is the employee allowed to claim the remaining 20 per cent from the G.N.W.T. extended health care plan.
Basically, this government discriminates against its own employees. They need to wait the longest to get their essential medicines paid for. This causes distrust and anxiety.
Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the problem. The Yukon Government employee drug plan — with the same company — has a smarter way of administering and processing the claims. In the Yukon, employees get a swipe card that the pharmacist swipes, and they receive the 80 per cent Sun Life payment directly. So the patient only needs to pay the 20 per cent out of pocket. In the case of a chronic disease, the remaining 20 per cent could be charged directly by the pharmacy to the extended health care plan.
Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the Minister of Human Resources to explain why we cannot do the same.
Mr. Speaker, women make up 48 per cent of our population, yet they are way under-represented in elected positions, government and industry. While industrial development changes social conditions in the N.W.T., women bear the brunt of the stresses and tensions that take place.
We have an opportunity to take a preventative approach that will reduce these stresses and the long-term costs associated with them.
Women typically have primary responsibility for family and often for community and cultural wellness. Thus, their priority concerns for health and social safety, security, education and social harmony are natural. They have knowledge, skill and experience in these areas that are essential, as we develop preventative policies.
Under-representation by women in political and policy decision making means less public support for social, cultural and community needs. It sends the message that families, communities and cultures are less important than profit-making interests.
Mr. Speaker, this situation has developed through history, as in ancient times humankind shifted away from societies that were matriarchal or that gave equal status to both women and men. Through global colonization, we have arrived at today’s world, which is typically patriarchal and does not ensure that women are included in the decision-making.
In this situation, as reflected here in this government, the few women that get into political and economic decision-making spheres tend to be there for a long time and continue to be the first women in these positions — i.e., they remain in a minority position. I know you all agree that we are greatly appreciative of their voices and that we need to hear more of women’s perspectives and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the incredibly high rate of violence against women in the N.W.T. reflects the absence of women in the power dynamic here. Since the diamond mines opened a decade ago, the rate of violent crime has doubled, and it has risen by 40 per cent in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, women have different perspectives than men, and they belong at this decision-making table. We must recognize that gender is an issue that impacts the socio-economic circumstances of women, families and communities. We need to collect and monitor social data by gender and put a gender lens on the development of public policy. We need to support annual gatherings of women and demonstrate that we understand this issue and are willing to take action on it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to continue my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Will this Assembly put gender on the table by recognizing women’s central and equal role in society? We need to adopt gender-based analysis as part of our routine decision and policy making.
For prevention and real progress on real issues, let’s choose to do things differently, and let’s start now. Quana, thank you.
Mr. Speaker, my statement today is dealing with the area of custom adoption and the length the process takes for something that you would think is straightforward and simple.
Mr. Speaker, custom adoption has been in place for hundreds or thousands of years. First Nations people — our grandparents — have adopted their grandchildren for many years. Yet the process this government is using is lengthy, cumbersome and also frustrating for a lot of custom adoption parents who have gone through the process.
Mr. Speaker, a year and a half later, the process continues on. We have legislation in place that doesn’t work and is not user-friendly to the client. I think it’s important, as government, that we take a close look at that legislation and find out why it’s not working, especially in regard to adoptions and the number of children we have — especially First Nations children — in our system by way of foster care. I think it’s important, as government, that we do whatever we can to ensure custom adoption is used and also that grandparents have the ability to understand a process that’s simple, straightforward and allows for a process that does not take a year and a half.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Minister on this matter. Also, I have spoken to the parent of a Gwich’in child with regard to his granddaughter, whom they spent many years trying to reunite. Also, working with other parents in our communities — especially grandparents — where their children are apprehended, their grandchildren are taken away, the grandparents find it very frustrating that they can’t get access to their grandchildren because of the courts’ apprehension orders and the policies and procedures this government puts in place. A lot of grandparents are frustrated, and they’re wondering what did they do wrong because they can’t access their grandchildren.
I think that as a government, we have a responsibility to clear that up, to see that effect on people in the Northwest Territories. I think this government has to find ways to ensure that our legislation is user-friendly.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking the Minister of Health and Social Services questions on this matter.
I’m pleased to recognize my Yellowknife South neighbour, Heather McCagg-Nystrom. Heather’s curling with the N.W.T./Yukon women’s curling team, skipped by Kerry Galusha-Koe, this week in Regina, Saskatchewan, at the Scott Tournament of Hearts. Other members of the team include Teejay Surik and Dawn Moses. Husband, Jeff, and daughters Jenna and Ava are cheering Heather and the N.W.T./Yukon team on. Thank you.
I’d like to recognize Miss Amanda Mallon in the audience today. Miss Mallon is president of the NWT Teachers’ Association and, I believe, also a member on the board of directors for the Canadian Teachers Federation.
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to recognize Amanda Mallon, president of the NWT Teachers’ Association. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I came to session with a lot of things to talk about, but I have to keep asking questions about this bridge, because that’s what the people want. They want answers.
I think everyone understands that the money that has been spent to date on the bridge — the $9 million — has been by way of a loan which was guaranteed by this government. But I want to move on to the larger issue of the loan to build the bridge, which is being secured by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation.
I want to ask the Premier if our government is in fact guaranteeing that loan. If things go wrong and the loan is defaulted on, whose responsibility is the over $140 million — the $160 million — loan that is being secured by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation? Who is responsible for it?
Mr. Speaker, the Member in this House a number of days ago talked about the facts of where we are involved, why we are involved, questioning as well, as was stated in the House, that the government is backstopping this through the concession agreement. But there are limitations.
We’re not guaranteeing the large loan. We’ve guaranteed the $9 million, which will be paid out once the dollars flow from the lending partners. We are involved through the concession agreement, through the overall indemnification of the lenders.
So in fact, we are co-signing the loan with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and indemnifying the corporation with the lenders, which is kind of a fancy way, a different way, of saying that in fact our government is backstopping. We are the guarantors of the loan should something go wrong.
If that is the case, then, we are way out on a limb on this project. I need the people to understand. I need the public to understand where we’re at on that.
So will the Premier please confirm that when he says we are there as a government to indemnify the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation if the loan is defaulted on, it is in fact like guaranteeing the loan?
Furthermore, I’d like to know if that $160 million — or whatever the amount of the loan turns out to be — is calculated into our $500 million borrowing limit as a government.
Mr. Speaker, the total amount of the project that is being financed by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation doesn’t fall onto our books because as the project is established, it is the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation that is seeking the money and going to lenders. We are a part of it, yes. As has been said in this House, as has been laid out from the start through a number of factors — that is, the toll structure — it is also a part of the fact that we’re taking money on an annual basis that we put into the ice-road crossing and the ferry crossing
As well, as was made known months before the last election, the government would also, once we did not get confirmation from the federal government, have to bump another couple of million dollars on an annual basis to make this project a go. That was discussed and was known since the days of the 15th Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier a few days ago committed in this House to putting together an estimate of what it would cost for us to terminate this agreement to proceed with the Deh Cho Bridge. A few days have now passed. I’d like to know where we’re at on that evaluation on what it would cost to terminate this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that we would have it today, but it is being worked on as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, because the Premier so freely said that this information was known to the 15th Assembly, I’d like to ask him if he’s willing to produce any proof that Members of this House knew all these facts which are now just coming out. I mean, I’m finding out stuff every day on the Deh Cho Bridge project that I didn’t know before.
I’d like to now ask the Premier if he will lay some proof on the table that Regular Members of this House were aware of what was going on. We didn’t even know the concession agreement was going to be signed on September 28. That is out there.
Mr. Speaker, I guess if nothing else, we have to acknowledge the Member’s passion to ensure that her questions get asked on a regular basis from the 15th Assembly into the 16th Assembly.
The fiscal plans for this project were known. We can provide a chronology of these things that happened. We could even look at Hansard when questions were asked by the same two Members about this specific project: of the parameters, of the additional money the Government of the Northwest Territories is willing to put into this project that is over and above the ferry contract, the ice-road crossing. That’s been known. The guarantee that was in place: that’s been known because that’s been in place for quite a number of years. So it’s public, the fact that the questions have been raised in this House.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question about “Why was it signed three days before an election?” is one of concern to Members who’ve carried on, but the fact is that if the Members in the last Assembly had the support to cut the project, they could have cut the project. They didn’t.
Now let’s get on with work, because we’ve got to start building the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services. It’s in regard to the length of time that these custom adoption processes are taking.
Has her department looked at the possibility of doing a review on the program to find out where the barriers are or why the process is taking so long? Has the Minister directed her department to look at the possibility of finding out, of streamlining this process so that it doesn’t take as long as it does now, where it’s taking a year and a half to approve an application?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for the question and for talking to me about it.
I can advise the Member and the House that normally a custom adoption process should not take that long at all. It’s quite a routine process. The department does not have a direct role to play. It merely ratifies adoptions that have been agreed to. Usually this is a pretty speedy process and without too much hardship.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me if she had an opportunity to talk to the Minister of Justice to see if it’s possible to make amendments to improve this program and also look at the possibility of improving access for, especially, grandparents to their grandchildren? Since the legislation has been passed, grandparents’ rights to their grandchildren seem to have been watered down, that they’re no longer part of the approval process and also of having the ability of access that they had in the past.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding — and I’d be happy to look into that — that as the system stands now, as long as the parties agree on the adoption arrangement, they put the documents together through the adoptions commissioner in regional offices. They just have to submit that to the Supreme Court, and the department issues adoption certificates thereafter. In the situation that the Member has brought forward to me, there were some logistical errors and uncompleted documents that caused difficulty.
I just want to reiterate that the custom adoption process is quite simplified. It’s a process that the department and the government support, and I’d be happy to look into the possibility of making it easier for grandparents, which I believe can be done because we, by and large, as a government support custom adoptions.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to the adoption process, I mentioned to the Minister that a lot of times children are taken away from their home community, from their immediate family, and moved elsewhere. I’d like to ask the Minister: is there a program in place to reunite the children with their families, say at Christmas, Easter, summer, whatnot? Also, who pays for that cost of bringing these families back together during special occasions of the year like Christmas, Easter, summer holidays, whatnot? A lot of times I get that question asked by grandparents wanting to see their grandchildren. Again, if they’re taken out of their home communities, they don’t have that day-to-day access, and they might be lucky to see them at Christmas.
I’d like to ask the Minister: is there that program in place, and is it being explained to the public exactly how that program works?
