Yes, questions about the 16th Legislative Assembly. The fact is that Members did not ask the question itself. I responded to questions that were given to me in this House when the Members asked for the specific information, worked with the departments, brought that information, and had that delivered to committee.
In light of the absolute barrage of questions that the Premier was asked, and given that he had full knowledge that the concession agreement had already been signed, I want to ask the Premier did he not feel that he had any duty to the Members of this House to just inform us of this very significant milestone which had been passed on the Deh Cho Bridge project: that the concession agreement had, in fact, already been signed? We had to find this out weeks and weeks later, after asking all session.
Did the Premier feel no obligation to open this and transparently share something that significant with Members of this House when we didn’t ask exactly that question?
Mr. Speaker, if we go back to Hansard, the first session that we had was in late November — or was it mid-November? — shortly after our election. I was just voted in as Premier of the Northwest Territories, had not yet assigned portfolios the first couple of days of session, and I took every question from every area of concern in the Northwest Territories.
I can’t go back to all the other types of questions, but I did my best to answer Members in that area. As I already stated when this previous question was asked of me later on, if I didn’t jump to the conclusion that that was the specific item the Member wanted, I apologized for that. Do I need to apologize again?
Now we’re talking about the 16th Assembly. On October 19, the Premier stated:
“The contracts that are being signed are not from the Government of the Northwest Territories; they are through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation group as well as potential constructors of the bridge…we know that there’s a commitment to start some of the early earthwork process. But ultimately no contracts or, from our government side, no liability is being held until we know, for example, they get the permits from the federal government….”
I mean, that’s pretty clear — no contracts, no liability. And that was on October 19, 2007. How would the Premier respond to that?
Mr. Speaker, we need to go back a little bit and see what the actual question was that I responded to. The questions were about actual contracts for doing the work for ordering materials. That’s my understanding. I have to qualify this; otherwise, I’ll be thrown out for saying something or committing to something else.
I’ve been trying to respond to Members of this House the majority of the time on this specific project. I’ve looked at the information, I’ve provided what knowledge I had and what issues I was trying to address on the day, and I’ve responded since then when we’ve got the specifics and provided that information. So what more do the Members want in the sense of this specific area? We’ve given all the update information.
And yes, Mr. Speaker, as the 16th Legislative Assembly, we are, in a sense, married to this project. We’re going through this process. But I think we need to take a step back from here and look at the bigger picture of the Northwest Territories. Are we saying that as the Northwest Territories, we’re not prepared to look at any major infrastructure for the North, so that we can see the dreams for the development for the North happen in a more proactive way than it has in the past?
Mr. Speaker, last year I had e-mail from a constituent of mine whose daughter was subject to tasering at one of our facilities in Inuvik. I had spoken to the Minister of Justice, and he assured me they were looking into it.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if his department has conducted their internal review of the tasering incident in Inuvik.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Member’s question on this specific area.
I did manage to talk to my department to try to get more information on what really took place in Inuvik. I did get some feedback on the incident that had taken place. The Member was asking how many were used during 2006-2007. I’m willing to share…. We did have 12 incidents in the community of Inuvik during September 2006 to November 2007 — fifteen months.
I thank the Minister for his response.
I’d like to ask the Minister if the RCMP have conducted an internal review as to the tasering incident in Inuvik and if that report was made available to the Justice department.
Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the department may have that information, which I don’t have in front of me today. I can certainly get that information, and I’m willing to share with the Member.
Again, I appreciate the Minister’s response to that, and I’d like to ask him if he gets the department review and the RCMP review, would he commit to sharing these reports with the mother of the girl that was tasered? She is the one that raised the incident, and she was quite concerned. We’ve been communicating for about a year now. Will he commit to sharing their findings with the mother of the girl?
Mr. Speaker, it is important to share information and have fair communication. I’m willing to share that with the Member and also the parent, if we can set up a meeting with our department and allow the Member to sit down with the parent. I feel similar incidents need to be addressed — why this took place and whatnot, and therefore this information can be shared from the department. Mahsi.
Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.
I’d also like to ask the Minister if he would report back to me on any actions that may have been taken against the folks who did the actual tasering.
Mr. Speaker, our department is working carefully with the “G” Division, the RCMP headquarters, trying to get as much information out as we possibly can with all these incidents. Once that is shared with our department, I will be more than willing to share with the Member. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, while I quickly ran upstairs to type a written question, my office was contacted again by someone else who had another unhappy experience at the Thebacha College, which I referenced.
Mr. Speaker, the point is — I hope it is being well made — that there is something strange going on there, and the fact is that if students are not feeling safe or their safety is being put in jeopardy in any way, I hope that message is being to delivered to the Minister of EC&E.
Mr. Speaker, with all that I’ve said right now, will the Minister be willing to put this so-called review on pause just so we can have a quick look at these terms of reference to make sure that the problems that are being identified are being looked into and effectively dealt with?
Mr. Speaker, the review we talked about earlier is before us, within our department. That has been conducted ECE and also Aurora College on apprenticeship and occupational certification and the program set that we’d deliver.
Of those issues that the Member is referring to — some of the areas that have been referenced as well — he listed intimidation and fear. Our department is aware of things that are happening within that community. We do have a team that is reviewing these documents. There’s more ongoing communication happening within our department and Aurora College on that specific item. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, without hurting anyone’s feelings or insulting anyone, I have to tell you when the Minister says that ECE and Aurora College are doing this review, it’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, for goodness’ sake. I mean, why doesn’t he say to me that the president is reviewing the effectiveness of the campus in Fort Smith — by the way, where he lives and runs the program. Wow, I’m sure that will be independent.
Mr. Speaker, what I’m asking for is an independent review. What I’m asking for is: will the Minister bring to Members — maybe just myself, but I’ll tell you that I’ve heard more concerns from other Members…? Would he be willing to bring forward the terms of reference so we could have a look at them and make sure that we’re doing a proper review?
Mr. Speaker, we are willing to work with the Members on any issues that have an impact in their riding, whether it be Yellowknife or Fort Smith. We are willing and accepting any recommendation, any advice, any input that Members can provide to us that can benefit the community, that can speak for the community. How can we improve at the community level? Program delivery, where students are living — as much information that the Members can provide, we’re willing to work with it. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I had a mother tell me that her kid woke up in the health centre in Fort Smith because he got a beating. Like I said, he woke up in the health centre.
Mr. Speaker, I had another person tell me about being chased running to the store. And the stories go on and on and on. I’ve heard that the students feel intimidated throughout the community; it’s like the community doesn’t want them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know exactly who is doing this review? Who? Do we have a name of who’s doing this review? And how much is this going to cost us, and where are we going to take it?
Mr. Speaker, again, our department is working with the community of Fort Smith, identifying what’s happening out there — the incident the Member is referring to — because it does reflect on the programs being delivered, the enrolment and so forth. So I’m not going to specifically say this person is responsible. It’s all departments that are conducting the review. Mahsi.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
As I said earlier today — and I’ll reference again that people don’t want to go there — we have a Social Worker program that people don’t want to go to. It wasn’t fully subscribed to, cancelled, moved to Yellowknife and was fully subscribed to and even over-subscribed. The trades have dropped by 67 per cent — two thirds. So the fact is that people aren’t wanting to go there.
What is this Minster doing about this process, and is he cutting back on the college’s budget and funding because people don’t want go there?
For the campuses, we’ve delivered many, many graduates, post-secondary, in Inuvik, Fort Smith, Yellowknife campus, especially with the journeyman ticket holders. We’re proud to say we’ve graduated those individuals from the communities over the long years that we’ve serviced the communities. So we’re very proud of that. The programs we deliver have been very successful in the communities.
There may be some issues that we may be tackling, but it’s all workable within the three campuses. Three campuses are working together to remedy the situation.
I had a chance to look over a bit more Hansard here. I want to go back to this. You know, these things just don’t go away just because we decide to sweep them under the carpet.
The concession agreement was signed on September 28. We found out November 27 — two months later. Now, the Premier said we didn’t ask the right question. We didn’t say, “Did you sign the concession agreement in the last government?” We weren’t that direct.
Here’s a quote from Hansard, again on October 19. This is Mr. Ramsay: “Are we going to be able to see the concession agreement? Are we going to be able to see the contracts that have been signed? What has been signed?” He says: “What has been signed?”
This is a month before we found out the concession agreement was signed. Mr. Roland comes back: “I’m going to commit to you and Members of this Assembly to share the information that is necessary to make sure we make good decisions for the residents of the Northwest Territories.”
I have to ask again: on October 19, when the Premier — whether he was assigned portfolios or not; I don’t care. He was in the last cabinet. He must have known that the concession agreement had been signed. When he was asked that very direct question — “What has been signed?” — why did he not offer up to this government that the concession agreement had already been signed, significantly committing this government to all the liability we’re now talking about?
The Member again quotes the Hansard from October 19, the first day we had oral questions in the 16th Legislative Assembly. Most of us around the table — at least from this side of the House, because I had not assigned portfolios — were expecting a light day as was past practice of new governments. But I ended up taking questions from across the delivery of programs and services by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
As the Member has quoted, I committed to providing the necessary information that is now in the hands of Members. Do we want to relive the past? I committed to stuff. I provided that. What more does the Member want from myself? I should be careful asking that question. I have ideas, and I think I know where this is going. But the fact is, what I’ve committed to, I’ve delivered.
I’m interested to know what the Premier thinks I’m looking for. He was only elected as the Premier a short few months ago, and I was certainly on the record in telling him that I did support him. I still support him. I don’t see a lot of other options sitting over there for Premier. I’d like to work with him. I’m being honest here. I’d like to work with him.
But the fact of the matter is that we need transparency. And I believe the Premier…. You know, as I said, you can’t sweep these things under the carpet. I believe the Premier knew full well what we were looking for that day, and he didn’t have the guts to tell us the concession agreement had been signed.
Did the Premier understand what we were getting at that day? That’s what I’d like to ask.
I guess I’ll have to apologize. No, I didn’t get the gist of what was happening. I was basking in the glow of just being named the tenth Premier of the Northwest Territories. I wasn’t expecting any questions that would require a lot of background detail. In fact, I stood here — and I didn’t have the updated notes from all the departments — and responded to all the questions that were put before me. I think we used up almost a whole question period, in fact.
I had Members saying good job for not being given an opportunity to know where Members were coming from or to get the background. I responded to questions with information that I had off the top of my head as to where things were, still in, I guess, the limelight of being named Premier of the Northwest Territories.
So for the record, I did not look at the fact that “Okay, they’re looking for what the previous government had signed off days before the election.” No, I didn't. It’s very clear now, as has been pointed out, that it is a very big concern.
I've tried to state, for the record, the information — the critical information that we needed as the Legislative Assembly, even this Assembly — was out there in the public, because questions had been asked about that of the previous government.
Once I knew exactly what Members wanted, I committed to it, and I've delivered upon it. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, two motions were passed in the 15th Assembly. I believe they were unanimously passed by the Regular Members of this House.
The Premier had to have known that there were concerns on this side of the House with the Deh Cho Bridge project. It has been widely publicized that there were questions and concerns.
The fact that he'd had a chance to think, for I don't know how many months, he might be the Premier, and with headlines written for months in advance that he was going to be the Premier, I can't help it if he didn't assign that cabinet portfolio. But that was his choice.
Let’s go on to another serious beef. Let’s go on to December 31st. December 31st was the date by which the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation had to comply with certain things that needed to be done. The equity and different pieces of their side of the commitment had to be put in place by December 31st.
Somebody made a decision to extend that deadline to January 31st. Who made that decision? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the deadline of December 31st was in place. The loan guarantee was put in place, with our government backstopping that loan guarantee with TD Bank — TD Securities, to be correct.
They had a 30-day provision before calling that loan. The concession agreement, as I was informed by department officials, also had a 30-day provision built into it. That's what we were waiting for, to see if the bridge corporation would come up with the equity and come up with a lending agreement and all of the pieces that needed to be put in place for this to proceed.
Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Just to confirm: even in light of the fact that the Premier knew how many concerns there were about this process and this project, a significant deadline of December 31st came and went. And a decision was made on that side of the House to extend that deadline to January 31st without any consultation or awareness on this side of the House.
Again, after the fact, we got a phone call. After January 31st had passed, we get a phone call. We were told that shareholders have changed and that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has met their requirements.
Somebody made a decision in spite of…. There was an opportunity on December 31st to change the course of this project, but the Premier made an extension to January 31st. Did he alone make that decision?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have to be careful of what we say in this House.
For the record, I committed to Members that before we made a decision to extend, alter or change anything, as Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly, I would get hold of Members. I did that on two occasions, going to Members or making phone calls to Members, before the deadline. Not after the 31st. Before the deadline. So let’s get that correct.
Mr. Speaker, my written questions today are directed to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Will the Minister supply a copy of the terms of reference to the program review that he has referenced is taking place at the Thebacha Campus in Fort Smith?
Will the Minister provide the details as to when this college program review started and when it is expected to be completed? And what are the Minister’s intentions for the program report generated in this review?
Will the Minister provide the details as to when this college program review started and when it is expected to be completed? What are the Minister’s intentions for the program report generated in this review?
Will the Minister supply any background work that has been done related to the initiation of the process?
Will the Minister supply a copy of his project work plan that has been agreed to, along with the names of the person or persons doing this review and the questions they are asking?
Will the Minister supply the cost or expected cost of this review?
If I could, please, Mr. Hawkins, remind Members of the rule on written questions. The rule is a written question must be one written, carefully worded question. I would ask you to please bring your written question back and in a proper format.
Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Mr. McLeod.
I wish to report to the Assembly that the Standing Committee on Social Programs has reviewed Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, and wishes to report that Bill 3 is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member from Frame Lake, that Bill 3 be moved into the Committee of the Whole for today.
Motion carried; Bill 3 referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration today.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled Framework for Action 2005-2008: Status Report to November 30, 2007.
Document 22-16(2), Framework for Action 2005-2008: Status Report to November 30, 2007, tabled.
I wish to table the following document, entitled 2007 Annual Report for the Public Utilities Board of the Northwest Territories.
Document 23-16(2), 2007 Annual Report for the Public Utilities Board of the Northwest Territories, tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, February 20, 2008, I will move the following motion:
Now therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommend that the government initiate the necessary policy changes and bring forward the necessary legislative amendments to make possible the consideration of levelized power rates for the Northwest Territories at the time of the NWT Power Corporation's next general rate application; and furthermore, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommend that these legislative amendments include, if necessary, changes to the Public Utilities Act which would give the government authority to provide direction to the Public Utilities Board; and furthermore, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommend that the government instruct the NWT Power Corporation to base its next general rate application on a levelized rate structure; and furthermore, that the Legislative Assembly recommend the government provide a response to this motion within 120 days.
Motion 2-16(2), Motion 4-16(2). These motions have been called once, but will stay on this Order Paper for one more day.
