Mr. Speaker, we seem to continue to dance around the fact that when you write a letter and you say, “We regret to inform you, you didn’t get it,” that leaves us one option: the other group. Unless you’re cancelling the whole project, maybe….
Or maybe that’s the issue: the Minister has decided to sole-source it to an Abbotsford, B.C., company. Maybe that’s the problem. I’ve been asking the wrong question.
Are you sole-sourcing this project to the Abbotsford, B.C., company, without giving the Northern company — the one that’s done these types of jobs for years — a chance to do the job where they would employ local people, keep the money north and….?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question, of course, is no, we’re not sole-sourcing.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister Responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation some questions.
Over the course of time in my term as an MLA, I’ve been pursuing an appeal within the Housing Corporation. I don’t know how much work has been done to date. I’d like to ask the Minister: have they been looking at it, and if they have, how much work has been done with it?
Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this concern, and I have had discussions with the president. As we pull together the LHO chairs, the managers and district staff, as well as headquarters, and reorganize that there are a number of issues that are on our plate, to try to look at improvement, that concern is one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that people are using our programs and services with NWT Housing Corporation. They really don’t have an avenue of appeal; in fact, they have to appeal right now to the person who ruled against them in the programs and services that they wanted. What existing avenues do they have currently?
Mr. Speaker, right now, as Minister, I communicate to this House and to the Member that I did a very steady stream of housing issues. They tend to go to MLAs; they tend to go to other elected officials. One of the areas that we think we can take a page from is income support. There’s a local appeal process as well as a Territorial one, so we don’t have to break new ground or reinvent the wheel here. It’s just a matter of making sure that we have all the checks and balances.
There’s something that’s been outstanding for quite some time. Is the Minister looking at instituting something this year? Mahsi.
We would anticipate something that we could come forward with and share with the committee. We know that once we conclude the May–June session, we’re going to be moving quickly into business plans. So this is one of the items on the to-do agenda, and I’d like to get to that in time for that secondary process.
I’d like to follow up on the statements about the voluntary sector that have been made by my colleagues. I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs state that we need to take action to ensure that the volunteer sector stays strong. I’d like to ask the Minister: other than the N.W.T. Outstanding Volunteer Awards, what is MACA doing to strengthen the volunteer sector?
Mr. Speaker, we do a lot of work in the area of volunteering and volunteerism. Historically, we have worked very closely with Volunteer NWT. The decision of the federal government to pull the financing has made it very difficult for that organization. They are looking at ways to acquire some support and have had contact with us.
We have had a lot of discussion around that issue, looking at ways to maybe find outside sources or within our own government to help them. But we do, as the Member indicated, provide the volunteer awards program. We also provide through our department the Fire Service Merit Awards. Everybody knows that the firefighters in our communities are one of our key community resources. We also provide training for some of our volunteer organizations and fund some of the training opportunities for the staff. We’ve been lobbying Statistics Canada to have the N.W.T. included in the national surveys on volunteering. As I indicated earlier, we have provided some funding to Volunteer NWT. to develop their resources to promote volunteering. We’ve had workshops on volunteering in a lot of communities, and we’ve done a lot of research into funding opportunities, so there’s quite a bit.
We also work closely with other departments, FMBS. We’ve developed a guide for the program managers within government to further clarify the funding policies for NGOs and other volunteer organizations. And of course, one of our more popular programs is the Youth Ambassador Program for major games. It’s been quite a success with Canada Winter Games, and hopefully we’re going to see the same results with the Arctic Winter Games.
We also, for the last two years, have been bringing our sports volunteers to be recognized and attend the Chances for Children events, Mr. Speaker. We also have an ongoing communication, as I indicated, with Volunteer NWT.
I thank the Minister for that summary. I don’t mean to lessen the value of any of the things the Minister mentioned, but I don’t believe that those are working towards strengthening the sector; I think those are maintaining the sector. I’d like to know whether there are any specific actions the Minister is considering relative to the voluntary sector to help strengthen it.
I think the Member and all Members are aware we’re going under review at this time to see where we can place emphasis on new investments, new initiatives, and also going through analysis of where things can be reduced. It would be difficult for me to say at this point, until those processes are done, whether or not we’d be able to be in a position to put more investments into this area of volunteerism.
The time for question period has expired. I’ll allow the Member a supplementary question.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As has been mentioned previously, the voluntary sector goes beyond the purview of Municipal and Community Affairs. It involves people in the health area; it involves people in the justice area; it involves people that cover all departments within our government. I would like to ask the Minister if he would give me an opinion, in his role as Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, if he doesn’t believe that the centralization of the point of contact for the voluntary sector would be a benefit to that sector in them moving forward and accomplishing more for our volunteers.
The Member is asking for my opinion; I’d be glad to share it. In my opinion, anything that would enhance the issue of encouraging volunteerism or providing support to volunteerism, I would be in support of.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to go back to item 7, oral questions.
The Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 7 on the Order Paper, oral questions.
Unanimous consent granted.
We will return to oral questions, item 7 on the Order Paper. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to break from history here, and I’m going to ask the Minister of Transportation some questions on the Deh Cho Bridge, mostly because his department is the one that released the cost-benefit analysis. The discussions on the Deh Cho Bridge have dominated the debate in this House over the last couple of weeks and couple of sessions. These concerns raised seem to be about process rather than the project itself. I sometimes think we’ve forgotten why we’re even considering this project.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation: what direct benefits are there to proceeding with the project and building this bridge at all? Can the Minister please provide some clarity to me and explain what the benefits are?
Mr. Speaker, the direct benefits of the Deh Cho Bridge are undeniable. The economic advantage of this bridge is in lowering transportation costs. The cost of living is going to be reduced, as one organization, which is the Coop, has indicated. It will bring down the cost of goods. The benefits to the community of Fort Providence, the Deh Cho communities and of course, the environment…. The environmental direct benefits are that it will reduce the…. If there were a spill on the Mackenzie, that would be reduced quite considerably, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would help deal with the climate change that we’re facing in the North today.
Mr. Speaker, once again to the Minister of Transportation: based on the cost-benefit analysis that recently came out — which we know is an addendum to the larger one that came out in 2002 and needs to be seen as a whole, which is available on the web site — which compares the costs and the benefits…. When you look at that, why did this government proceed with the bridge?
With the cooperation of the community of Fort Providence…. And of course it’s been our own analysis that the decision to proceed had strong benefits to the government and the people of the Northwest Territories. It was a decision that was made and that the 16th Assembly wants to continue, because we see that the benefits of proceeding with this bridge far outweigh the costs in terms of putting the bridge in. This is a good benefit for the people of the Northwest Territories. We’re going to get a good deal after 35 years on this project.
There’s been some suggestion that this is not really a P3 project, in that the G.N.W.T. is doing all the work and taking all the risks. What has the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation done to warrant their involvement?
Mr. Speaker, the community of Fort Providence combined alliance prepared the initial proposal to build the Deh Cho Bridge. The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation put together a professional team to develop this project. They delivered this project in terms of meeting some of the navigable waters requirements by Transport Canada. There’s been consultation and meetings in the communities. There’s been the impact review process and the environmental impacts. It also examined the culture and social impacts of this bridge.
The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation lined up the financial backers of this project, and the corporation is working very closely with the department in terms of putting this project into reality, to have this bridge be a go for the community.
Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
What about the risks to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation compared to those of the G.N.W.T.? Isn’t the G.N.W.T. really guaranteeing this project?
The G.N.W.T. is providing certainty to the lenders. This means that we stand behind the Deh Cho Bridge in terms of ensuring that this bridge is built. The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation’s rate of return is based on delivering the project as designed, on schedule and on budget.
I was previously directing my questions to the Premier on the Deh Cho Bridge. Maybe I should be directing them to the Minister of Transportation.
My questions are with respect to the $9 million loan guarantee we put in place. Were we privy to what the $9 million to date was actually spent on? Did we have a role to play in approving what that initial $9 million to date was spent on?
In the area of the guarantee itself, the guarantee is something that’s been in the process, has been updated a number of times, through the work of this government in the sense of the relationship with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. They’ve been working with the bank.
That guarantee doesn't kick in unless the bank itself calls that loan. For us to have a direct involvement in what they’ve spent on, what areas they’ve done, that would be limited. I don't have that information. But we do stand behind that guarantee until it gets called. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this loan guarantee started off at about $3 million, and it was extended and increased at several different points. I would find it very unusual if a public government could guarantee a loan for something where they did not have any say or control or knowledge of what it was being used for and that they would not be at the table.
Do we want to go from $3 million to $6 million to $9 million? Wouldn't the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation have had to come back to our government and justify an increase in our loan guarantee with what it was that they were spending the money on?
Mr. Speaker, yes, when they came forward with requests for increases, they did have to justify why we would want to do that and why we would carry it forward to the Assembly for approvals on supplementary requirements.
You can go back to the supplementary appropriations to see when loan guarantees were put in place or increased through operations of the House.
The actual work done was bridge design, looking at those areas. No doubt, lots of lawyers’ fees on the negotiations process with banks and so on.
There is a list. We know what they were working on. We were knowledgeable of that. When they came forward for further substantiation or requests for increases, we had to ensure we had the information if we would agree that we would increase that loan guarantee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in knowing who approved the loan guarantees, because let’s be very clear: I was never part of a decision to approve a loan guarantee.
Under the Financial Administration Act, when a loan guarantee is put in place or is increased, there is an obligation to notify Members, but I don't ever recall voting on the increase to the loan guarantee. So somebody must have been acting on our behalf in the interests of the government and in the public interest to have approved those. I'd like to know who that was. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the process of loan guarantees is done through the Financial Management Board, notification to Members. If there's an actual expenditure that occurs as a result of that, that would fall to the supplementary appropriation that comes to this House. I'd have to go back to look, because at one point the interest had to be paid out as part of the process. So I’m not sure if that came to the House or not, but I recall some debate on it. Thank you.
Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you. You know, to the public that's listening to this, the semantics here are off. Let’s be very clear: there is a vast difference between approving and being advised of or being notified of. I want to tell you that that's all that was going on for us over here: we were notified of it. We did not approve of it. Let’s be very clear. I mean, just because we were notified of it doesn't mean we agreed with it.
I'd like the Premier to clearly confirm that, in fact, the FMB had the authority to extend the loan guarantee and increase it on the grounds of notification to Members only.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct in the fact that any loan guarantee established falls under the authority of the FMB. The process also lays out the notification of Members, and that process is followed.
The reference I made to a potential supplementary appropriation dealt with one piece, a small piece, of that, but all the information would have been made available. I'll have to confirm that. I'm going on memory at this point. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, continuing on with the feeding frenzy here because there's so much food in the water, because there are so many questions to be asked, I'd like to ask a question about the concession agreement. I've been one of the privileged few to have had the opportunity to see an embargoed copy of it as a Member of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure.
I understand from earlier questions today that the Premier, the Minister of Finance, will be signing the schedules that are attached to the concession agreement by the 22nd of this month. As to an attachment to the concession agreement, though, I haven't seen it. In fact, they haven't been attached to the concession agreement that was made available for me to see.
Given the Premier’s claim to transparency and disclosure on this issue and having apparently a spotless record of providing this information, will he commit to showing us these schedules at his earliest possible convenience so that we can see them and it won’t be a complete surprise when they finally are made public? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I’d have to clarify. The schedules the Members are talking about as part of the concession agreement are one process. The instruments — I guess that is the proper term — of the lending agency to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation that we are involved with and that the Department of Transportation is involved with are the things that I talked about: the banks needing to proceed with this project and having a timeline of the 22nd. That’s the piece that I’m referring to. That is all part of the due process that is already in place. That’s about to happen. We’re waiting on the lawyers’ final work on that area and looking to move forward with this process. One of those would be the final signing of these instruments. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, instruments, schedules, declarations, call them what you will: this House would like to see those before they are signed, rather than after.
I’m asking the Premier: will he provide those for our review before they are signed? Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, maybe I’ll ask a question back. The fact is that this Assembly feels it hasn’t had the opportunity to debate this in its full length. Concession agreements, schedules, projects that we do, whether they’re $4 million, $40 million or $80 million contracts for infrastructure we have in our communities, or leases — we have 10year leases on infrastructure for office spaces, whether in this city or other communities — go through a process but don’t get reviewed by committee on a contract-by-contract scenario.
In this case, Members are asking for a line-by-line review. We’ve provided that information. I can’t see doing that. We’re already involved, and we’re not extending any more commitment than, in fact, just signing off what’s already been part of the process and having the banks finally satisfied that this can proceed from their lending the money to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and then allowing the bridge to proceed.
At that stage I’m aware that those documents are in final review now and potentially being sent up sometime tomorrow for review and signature as a final sort of step to this. Now, does committee want the veto on that? I’m not prepared at this point, because it’s a normal part of the process, but if committee wants to sit a couple of more days, let’s have a debate in this House. Let’s finally bring this to closure. I would say that if this Assembly is in agreement with this project, then we can finally conclude this and get on with business. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you know, I wish we were talking about a $40 million, $60 million or $80 million project here, but we’re not even talking about a $160 million project. The latest is $240 million, what our final costs will be, and those are without any of the liabilities that we are likely to experience.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House have been elected by the people, and to me that means the people of the Northwest Territories have invested their trust in me as their representative, and I think that’s true for every Member in this House.
Will the Premier start to trust the Members of this House like the people of the Northwest Territories do? Will he give us that trust, show us copies of these and give us our chance to have input into this process, which apparently has been limited from the word go? Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, we must be careful what we say in this House. I mean, some Members have come up with their own figure of what this potentially costs. The $242 million figure is someone else’s math work. What we’ve put on the table is the total amount of $165 million. The tolls will pay a significant portion of that. As the act itself identified, we would be taking funds from the ice crossing and the ferries going up to close to $2 million. The FMB of the day agreed to a further extension of $2.28 million as a ceiling for putting this in, based on the dollar values of when that agreement was put in place.
So we’re at the stage where we’re at. Apparently, as the Member is using — it’s not “apparently.” The fact is that we’ve shared, and this project has undergone significant review from a number of parties. The lending agent itself went and got a review. They’re the ones at risk for $165 million if, in fact, they want to lend this money to this project and to make sure it’s a valid project. An independent engineer has been on this file looking at that from another source. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not telling the entire story, and he is misleading the House.
Interjection.
