Mr. Speaker, my point of order is the fact that the Premier is misleading the House. He says that the banks are on the hook for this $160 million. You know, let’s be honest. The Territorial government is on the hook for this, and I have the concession agreement to prove it. Thank you.
The Member has raised a point of order. I’m going to allow some debate on this point of order. To the point of order, the Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this whole scenario I’ve provided much information to the questions in this House: the dollar values attached, who is at risk, the fact of agreeing with the Members that, as the G.N.W.T., we are in fact backstopping this. But the banks are lending the money. They are at risk of lending the money to a project that is a go or no-go. So that’s not misleading the House, Mr. Speaker. That was stating a fact.
There are additional facts to this: that, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, as stated publicly in this House, this process is in place and that we as the Government of the Northwest Territories — and that’s why these questions have come up so often — are going to be a direct linkage or appendage to this project by in fact putting the pieces in place, by the FMB decisions that have been made, by the direction given in the establishment of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I may have to look at the Hansard myself to see if the Member is imputing some motive here on my behalf. Thank you.
To the point of order, the Hon. Member for Thebacha.
Mr. Speaker, as I understand our rules of debate, it says under section 23, “In a debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member . . . (j) charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.” My understanding is that the terms “You are deliberately misleading the House” constitute accusing the Member of uttering a falsehood. I would suggest that the rule is clear: that is inappropriate and unparliamentary. Thank you.
To the point of order, the honourable Member for Weledeh.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation does not have the financial ability to respond should they be called upon by the banks for recovery of the loan for any reason and that the Government of the Northwest Territories would be the responsible party financially to the banks. I believe that’s a portion of Mrs. Groenewegen’s point of order. Thank you.
To the point of order, the honourable Member for Kam Lake.
Mr. Speaker. I want to weigh in on this point of order. I believe Mrs. Groenewegen does have a point of order. When the Premier can stand in this House and say that the banks are solely responsible for that $160 million, it’s not true. It’s not true, Mr. Speaker.
I believe the Government of the Northwest Territories is indemnifying….
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker, under 23(j), once again, I’ve been accused of uttering a falsehood. The Member said that the banks are solely responsible. You can look at Hansard. I’ve not said that. So my point of order is that the Member is, again, accusing me of lying to this Assembly. In fact, lying to this Assembly is as good as putting my head on a platter.
Mr. Speaker, I want Members to be aware of the insinuations being made here. In fact, adding wording that has not been said and I have not said…. I’m speaking to this piece. Thank you.
We have two points of order on the floor now. I am going to allow debate and conclude debate on the original point of order. To the original point of order, Mr. Ramsay.
I thought I heard what I heard. Again, I’ll have to read Hansard again tomorrow when it comes out to see exactly what it was the Premier had said.
I was watching earlier when the Premier mentioned that…. You know, this might not have been caught in Hansard, but he said that I was misleading the House because he pointed at me and said I was responsible for the $242 million figure.
Interjection.
Yeah, and I’ll throw that out. Do you know where I got that number of $242 million? I’ll tell you where I got that. I got it from research.
Interjection.
I did the math. It adds up to $242 million. It’s $4.5 million a year indexed over 35 years. It comes out to an investment of $242 million. That’s the real math. That’s the real math, Mr. Speaker.
Interjection.
I think we’ve had enough debate on the original point of order.
There’s another point of order on the floor, which I will allow a little bit of debate on. To the second point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the point of order. We’re not arguing now, at this point, about the bridge. We’re arguing about what’s happened in this House in terms of twice now, the Premier has been accused of uttering falsehoods or lying.
Our rules are very clear. Clause 23: “In debate, a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member…charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.”
It has happened twice, Mr. Speaker. That is the issue. What is acceptable? That is what the ruling has to be. I think we should focus on that issue. We’re not here to debate the bridge now. We’re debating whether it’s acceptable to stand in this House and accuse the Premier twice of lying. That’s the issue that the Speaker has to rule on.
To Mr. Roland’s point of order, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, the Members on the opposite side are putting words…. They are adding words. They are embellishing this. They are using things like “head on a platter,” “lying.” I never said lying.
I stood on a point of order to the fact that the Premier was offering…. He was misleading the House with the information he was giving. So if they want to describe that in whatever way they want to, that is what I said. And that is what I will set out to prove.
I am going to…. I don’t recall the exact words that were used, so I am going to take this under advisement, and I will come back on both points of order. I will come back to rule at a later date on both points of order.
I’ll ask some questions of the Minister of Transportation, given the sensitivity on this question of the Deh Cho Bridge.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation: how much money has the Department of Transportation spent in terms of contractors and consultants on the Deh Cho Bridge project over the last five years?
Mr. Speaker, I would have to check with my department for the exact details in terms of the contribution of the department, as has been asked by the Member on this specific topic here.
Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Minister that it is well over a million dollars that we have spent on consultants and contractors to work on the file of the Deh Cho Bridge project.
I am wondering if the Minister can supply the House with the reason why the Government of the Northwest Territories would bear the full cost of consultants and contractors looking at the Deh Cho Bridge project when the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation should be responsible for that level of work.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, I’ll have to look at this and go back to my department to see what other departments were involved, where the work was done, and get back to the Member. I would be happy to sit down with the Member and go through with a fine-toothed comb in terms of the numbers.
Mr. Speaker, one question that hasn’t been answered in all of this is how much staff time the Department of Transportation has put into the Deh Cho Bridge project at the expense of other projects around the Territory.
I’d like to ask the Minister to commit to getting this House a detailed analysis of how much staff time has been spent on the Deh Cho Bridge project.
Mr. Speaker, I will get that detail and bring it back to the House.
Before I go on to the next Member, the original line of questioning was with Mr. Bromley, who had two supplementary questions left. Do you have further supplementaries, Mr. Bromley?
No further supplementaries.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board.
There was a process that was advertised in the paper last summer. It was in the papers for about three months. It advertised to find an appropriate applicant for the chairman position of the Workers’ Compensation Board.
I believe there were several applications that were filed: one from Nunavut, six from the Northwest Territories, and, I believe, three of them were former deputy ministers of this government.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that due process was not followed. Also, the Minister, in making a decision to extend the appointment of the existing chairman, may have breached the N.W.T. Act, the Workers’ Compensation Act, where it is clearly stated that a member of the board cannot exceed a term of six years. By extending the appointment under the advertisement that was made for a three-year appointment for the chair of this board — by making that appointment — the breach has taken place.
I’d like to ask the Minister: of the seven applicants who filed, were there any interviews done with those applicants by way of coming up with a short-list, in interviewing those applicants, to see who was the best candidate for that job?
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister charged with the WCB by the Premier, I was aware of the circumstances surrounding the appointment process that the Member for Mackenzie Delta refers to.
Late in the 15th Assembly, the process was initiated. I know, from being at the table, there were significant concerns by the Regular Members that the government in the dying days would make an appointment of this nature without allowing sufficient input from the Regular Members’ side. There was a request to government to delay the appointment of the chair. The government of the day agreed to do that.
There were a number of applicants, as the Member indicated. But as Minister, I came in with new legislation and a relatively new president. I made the decision that it would be in the best interests of the Workers’ Compensation Board and this government and, recognizing the strong support that the chair had among the Regular Members, that it would be best to reappoint Mr. Rodgers, which I did. His term will comply with the six years he is entitled to sit under the current legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister again: were there interviews done with the seven candidates that filed their names for that position? Were there screenings of those applications and interviews of any potential candidates?
Mr. Speaker, I reviewed all those files personally. I had my own opinions as Minister of what the appropriate action should be, and I made the ministerial decision, a choice which I took to cabinet — the information item to reappoint Mr. Rodgers. And that is, in fact, what has been done.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to the extent of the appointment, I understand that the way it was advertised, the term of the appointment was supposedly for a three-year term, as it was advertised in the newspapers. So by making an appointment which exceeds the six years — which is basically 2009, which is a year from now — it would have exceeded that appointment. So what’s the term limit of the appointment, knowing it will exceed the six years?
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the term of the current chair will not exceed the six years that he’s eligible to sit under the current legislation.
Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister give me a breakdown on exactly what were the costs for this government and the Workers’ Compensation Board to advertise for those positions, and also the time it took in regard to staff time in regard to the applications that were filed and in reading and accepting those applications? What was the cost?
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to point out, as well, that Mr. Rodgers, who is eminently qualified, in my opinion, and a good representative in that capacity and a Northerner, was in fact one of the applicants.
I will commit to find out or get the information that the Member has requested.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I was done with MACA on this matter. Unfortunately, the answers are still very disappointing. There’s just continual doublespeak on the result and on where this project is going.
Mr. Speaker, I have a list here of contracts, and the Abbotsford company, the B.C. company I keep referring to — I’m not using their name; I know how that makes people edgy here, so I’m avoiding their actual specific name — did give a proposal for $22,500, and it was a contract to develop a proposal for a water facility.
So could the MACA Minister explain to this House — in good conscience and clarity — of course, how this demonstrates that they did not have an unfair or competitive advantage ahead of any other group applying in this RFP process for the water treatment plant project?
Mr. Speaker, all the work that was done leading up to this contract, going to a request for proposals, was made available to all the proponents. In addition, we put in place a two-stage process to ensure due diligence. We had the use of an external party to chair the evaluation on both the request for qualifications and the request for proposals. That position would equate to what would be referred to as a fairness commissioner. Mr. Speaker, we also involved FMBS and Public Works, and we sought legal advice from the Department of Justice.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the best answer I’ve heard all day from this Minister on this project. I’m really glad to hear that maybe he’s coming around to wanting to actually discuss this.
So, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I want to make absolutely clear, even to the Member on this side of the House for Mackenzie Delta, that I’m not against the project in any way; it’s the process, Mr. Speaker.
I still have concerns that the process is not fair, because I would be surprised that anyone applying through this RFP process was made aware that “By the way, one of your competitors actually wrote all the documentation for this RFP.”
So, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to hear today how this Minister will assure this House on transparency and fairness. Will he, before officially awarding this contract, allow and set up some process to ensure that it is completely fair, unfettered by that Abbotsford, B.C., contractor, with a fair process to everyone? Will he assure this House that he will go through that, hire someone to go through these clients to make sure they did not have an unfair, uncompetitive advantage ahead of the Northern group based in Inuvik?
Mr. Speaker, it’s not a matter of coming around to discuss and provide information. This contract procurement is still in the process. I’m very reluctant to speak to something that has ongoing negotiations.
We’ve done exactly as the Member suggested: we have hired an outside party to ensure that fairness of procedure and practice is followed. I would be glad to offer that to the Member once the contract is awarded, to provide a full briefing so that he can see how this contract unfolded and how it was evaluated. We have a process where I have to respond and go to my cabinet colleagues before any decisions are made. So I think all the different questions that were in the one question have been answered.
Mr. Speaker, these are financially tight times, as everyone is extremely well aware. I just want to be clear for the record, here. The Abbotsford company doing these water treatment plant projects: were they the cheaper, bottom-line dollar company, or was the Northern firm working out of Inuvik with the Yellowknife group the cheaper one?
Mr. Speaker, the Member is asking as to the contract details, and I can’t provide that at this time.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, I’ll respect that, because his letter, that I’m not allowed to quote and which will be tabled later, will help clarify that question officially.
So my last question for the Minister is around the context of what if this Northern firm isn’t hypothetically the one we’re negotiating with, although everyone knows it’s not the group we’re negotiating with. What’s to assure us that some undue process wasn’t happening here, and is the Minister prepared to reimburse that Northern company that spent all that time trying to build a proposal that was actually unofficially awarded already?
Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure what the Member is asking me. I’m not clear on the question. All I can say is that this process has a number of checks and balances put in place so we ensure that there’s fairness and so that we can explain the fairness.
Obviously, the Member has been contacted by one of the proponents. We have not even debriefed any of the companies yet. I would ask that the process continue to move forward, that we talk to the company who has obviously contacted the Member and show where maybe the proposal was not quite up to what was expected or where he could improve, or whatever the case may be. To talk about compensation at this point is not something I want to enter into.
