Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve worked very closely with the committee and asked the committee to identify the areas that they want the Program Review Office to review. I’ve reviewed the list and I don’t see the Yellowknife courthouse on that list.
That’s one of the worst answers I’ve heard from Premier McLeod in a long time. The fact is, the 15-year-old study said we needed a new courthouse. The existing building was built in 1977 when we only had four judges and limited staff and processes. The territory has practically doubled in size. What will it take to get the courthouse situation reviewed by this government, weighed and balanced fairly, not an emotional decision? Because does this Premier have an issue with investing in Yellowknife or is he thinking that our needs in this territory don’t matter when it comes to a territorial courthouse?
Maybe if he asked better questions, he’d get better answers. I’ll leave it up to the committee. We did, as the government put it, have that project, called the NWT Law Courts Project, and we put $40 million in the capital budget in 2005-2006. Committee took it out of the budget. If the Member wants to put it back in, he would have to get the support of all the Members of the Legislative Assembly, especially the committee.
Now is another fine example of divide and conquer. Urban versus rural, committee versus process. Maybe the Premier, being such a maven when it comes to court space and experience, maybe you can explain why the existing courthouse, in its existing form, works and meets the needs of health and safety of our employees as well as, as I mentioned earlier, those accused, those victims and those witnesses when we’re working on their initiatives for the people.
I’d like to remind the Member that we don’t do capital planning in this Legislative Assembly. We do it in a separate process.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where else would you do capital planning and discussion other than asking questions in the Assembly? What is the problem that’s holding this particular issue back? Is it because it’s an investment in the city of Yellowknife, or is it because the Premier has other ambitions or obligations that he is afraid to meet and cause conflict with this idea?
I’d suggest that the Member make his case with the committee and that at the appropriate time, through the capital process, he tries to get that amount of money approved.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources if he has received an update from Enbridge Pipelines about the reported contaminated soil on the remediation digs outside of Fort Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we have an update. There was some contaminated soil found a week or so ago, about 30 cubic metres. There was no visible spill. The pipeline was shut down as a precaution as they did the check. Then on the 8th, sorry, the 10th I believe it is, they put a sleeve around the area where they thought there was potential weakness and the pipeline was re-opened.
The media report that I had looked at wasn’t really clear whether it was contaminated by crude oil or something else. Was Enbridge able to tell the Minister in their briefing exactly what the source of that contamination was?
The National Energy Board will have the lead on this. They collected all the soil and they’ve sent it away for analysis. They’ve put the precautionary sleeve around the pipeline, and when we get that information back or when I’m made aware of the results of those tests, I will make sure that we share that with the Member.
Members of the public, the community and the people that use the land are concerned if there’s a public safety or hazardous risk. Can the Minister tell us if that’s the case?
All of the appropriate precautionary measures, processes and procedures have been activated. There was a spill report done. Enbridge kicked into gear their response. The National Energy Board was informed. We’ve been tracking the issue. They’ve collected the contaminated soil for testing, and they’ve put a precautionary sleeve around the affected area or what they believe could be the affected area of the pipeline. We’re waiting for the test results. The matter, as far as I’m aware, seems to be in hand at this juncture.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad that ENR is now working with Enbridge Pipelines. How soon does that information get to the Department of ENR should there be another incident, as it were?
The protocols are such that once we’re aware of it, there’s a response kicked into gear by Enbridge and the National Energy Board as the responsible agencies involved. As next in line, ENR is involved, and we activate all our processes to make sure we’re working closely with the National Energy Board and Enbridge. That process is in place. Then there’s a communication strategy that kicks into gear, as well, to make sure that folks are aware of what’s happening and what the circumstances are.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I acknowledged the reality of the expansion of telecommunications in the small communities. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Recently, we had a very successful lobbying effort to go to Ottawa, pound the pavement over there, and score at least seven major projects. One of them was the fibre optic line. I just want to ask the Minister if he could provide an update, in terms of the plan and the vision, in terms of how that project might unfold.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very quickly, the project description work is being done and will be concluded in the next couple of months. We have, as well, put out an expression of interest to the industry about building, running a fibre optic line. There has been substantial interest in that. We’ve met with the Aboriginal governments up and down the valley. A specific interest has been evidenced by the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in and the Sahtu. We are working with them on the joint venture approach. At the same time, we do have an ancillary effort with P3 Canada that is inching along. Our main focus is on the joint venture approach with the Aboriginal governments. There has been significant interest expressed by industry, by countries, Germany, Sweden. We have the Defence department.
There is consultation happening now. We were in Wrigley and Simpson this week. They are going to be going up the valley to talk to all the communities, bringing forward and laying out the models of what’s going to happen winter and summer as the project is put in place. We are going to have a breakfast up here mid-week next week for those folks around Cabinet and staff to just have the models there so they can see what’s being presented to the people up and down the valley. The consultation will continue all the way up to Tuk about the work that’s being done.
As we might know, I think the Mackenzie Highway, at this point, ends at Wrigley. Right now we’re building the proposed Inuvik-Tuk highway. I just want to understand, perhaps for the benefit of this side of the House, too, in terms of how the fibre optic line will be proposed to be laid in the ground when, in fact, half of the Mackenzie Valley Highway is not complete.
The project description for the Mackenzie Valley Highway has been worked on and is complete. We intend to work within the right-of-way of the proposed road. Where there is a cleared right-of-way, we’ll use that. But we’re going to follow that approved route. It’s a trench that’s four inches wide and about six inches deep and very modest in terms of its effect on the environment. It’s trenched, then the cable is laid, and it’s filled in behind. We’re going to use directional drilling. We’re going to go under every creek and river so that we leave the water systems alone. We look at this as being about as environmentally benign a project as there could possibly be.
I just wanted to understand. I know the Minister did mention that this is a partnership project, in terms of ensuring that industry is on board and supporting this very vital project that will really enhance the infrastructure in terms of telecommunications in the NWT. What is the nature of the relationship with industry?
The relationship is a broad one. We see the satellite remote sensing industry as being an anchor tenant that…(inaudible)…this project in Inuvik. We’ve put out an expression of interest. There have been about 18 different applications picked up by industry from around the country and the world. They see this as a very unique, novel, and groundbreaking project. We will be working through the joint venture to determine who is successful, and then we’ll be working out an arrangement to build, install and maintain the fibre optic line through the joint venture that’s going to get structured.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is, just recently we had the deregulations of the CRTC, kind of letting it loose in terms of how telecommunications companies perhaps might move up here in the Northwest Territories. And there have been recent issues, in terms of the media and times of profiling how consumers are being affected by just some of the practices that have been in place for some time. How is this government going to ensure that consumers are protected from being taken advantage of, in terms of the telecommunications technology that is being established up here in the Northwest Territories?
Let me speak specifically to the fibre optic line. The intent of the joint venture is to have a major piece of telecommunications technology and infrastructure owned and operated by Northerners, Aboriginal government and the territorial government. One of our collective goals is to, while we have a decent return on investment, we want to make it modest enough that we can keep the cost of the service into the communities as reasonable and as modest as possible to make it as affordable as possible to build the customer base. That’s going to be our goal.
The final mile piece in the communities, how that new technology will be put to use in communities, that’s where the economic opportunity lies for the private sector, as well, NorthwesTel, Ice Wireless. There are a whole host of options out there in terms of who will own and operate the systems and services within the various communities where you’ll have the cell phone service and the high-speed Internet, the cable, and all the other economic opportunities.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Justice. The Department of Justice has been working on the development of a mental health diversion court in response to repeated committee requests and motions passed in this and the 16th Assembly. The Minister has told me that justices are generally supportive but need to be assured that the model to be used will satisfy conditions for being a legal alternative form of sentencing.
How is the Minister working to ensure that this legal test is met and when can we expect to see these proposals for review by committee? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An interdepartmental committee consisting of members of the departments of Health and Social Services, Education, Culture and Employment, MACA, Justice and the Executive are working on this initiative. The committee expects to complete its assessment of the feasibility of a specialized court by March 31, 2013, at which point I’ll will be coming to committee to share the findings as well as the options that exist, and looking for committee’s support on moving on one of those options.
The judiciary has expressed a significant interest in a specialized court but had some reservations about the nature and the type of court. They seem to be more interested in a broader approach taken similar to a wellness court as opposed to a specific mental health court. We are looking and talking to them on a regular basis. We are looking and talking to the committee on a regular basis to find out what those needs are, what the desires are, and we will be bringing that to committee once it’s completed on March 31st. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, of course, committee has been quite clear in their interest in a mental health court, as have most jurisdictions in North America. The Minister has acknowledged that Justice and Health and Social Services must work closely together if a mental health or wellness court to be put in place.
Is the Minister working closely with his colleague in Health to ensure that the concerns of justices regarding the assurance that the mental health services are put in place before proceedings with the new court are met? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there are many options. Wellness court, mental wellness court or mental health court is one; wellness courts are others. We don’t know which type of court we are going to be moving forward with. We’re going to be bringing forth those recommendations to discuss with committee. Mental health court is just one example.
With respect to working together, the Minister of Health and I have had many conversations on this, and we have both directed our staff to be involved and to work on these exact initiatives. As I have indicated, there is an interdepartmental committee consisting of members from Health and Social Services, Justice, as well as other departments that are working on this initiative. We’ll be coming forth on March 31st with some information and options for committee to consider, review and have some discussions on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister has told me that justices want these mental health services in place. In his work with the Minister of Health, and in recognizing that the programs being proposed for 2013-14 are in the budget, will these programs meet, as proposed, the needs assessed by justice requirements for a mental health court? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, the need for the programming that will be supported by the type of court, if any that are supported by this government, is something that we are working on with the Department of Health and Social Services. The committee is involved. They are working together. It is a committee of Justice, Health and Social Services. By March 31st we’ll have a better idea of exactly what programming is going to be required in order to support the different models. Until we actually choose a model, with support of committee, we won’t know exactly the programming that is needed, but we are starting to get a sense and that information will be available by March 31st. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have been at this for several years now, so I’m glad the Minister is getting a sense. We were told by Health that, in fact, these programs will meet the mental health court requirements.
Is the Justice department going to be prepared to fund a court, given that those conditions are met, for 2013-14 and the feasibility study will, obviously, be done this fiscal year? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, the Member’s timeline is a little bit different than the timeline I’m working on. I remember that a motion was passed in the 16th Assembly. Nothing happened. A motion was passed in the 17th Assembly, which is only about 18 months old, so we’ve been working on this for 18 months. We have a lot of good information. We have taken a lot of information to committee. We are working with committee.
Once again, the Member continues to refer to a mental health court. We’re not sure that that’s the option that’s going to be supported by committee, but we will be having those discussions.
At the end of the day, if this is supported by committee, the options are supported by committee, and the committee wants us to move forward on a court, we will be bringing it through as part of the business planning cycle. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a letter from Alternatives North addressed to Scott Vaughan, commissioner of the Environmental and Sustainable Development office of the Auditor General, regarding their petition on perpetual care of contaminated sites at the Giant Mine. Mahsi.
