Mr. Speaker, can the Minister provide me with a schedule of the work plan that he just spoke of? Thank you.
We are expecting the results of all of the detailed work by April 2010. The expectation is that by October we would have our cost estimates and work plan developed. Assuming that the project is technically, environmentally and financially viable, then we would proceed through the regulatory process. Mini-hydro has a very small footprint so it won’t be flooding any large areas. The powerhouse is very small and the transmission line is very short; it’s only 17 kilometres. So our expectation is it wouldn’t take us very long to get regulatory approval. Assuming that, probably the earliest we could start construction would be in late… The decision to construct would be made in late 2010, and potentially could start construction in 2011, with power being generated in 2013-14. Thank you.
The community is very eager. Can the Minister commit to holding a public meeting in the community as soon as possible to discuss the project with the community, including the leadership? Thank you.
It’s our expectation to do exactly that, so we can commit to doing that, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, an essential part of developing mini-hydro in Lutselk'e would likely be an all-season road to the site, which is about 20 kilometres. Can the Minister commit to working with the community in hopes of trying to get that all-season road started this summer? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the initial plans envisage that we would just have a quad trail to the site. In my view, I think it would be beneficial to have a road, recognizing that that would add to the cost of the project, and it could make a difference whether the project is viable or feasible. So I think once we get the information to allow us to determine whether it’s feasible to build an all-weather road, then we could make that decision. We expect the government will have all that information by this October. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue asking some questions of the government on how they sole source contracts. I’m having a little bit of trouble understanding the rhyme and reason that the government uses for sole sourcing contracts in certain instances.
On the Department of Public Works website, they have the opportunities for people to sole source contracts throughout the government. I’d like to ask the Minister of Public Works, other than negotiated contracts, under what circumstances can deputy ministers of Minister award contracts without some sort of competitive process? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Public Works, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess there are three considerations that would be utilized for a sole-source contract to be awarded. First of all, the goods, the service or the construction have to be urgently required and the delay would be not in the public’s interest. We would also consider if there was only one party available that is able and capable of performing the contract. If it’s a contract with a consulting service or a company, that it will not exceed $25,000 in value, and if there are other types of contracts, of course, but that’s the basic criteria we use for sole-source decisions. Of course, some of those decisions are made outside of headquarters. We also have the ability for some of the regional offices to award the sole-source contracts, and they are required to follow the contracting authority that’s there. Thank you.
I thank the Minister for that. The next question I’d have for the Minister: in sole-sourcing contracts, when sole-sourcing contracts are being considered, I’m just wondering if the Minister can let me know if that’s considered to be a best practice by the department. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, of course, Public Works is responsible for the contracts awarded within the ranks of Public Works, and sole sourcing is one method that we use, it’s a management tool. There are criteria that sets out when it can be utilized and that’s what we follow. Thank you.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Public Works what measures are in place by Public Works to ensure the contracts are awarded fairly. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, of course, the financial end of a contract, the end result of a good product, those things are all considered as we do an evaluation after the project is completed. Mr. Speaker, we have to point out that sole sourcing, of course, is only used in the situations that I outlined in the previous questions. So those are what we utilize as a guide and the end result is usually what determines whether the best practices were used in the case. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether or not his Cabinet colleagues are all fully aware of the policies that are on the Public Works website when it comes to sole sourcing contracts, and whether or not they have actually read that section of the website. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this is a management tool, as I indicated before, and each department has their responsibilities that lie within the contracting policies, and they have all read the terms and are all up to date on the practices of this government. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to follow up on my Member’s statement and the questions in the House of last week with regard to Deh Cho Hall, to the Minister of Public Works and Services. Our government has been on a campaign to reduce, reuse and recycle, and here’s an opportunity to do it with our Deh Cho Hall that’s slated for demolition this coming summer. But I’ve been hearing reports that there may be an environmental report out there saying that all the material is contaminated. Can the Minister tell me if this is true?
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Public Works and Services, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the Member raise the issue of the demolition of Deh Cho Hall. I thought maybe he was recycling his Member’s statement, or in the event that we were both talking about the same thing and he had some information that I wasn’t aware of. Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment in this House to the Member that we would look at a salvage component to the demolition of Deh Cho Hall. We have not had any information, at least that has come to my attention, that all the materials are contaminated. We assume there is going to be material that is contaminated, but we have, as part of this program, put in the requirements for a salvage and recycling program. I can certainly check with my officials to see if there is any concern regarding contamination, but as far as I am concerned, we are moving ahead and there is going to be a salvage component. Of course, we can’t have a free-for-all and it will have to be controlled. That is what will have to be worked out as we move forward on this. Thank you.
I am glad that something like this can be worked in the terms of reference for demolition of Deh Cho Hall. I’m glad that the department has not made a decision that no material can be salvaged. So once again, perhaps I’ll just ask the Minister what is the timeline for developing the terms of reference for demolition of the Deh Cho Hall.
Once again, yes, we want to have a program in place that will allow the community to have some benefit from the materials that are available through salvage and recycling. We certainly need to ensure that there is a safety component incorporated in this process. Direct access is probably not something we want to see. We’ll have a controlled area where salvage material will be dropped off so that people can come and pick through it or take what they’d like. The scope of work is already being determined. We’ll have all the different components required prior to going out to tender this summer. That’s our intent, is to have this done in the next little while and completed over this year or so. That’s our plan. Thank you.
I’m glad that the opportunity is there, maybe there, to salvage as much materials as we can for the public and special interest groups. As to the timing, does the Minister know yet about the timing, when the demolition will begin and when it will be complete? Thank you.
We don’t have any firm dates as of yet. As soon as we do, we’ll make sure we forward it to the Member. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just in terms of organizations or myself, contact with Public Works and Services when it comes time to award the contract, who would we contact on behalf of the residents and organizations about material and salvage material for special interest groups? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we can certainly commit to having our own Public Works staff to notify the different levels of local government in the community. Any public notification and how the salvation program itself would be operated I’m assuming would come from the contractor that has the contract and would determine what the safest way to distribute materials and salvage and dismantle this building would take place. So we can provide notice to the Member as we notify the community governments. The rest would have to be up to the responsibility of the contractor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to address my questions today to the Minister for Health and Social Services. I have some questions in regard to the recent release of information about possible change to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. I am very appreciative of the work that’s been done by the department and the staff in the department to do a lot of research and to provide a lot of data. My questions go to the process that has been used to date and the process that’s been planned for the future in terms of consultation.
The motion that was passed last year by this House required the Minister to involve the public and to involve stakeholders and any consultation with regards to bringing Supplementary Health Benefits Program changes back. So, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister how she feels that involvement of the public and the stakeholders was done leading up the recent release of information. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member is right; we did make a commitment to have a full consultation process as we went back to work to improve on the information that we had and the discussions that we need to have with the public. We have had that discussion with the public working group as a stakeholder representative. The departmental officials met with them and my information is at the last meeting they had, they wanted the department to come back with more detailed information and this is what they received last Friday. Since then, they have given us feedback that we are considering. Thank you.
To the Minister’s answer, I understand that process. I know that the working group was established. I know there were a couple of meetings, at which I understand there was very little substance, very little discussion about possibilities and so on. So I am concerned when the Minister says they asked for further information. That’s probably true, but when did the department ask the stakeholder group or the working group for their opinion? I am very concerned that I don’t think there was an opportunity for wide-ranging, creative thinking outside the department input to the department from this particular working group. So if the Minister could comment on where that opportunity was for the working group prior to the release of the information that came out this last week. Thank you.
I think it’s important to note that working group was part of the discussion process, but they weren’t meant to be the exclusive or the only group of consultation. Since our last experience, we’ve discussed with the committee about how to improve on things. We’ve had a few meetings on that. Departmental officials have met with health providers, the authorities. I have discussed it with the chairs of the boards. We’ve met with the NWT Seniors’ Society. They’ve invited me a couple of times and we’ve had discussions on that. So I think it’s important to note the public advisory group was part of the consultation process and what the Member is saying we should do, which is to think out of the box, talk to other people, not do all the work in the department, is exactly what we have begun to do as of last Thursday and Friday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the important thing to note in the Minister’s answer is she said that’s what they started to do since last Thursday and Friday. The working group was established before Christmas and my understanding was they were supposed to help to develop what the department seems to have determined a draft plan. It seems they have a plan which they’ve put out and they are looking for consultation on, a plan which apparently would charge a fee. I just have to take exception with the fact that the working group was not involved in the drafting of that plan. I guess I ‘d like to ask the Minister why the working group, not that they were necessarily ignored, but why they weren’t more involved in drafting the plan as opposed to being asked for a response to a plan. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Member is absolutely wrong in saying the department is coming up with the plan. I think we’ve learned the last time that coming up with a plan and asking the public to approve the plan did not work. We have learned that. The department staff has been working really hard to gather the data on who the users are, and what their backgrounds are, and what the cost of the services are. We are just providing the raw data. We provided that to the media. We provided that to the committee. We provided that to the public working group and anybody who wants to see that, it’s on the website now. We have suggested that this raw data points to some direction that we should look at. We are not coming up with the complete plan and we are asking the public for feedback, and we are going to have town hall meetings and public hearings, and anybody who wants to talk to us because these are important programs and we don’t want to ask the public to ratify that the department has, but have them give us input and have a public information session. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister, we have to agree to disagree, which I do often with Ministers it seems. But in terms of what’s out there, I took this recently from the website. It’s a dialogue with the public that talks about grandfathering, talks about copayments, talks about catastrophic drugs, residence requirements, third-party coverage. That is what the department is looking for feedback on. To me that sounds like a bit of a draft plan, albeit it’s not hard and fast, but it sounds like a plan to me. I’d like to ask the Minister again, how were the working group and other stakeholders involved in the development of this draft plan?
That Member is looking at the material that the committee received. Our discussion was that the data shows that we need to consider those as a policy direction. We’re not going out to say we should do this or we should do that. Copayment is a possible option, but the data or grandfathering or anything else, that’s a transition measure or where do we go next that we should consider. I think Members should take that when we say that we are consulting with the public. In order for the public to respond to us, we need to present them with some hard facts about what is the cost of extended health benefits, which is separate from insured service. Who is using it? What are the age groups of the people using it? What are their income levels? We are going out with an open mind and the hard facts. We are asking the public to respond. The public working group is just a part of the public.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of ENR. I’d like to ask the Minister to provide the House with an update on his official meeting with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation on the sensitive issue that we’ve been dealing with for the time being here. Can the Minister provide an update on his meeting with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve had some discussions with some of the Yellowknives. We’ve also had some contact with the national chief, Bill Erasmus, about a process to possibly help us work to resolve the current circumstance with the Yellowknives and the access to caribou and our offer to work with them to hunt outside the band area as well as a very small controlled hunt within the band area.
I know you have mentioned this in the House, that you hope to have some conclusion and resolution to this critical issue here. I’ve been hearing this for almost a week and a half or two weeks. I want to ask the Minister about concluding this issue with the Yellowknives First Nation if he can give me a date on hoping that both sides are satisfactory and a conclusion or resolution can be imminent and this issue can be put to bed.
I think everybody would like to have this resolved as soon as possible. One of the issues is the Dene Nation has come forward with this and they want confirmation that they are speaking on behalf of the chiefs on this issue. The suggestion was to each identify a person or staff member to be able to sit down and start negotiating some of the outstanding issues. We’re involved in that process at this point.
