Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to follow up on my Member’s statement with the Deh Cho Bridge. I know that a lot of the issues have been somewhat addressed by the Minister and by the Finance Minister in Committee of the Whole the other day. However, my constituents are really upset that they had to cover the additional costs, because the additional costs come from government coffers and thereby the taxpayers. I would just like to ask the Minister of Transportation, does he have a plan B or a plan C if there are more additional costs to be incurred. Will he be going to the taxpayers or will he look for some other type of financing such as a full toll on the bridge? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I know the Member is quite familiar with the agreement that was signed with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, and in the Bridge Concession Agreement there is a clause that requires the Government of the Northwest Territories to assume the costs if they go over their budget amount. However, the money would then be recovered from the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation from its return, and in the event that the government does assume all of the project and is not a partner anymore, it does allow for the government to recoup its costs through the self-liquidating clause that’s in this agreement. That would mean that we would recover from the tolls that are raised. That’s the intent for this additional $15 million that’s been tacked onto the price of this bridge.
As to whether we would raise the tolls, that’s not something we’ve looked at. That is certainly not something we wanted to do. The price of the toll is still to be considered for what it was set at, and if there was ever any consideration for that, we’d have to have considerable discussion around the possibility of raising the toll. So we haven’t considered at that this point. Thank you.
A complete toll system is something that constituents raised. There are, of course, good examples throughout Canada in other jurisdictions like B.C., the Coquihalla Highway, and in eastern Canada, that as you drive you pay your toll, you actually see the repairs happening, you see the bridge, the public infrastructure being built, so you don’t mind paying that extra cost. I really think that the Minister of Transportation should seriously look at this idea that, yes, you know, we are going to need some extra revenue to cover off these costs. I’m telling you, our taxpayers don’t want to be paying these extra costs so we’ve got to come up with a unique and creative way of addressing any increasing costs or even costs of this project alone. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the consideration for providing a toll for all people that travel across the bridge is not something that we have looked at as an option. It would have to be a decision of this House. Right now the consideration for recovery on the extra $15 million would be through the revenue that’s raised from tolling the commercial vehicles. We have not had any discussion with any of my Cabinet colleagues or anyone else, for that matter, and that’s something we’ve considered. We’ve tried very hard to keep the commercial toll from increasing and we certainly did not want to burden the travelling public with a toll. So that’s the rationale for not considering a toll for all traffic. Thank you.
Thank you very much. People are fed up that as taxpayers they have to bail out government for a project that has gone astray such as the Deh Cho Bridge. Once again, the public has asked for information, the ministry has provided that and I’d like to ask the Minister will they use this review and do a post-mortem of the information that they have to ensure that there will be no more increased costs in the upcoming project. It is hopeful that with this additional $15 million that they can certainly stick to the budget and try to be on time. Can the Minister use the baseline data that they have to look backwards and see where they went wrong and come up with a strategy that can ensure that they do not run into this type of problem again? Thank you.
Thank you. We have tried very hard to look at all the different opportunities or any other costs to enter the project and we feel that we’ve covered all the avenues. Of course, I can’t absolutely guarantee that. We’ve also assumed full management of the project. We have a new team, we have a new contractor. Along with that, we plan to have better communications with the public as part of the responsibilities for project management. We want to have regular updates to all the MLAs and the public with the sites that they could look at, informing themselves, including establishing a website and the possibility of signage that explains some of the project information and things of that nature so the public can be more comfortable with this project and be able to have better communications all around. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. If I can get the Minister to continue with his commitment that he update Regular Members on this side of the House. I don’t want to get into a situation where we’re micromanaging government projects, be it the Deh Cho Bridge or anything like that, but the residents are concerned and I’m concerned, colleagues are concerned. So will the Minister continue with his commitment that he will update this side of the House on a regular basis and try to make the information as public as possible that we can share with our constituents? Thank you.
Thank you. During the discussion of Committee of the Whole we had made a number of commitments. We certainly committed that we would continue to demonstrate that there is competent management on this project. We would provide clarity and timely information on where the project is at and we will also provide clarity and information on our role as a government and all our trades and people that are involved so that the public knows exactly where this project is at in terms of the timelines and so they will be fully informed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier and it gets back to my Member’s statement where I was talking about a federal parliamentary standing committee that came to the North. They visited all three northern territories. They were here in Yellowknife on November the 19th and 20th of last year. They looked at the areas of aboriginal affairs and northern development, they were here talking about potential barriers and solutions to economic development in the Northwest Territories and, as I stated in my Member’s statement, Mr. Speaker, I found it quite out of the ordinary that I had to find out about this committee coming to Yellowknife via a third party in Ottawa. The government never let Regular Members know that this committee was coming and didn’t invite any of us or have any discussions with Regular Members about the presentations that they presented that day to that committee. I’d like to ask the Premier why that was. Why didn’t the government seek the input of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure before those presentations were made to that standing committee? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Notice was given, a day before mind you, it was a little late for the input, but a notification was sent out to Members about that, which included the comments of the three departments that were going to be made. We were given five minutes each and as the Member would be familiar, their processes are much stricter than our processes, where a speaker is requested and given a timeslot, the idea of the subject area they’re interested in, and five minutes. The area that I had opportunity to speak on was the aboriginal affairs intergovernmental relations piece, in which I did bring up devolution, which means drawing of the authorities and the positions to the North, as well as the Mackenzie Gas Project, self-government issues in that area.
The Minister of Environment and Natural Resources shared on his concern about being a Member for so long and the regulatory issues that we’re faced with and those pressures and needing to draw those down.
As well, the deputy minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment went on on a number of the economic issues and challenges we face, as well as some of the potential solutions that were there and involvement of the federal government to discuss the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline, the Mackenzie Valley Highway, transportation initiatives, tourism. So within the five minutes we were allotted each, we had to cover a broad area and we did so and we forwarded that information on to Members. Thank you.
I guess oftentimes I get a little bit sceptical, but I mean, I asked for the presentations before they were made to that standing committee and I hazard to guess whether the government would have even let us know had I not inquired about it. It might have just happened and Regular Members might not have even known about it. One day’s notice for, like I said, over a dozen influential MPs visiting our city and in an opportunity to get out and see those proceedings and interact with these Members of Parliament is an opportunity that I think should have been given to Members that were in Yellowknife at the time or they could have come into Yellowknife at the time.
I’d like to ask the Premier, and again, I’ve got a copy of his speaking notes from that presentation. I don’t see anywhere in there where it says anything about relocating jobs. He talks about devolution, yes, but not about relocating jobs from Gatineau and Ottawa to the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier what follow-up has the government done on that presentation with the federal government and when is the last time the Premier has been in Ottawa. Thank you.
Thank you. I know the Member is interested in travel routines and accompanying Ministers. Maybe we can include him on our next trip. We’ll see about that. The issue, more importantly, is the follow-up from there. Now this is a federal standing committee that sets its own criteria, that puts its own program in place. We don’t influence that, we were just asked to make presentations. They posted publicly their events. We got the information to Members, yes, the day before, but it was a slight oversight on our part.
Follow-up to the meetings we’ve had, we follow up specifically on our initiatives that departments have forwarded. So the Minister of ITI has had numerous trips and meetings with federal Ministers, whether they’re phone calls or through their staff, through tourism agencies and so on.
For myself under the travels I’ve done to Ottawa, the opportunities I’ve raised, I recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister to talk about the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline, for example. An initiative we had prior to that with myself, Minister Michael McLeod, Minister Robert C. McLeod on the stimulus package and the work that was happening there and that kind of work, and there’s many meetings following up. For example, Mr. Speaker, at the regional leaders’ table we’ve talked about a re-engagement of devolution and resource revenue sharing, which again includes bringing authority and positions to the North. So there’s ongoing work on a regular basis on numerous files. Thank you.
The reason I ask these questions is because, really, as a Regular Member you don’t see much proof that the government is pursuing ideas or issues that are brought up by Regular Members. Just yesterday I had an exchange with the Minister of Justice about the possibility of a penitentiary being located in the Northwest Territories and some substantial investment of federal dollars here in the Northwest Territories. I’m talking about the possibility of a university, an increased military presence here in the Northwest Territories, and those northern development jobs that are located in Ottawa.
Who is in charge of those files and when are those types of issues raised with the various federal Ministers? Obviously from the discussion I had with the Minister of Justice yesterday, they fall on deaf ears and they don’t get raised with the federal Ministers.
One of the things that was said early on in the life of this government is we need to be clear and we need to be strategic and go and work on specific initiatives. Previous governments have been known to go down there with a wish list that was a mile wide and a foot long type thing. We needed to narrow it down and focus on specific areas. We shared that with Members. It was around the Mackenzie Valley Highway and the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline and expansion of our hydro. Those are the main issues that we’ve been focusing on and putting our energy into.
If we’re aware, for example, that the federal government is going to expand on its penitentiary system, we would be aligning ourselves to make sure we’ve got the foot in the door to tell them about the opportunities we can avail of them to give them indication and our numbers and opportunities there. That was in fact done a number of governments ago, and I know this because I’ve been around for quite a number of years when the government was talking about expanding its penitentiary system. We can’t go down there with a list of items and constantly add to those lists because we need to build a business case. If we know there’s interest there, we’ll go after it. We’ll continue on that pursuit.
The main files that the Members are aware of are, again, around the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline issue, the Mackenzie Valley Highway and the Taltson system. We’ve got an ask there, we continue to work that. In fact, one of those things have just come to fruition where we’ve cost-shared the dollars on PDR of the Mackenzie Valley Highway. That’s the farthest any government in the history of the Northwest Territories has gone on the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Let’s start recognizing some of the work that we have done.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t mean to downplay the significance of the things the Premier has suggested such as the expansion of the hydro, the Mackenzie Gas Project, devolution, the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Those are things that are important. Make no mistake about that. What I’m saying is that just because we’re focusing our efforts on that, we can’t let other opportunities pass us by. We always have to be looking for opportunities for federal investment in this Territory. If we are too much into the tunnel vision, we’ll miss opportunities. That was my big fear. I just wanted to ask the Premier, with the various federal Ministers, if he could at least raise this issue. It doesn’t take much to raise an issue with a federal Minister or make a phone call or write a letter.
I think in addition to the work that we’ve done on those big files, and Members have just worked through our capital files and capital budget where we’ve had the largest budget in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories on our capital program; cost-shared dollars with the federal government on the number of plans. We’re one of the most advanced jurisdictions on working with the federal government on those stimulus plans and implementation of that.
On the additional areas, if we’re aware that the federal government is getting information or preparing for expansion of its programs and services, we’ll be ready to line up there.
On the specific issue of a potential penitentiary, we’ll follow up and I’ll find out if there’s an interest on the federal government’s part to expand that program area. We’ll gladly look at doing that.
Let’s recognize, as I believe the Member has done, we’ve worked with the federal government very well in the area of the stimulus plan, whereas our capital plan for 2009-2010 is in the area of $460 million; the largest in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories. We’re getting it done.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in my Member’s statement, the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act is a piece of legislation of this government that enables municipalities to offer tax relief to property owners in their taxation area who are either senior citizens or have a disability.
There is something inherently unfair about this. If one of the recipients is in a relationship, is a common-law or partner of the person who is a senior or person with disabilities, if by sharing title to that property, they then become disqualified from receiving this tax relief. This is a discussion that has been going on for some time and I understand there has been some behind the scenes progress on it. For the benefit of those people who are potential recipients of this tax relief, I was wondering if the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs could update us on where we are with modifications or revisions to this act.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can inform the Member that there has been work going on behind the scenes. We have been reviewing the act with the intent of making revisions to it. I will commit to the Member that I will follow up with officials and see where we’re at with it and how soon we can bring an LP forward for consideration.
The unfair part of this act is the fact that if the property is shared or partly owned by someone who is not qualifying under the tax relief program, that the entire property becomes disqualified. I’d like to ask the Minister if he’s familiar enough with some of the work that’s being done with this legislation to tell us if the government has an idea about how they might be able to do this; like, for example, on a prorated basis. The property’s owned by two people, one is disabled, one is not. Would the tax relief apply to 50 percent of the property taxes? Would that be something that’s being considered?
I’m not quite familiar enough with the work that’s being done, but I will follow up on it. These are actually issues we’ve been hearing about from folks across the NWT. I will commit to the Member that I will follow up on it. This is part of the work that’s being undertaken right now. As I get more information, I will share that with the Member.
I’d like to ask the Minister if any of the consultation and work that’s being done on this act is to the stage that it could possibly be tabled this session or the May session. When does he think the legislative proposal for the amendments might be forthcoming?
I do know that in the coming months we’re going to finalize our analysis to see about bringing an LP forward. I will follow up and see if we have enough in there with enough meat on it to bring an LP forward as soon as the May session.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this has not already happened, and I would assume that stakeholders such as the NWT Council for Persons with Disabilities, the NWT Seniors’ Society, the NWT Association for Communities, I would assume these are stakeholders that would have been consulted when looking at this act. I would ask the Minister if he would also be able to provide for this House a list of people who would have participated in consideration of the revisions to this act.
We have consulted with interested stakeholders and that includes the tax-based community governments, the relevant GNWT departments, the NWT Seniors’ Society, and the Northwest Territories Association of Communities, and the Local Government Administrators of the NWT. They have been consulted and have had some input into the process that’s gone on so far.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Today I talked about the importance of reading and the tremendous efforts of the teachers in the South Slave and the South Slave Divisional Education Council. I’d like to know more about the literacy programs. I have questions for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Can the Minister tell me about the change in reading levels of the students between when the program was started and now?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
I, too, truly enjoyed the tour of the South Slave with the Member. I believe it was a real successful South Slave tour. I can certainly highlight some of the key initiatives that have been undertaken since 2006.
Just over 50 percent of the South Slave students met or exceeded the standards of the Alberta Achievement Tests for grades 3, 6, and 9 after the second year, for the South Slave students reading at or above the Canadian norm this year, 2009. We are making a huge improvement in this area. In 2008-2009, South Slave students were at 71 percent, at or above the Canadian average. Also, 2009 South Slave students are reading above the average superior to 20 percent comparison to Canadian peers. We’re making progress in this area and are very proud of that.
That’s good news to hear that the students are achieving positively. I’m wondering if those results are for all of the students or are those results tied only to those students who are attending school a certain percentage of the time. I’m curious if it’s... I think I heard that it might have been that students are rated once they are attending more than 90 percent of the time and those are the only students being compared. Or is it everyone that’s in school whether they’re attending only 50 percent of the time or not? I’m wondering if those results are tied to absenteeism as well.
The information that was given to me was based on the number of students in the South Slave region that are currently in school since 2006. It was based on the number of students that were in school at that time that took the Alberta Achievement Tests in grades 3, 6, and 9. It covers a broad sector of the students in the South Slave region.
Can the Minister tell me what the program cost for this is? Is this an extra cost? What is the cost above the standard cost of education? This is a new program introduced in 2007. Did it cost more? Is there a plan to continue the program?
This particular program is quite unique and the cost factor itself is approximately $800,000 to operate. It does consist of classroom and library resources, mostly level books. They are the key to success literacy program and make it possible for teachers and students to track their reading achievement progress. Those are the specific areas, $800,000, which also covers the literacy coaches in those communities.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I’m not aware if this Leadership for Literacy is fully implemented in the communities that I represent. If they are fully implemented, good. If they’re not fully implemented, because I know, for example, there is no library in the school in Lutselk’e, I’m wondering if the department is looking at a full implementation in all of the schools in the South Slave.
Mr. Speaker, when we toured the schools in the South Slave region, we did tour Fort Resolution as well. At the same time, we were told by the education council in the South Slave district that all schools, I believe there were eight schools that had one literacy coaching in the schools that as a pilot project that they were doing since 2006. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that model and we want to deliver that in other jurisdictions as well. It’s a very successful project and we’re very proud of it. We’re continuing with the program this year using our internal resources, and next year it will be part of the business planning cycle on a going forward basis. We feel that this is an important factor in our education system. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
