Has the Department of Finance ever examined something like this type of tax credit such as the example I’ve given, a film tax credit, and furthermore, what cost does it actually affect the Government of the Northwest Territories? I mean, are we talking about fifty cent dollars? Are we talking 75, 25? I’m trying to get a sense of an example of how much it costs and affects the government’s books. Thank you.
The Department of Finance, to my knowledge, having been the Minister going on four years, has not looked specifically in any detail at a film tax credit. Thank you.
My next question to the Minister of Finance is: Would he be willing to investigate the process and the potential cost of what it would be to, in this particular regard, what would it cost the GNWT to set up a potential film tax credit? That way we can have something for future discussion. Thank you.
I’ll commit to have discussions with the Minister of ITI, and we’ll look at what’s being recommended in terms of going forward. I’ll make sure that I have enough information about the mechanics of setting up a tax credit, so that if the Member raises the issue or wants to discuss it further, we’ll have that detail so we can have an informed discussion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I hate to say it but, for clarity, it just sounded like he was going to have a discussion about the process and maybe even just muse about the idea. Really, what I’m asking for is for the Department of Finance to investigate the costs, procedures and policies required. It doesn’t mean go write them. It just means go investigate the mechanics of creating one and how much it would cost us. That’s the type of discussion I’m just trying to get on the record. That’s all I’m asking. Would he be willing to do that so then we can have a full discussion when it comes to budget time next time around to say is this something we want to do, because if this is what it is, this is what it will cost? Thank you very much.
When it’s time to discuss and review the finance budget and business plan, we will be ready for a fulsome discussion on film tax credit. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today will be for the Minister of Transportation. I’m going to be going up north now with my questions. This House approved a $2.5 million due diligence for the Inuvik-Tuk road a number of months back. We heard inside the House in Committee of the Whole that findings of this so-called first round of due diligence produced 300-and-some holes, to which, as we heard from the deputy minister, were somewhat questionable. Can the Minister indicate to us here when we’d be expected to see the tabled findings of the so-called first $2.5 million so that the taxpayers know what value they got for that money? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once we complete the environmental assessment, it goes through the review process. I’d be more than happy to share that level of detail with all Members of this House. Thank you.
I think the general public is a bit concerned here that this government, this department received one round of $2.5 million, just received a round of another $2.5 million, and we’re going to be breaking for the summer months, we’re not going to be back here in the House until October. Again, the question to ask: When can we see an expectation of information being shared to the public regarding the first round of due diligence studies of the so-called bore holes and how much aggregate or sand is out there? My second question: When can we see this new round of information be available to the public? Thank you.
That would undoubtedly happen this coming fall. It’s important that this work gets done. I can’t underline that enough. We need to know what we’re getting ourselves into. We fully intend to try to identify where the granular material is. This is our effort to do that, to go through the environmental assessment process so that when decisions are made by this government, we will know what we are getting ourselves into. Thank you.
Again, I do appreciate it is a very complex project and we’ve got to do our work to make sure we’ve got all the answers. The point is that we have done quite a bit of work thus far on this project and we get to that point where it’s called a tipping point. We’re pot-committed, so to speak, in poker terms. I want to make sure that before we get to that next round of ask from this government, can the Minister make guarantees to this House that we’ll get answers to these first rounds of so-called information before there’s a future ask of money from this government? Thank you.
We had hoped to get before committee and give a presentation on the status of the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We have provided a written update to the committee, and we were happy to do that. This fall when we have more information, again, we’ll be very happy to work with Members on that side of the House to show them what we’ve done that will identify where the granular material is and next steps forward. We’re going to need the support of Members to ensure that this project moves forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I do appreciate the complexity of the project. However, will the Minister commit to publishing publicly all findings in the next round when we meet back in October? At the next time of session, would he commit to publishing all findings so that the public can see clearly what Members are seeing so they are, in fact, informed as we head down the rabbit hole on this very expensive project? Thank you.
When that material becomes available, we will ensure that Members are brought up to speed on that material. Again, our best guess would be it would happen sometime this fall. I know we’re back in the House in October. Hopefully, during the October sitting we can have that time to sit down with committee and go over the findings that we have arrived at. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was listening to the questions very intently by the Member for Range Lake and I just wanted some clarity on this particular subject. It’s not coming from an angle of criticism but more as an official clarity on the issue of 75/25 split. That’s been bouncing out there quite a bit. I’m not speaking pro or against the project. I’m just more committed and curious, of course, around the firmness of that offer from the federal government, because this is going to be an important element of the dialogue on the future bridge. If the Minister of Transportation could get that on the record, the willingness of the federal government to continue that 75/25 split if it goes beyond what we believe is the early estimates for the road. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We continue discussions with the federal government on the funding. It is $150 million. Again, those discussions are ongoing on how that funding is going to roll out and what the split will be, and we’ll continue those discussions. Thank you.
Would the Minister be able to provide some correspondence on that type of discussion they seem to be having with their federal counterparts? Everyone in this House knows that this is going to be a challenging and very emotional debate if that 75/25 breaks down. We don’t know where that number will end and that’s why it’s fundamentally important early on to know that we do support the intent of this project and we have the support of the federal government to get behind it before it starts. As we know – and I’m not trying to turn this into the Deh Cho Bridge example – but who knows where the costs could go if we don’t firm them up early? Thank you.
We have to get a determination of what the price is going to be on the construction of the Inuvik-Tuk highway. Before we go to the federal government and get that number, we need to know exactly what we’re talking about. Again, this is part of the exercise of doing the geotechnical work, going through the environmental assessment, and like other partially federally funded projects in this territory that we’ve seen through the Building Canada Plan, we need to do an environmental assessment first. We are going to continue down that road. Again, Mr. Speaker, the discussions are ongoing with the federal government and we will continue to move the project forward with the thoughts that the Members have brought up today. Thank you.
I just want to make sure it’s clear on the record, I’m fully supportive of the money being spent today on the environmental assessment and I wouldn’t want anyone to think that that isn’t the case. I’ve even stood steadfast on any questions from the public when they say we should stop now before it goes out of control. This is absolutely critical information to get the right price. I don’t change that.
Is the Minister saying today that we have to get all the environmental assessment work done for us to be able to develop a price in order for us to have a formal discussion with the federal government regarding the 25/75 split? If that’s the case, that is the answer for the House. I just need that as the answer when the public asks me what’s happening with the money and what’s happening with the cost of the road. Thank you.
The federal government’s expectation of us is that we would go through the environmental assessment. We would find out what the construction costs would be on the project. Again, we will be going forward to the federal government if that price gets higher than the $150 million that they’ve committed. That’s a discussion that we will continue to have with the federal government as this project moves forward as we know better what the costs are going to be. I can assure the Member and other Members of this House that that is an important part to all of this and we will continue to pursue that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to written question asked by Mr. Alfred Moses on May 24, 2012, regarding the shelter policy review – proposed seniors rent scale.
Would the Minister please provide a list of the communities that were consulted in the shelter policy review?
The engagement process during the shelter policy review was quite extensive and included a number of approaches. One component of the engagement was workshops with community and Aboriginal government representatives.
In Inuvik on June 2-3, 2011, we met with representatives from Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Deline, Ulukhaktok, Fort Good Hope, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Gwich’in Tribal Council, Paulatuk, Nihtat Gwich’in Tribal Council, Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Tulita and Inuvik Community Corporation.
In Hay River on June 13-14, 2011, we met with representatives from Fort Providence, Hay River, Fort Resolution Metis Council, NWT Metis Nation, Fort Resolution, Fort Smith, Hay River Reserve, Lidlii Kue First Nation, Fort Simpson, Fort Simpson Metis, Nahanni Butte, West Point First Nation, Wrigley and Salt River First Nation.
In Yellowknife on September 1, 2011, we met with representatives from Tlicho Government, Wekweeti, Behchoko, Gameti and Whati.
Key interviews were held with the mayor of Yellowknife and the chiefs of Detah and Ndilo, who were unable to attend the other scheduled workshops. In addition, a workshop was held with non-government organizations including both community and territorial organizations on June 28, 2011. Workshops were also held with local housing organization manager and board chairs, with four separate workshops including representatives of 21 communities.
Would the Minister please indicate which community groups were consulted during the review?
Community leadership were provided materials on the shelter policy review and identified participants for the workshops. In addition to the community workshops, a workshop was held with non-government organizations that have a role in housing. A variety of advocacy groups, including the NWT Seniors’ Society, and groups that operate shelters participated in this workshop.
Input was also sought from a variety of other stakeholder groups during the shelter policy review including membership of the NWTTA.
Would the Minister please confirm the number of NWT seniors who were consulted during the review?
As noted, there was a variety of engagement approaches used during the shelter policy review. We did not collect the age of participants in each of these activities, so cannot provide the number of seniors that may have participated in the review.
Would the Minister please provide an outline of the consultation process for the shelter policy review?
A variety of approaches were used during the shelter policy review to get input from stakeholders on housing issues in the Northwest Territories. These included the following:
There were workshops held with community representatives and leadership where all communities were invited.
Workshops were also held with local housing organization (LHO) board chairs and LHO managers.
A workshop was held with representatives of non-government organizations including shelter providers, low-cost housing providers, NWT Seniors’ Society and the NWT Council for the Disabled.
There were targeted housing client meetings. These built on the engagement with clients on poverty that included discussions on housing.
There was an on-line questionnaire that was available to all residents that gathered information on issues along the housing continuum. A statistical survey was also completed with more than 700 territorial residents that included questions on housing issues.
Key interviews were done with other stakeholders including Regular Members of the Legislative Assembly, deputy ministers within the GNWT, the NWT Construction Association, the NWT Chamber of Commerce and CMHC.
Input was also provided by the Executive Council and standing committees of the Legislative Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ramsay
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to written question submitted by Mr. Hawkins on May 29, 2012, regarding negotiated, sole-source or similar contracts.
Later today, at the appropriate time, I will table documents titled “Sole Source DOT Contracts April 2009-June 2012” and “Negotiated Contracts DOT April 2009-June 2012.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Government of the Northwest Territories Response to Motion 3-17(2), Aboriginal Languages Secretariat.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “NWT Health Care Services 2012 Client Satisfaction Questionnaire.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Northwest Territories Community Futures Program 2010-2011 Annual Report.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. R.C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following two documents, entitled “Shaping Northern Housing Options: NWT Housing Corporation Annual Report 2009-2010” and “Sustainable Housing for NWT Residents: NWT Housing Corporation Annual Report 2010-2011.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Traditional Knowledge Annual Report 2011-2012.” Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Abernethy.
