Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Justice. I want to ask the Minister of Justice who Cabinet consulted with on the decision to refer the question of the Government of the Northwest Territories’ legal right to impose a ban on aboriginal people from hunting to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Under the Legal Questions Act, as the Minister responsible for Justice I have the authority to seek or pose a question to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. With that we felt that we needed to do that because there were several groups that were disputing the Government of the Northwest Territories’ authority to regulate caribou harvesting. So we just wanted to reaffirm our stance that we do have the authority as the GNWT to regulate those harvests. It has been brought to the attention of the Cabinet and we proceeded with that. We did consult with the aboriginal groups, as well, the posing of the question.
Will the Minister commit to discussing any future decisions to refer matters to the Supreme Court with the Regular Members?
When we first heard about this particular concern that was brought to our attention, we felt the need to react on the question that was thrown at our GNWT as the Department of Justice and GNWT wide. As the Minister responsible for Justice, I will certainly continue to work with the Members. On a going forward basis, there are other areas that we need to pose questions to the Supreme Court and I will continue to work with the Members.
Does the Minister anticipate the ruling of the court will have an impact on future discussions involving aboriginal groups and treaty rights?
This reference question is just to clarify our authority as the GNWT to regulate caribou harvesting, it does not have any impact on the land claim groups’ aboriginal harvesting. We just want to reaffirm that we do have the authority to regulate.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister consider withdrawing the reference question to the court?
The reference question is currently underway before the courts. The process is already underway.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not too sure who is going to take the question, either the Premier or the Minister of Transportation, but my question is directed at the revenues that we are going to have to drive to pay down the debt for the Deh Cho Bridge. They are going to be used as tolls on the Deh Cho Bridge, which I believe is somewhere in the range of $9 million. This government is going to put in about $4 million coming from the ferry operation plus $2.7 million or $2.2 million. Out of that, one thing I heard is we’re seeing a decrease in traffic on Highway No. 3. This decrease means that our revenues are going to be lower coming forward to pay down that debt. Does that mean the government may have to look at options such as an increase in the toll, currently at $6 a tonne, or come forward with a supp to offset that cost so they can pay down that deficit of, I believe, $9 million a year over 35 years? I’d just like to know the alternatives if we don’t have the traffic volumes to generate the tolls to pay the debt going forward over the next 35 years.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is correct; the intent to cover the cost of the bridge was to be in the form of toll revenue which we expect will be about 50 percent of what the costs are and also the savings from the operation of the ferry service and the ice bridge, which at the time the calculation was around $1.7 million -- we expect that number is now over $3 million -- with also another contribution from our government of $2 million. That’s the plan. The actual for the first year of the cost of the interest and principal and operations of the bridge will be around $7.9 million.
I believe that this is an area we don’t have control over. If we’re not able to generate those revenues on traffic volumes, we will as a government have to pay those additional costs to ensure that we are able to pay down the debt going forward of $7.9 million. I’m just wondering, the issue that’s out there on the Taltson project, which with the Taltson project going into a diamond mine will take 2,000 vehicles off the Highway No. 3 system. Because of that situation which will decrease the volumes even more than what’s already there in traffic volumes, has that issue been discussed between the Department of Transportation and the Power Corporation in light of how you’re going to make up that difference if you lose those traffic volumes of 2,000 vehicles?
My understanding is that the calculations for traffic expectations were very conservative. We are now compiling to get some actuals and then looking at what the costs would be required. We expect there is some additional activity planned in this area and we look forward to that. We are currently looking at how accurate our calculations were that were made several years ago and we expect there is some room for change.
As I indicated, there are additional savings on the ferry and ice bridge that we are currently paying. Now, with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation not receiving the same amount of return we also are expecting some numbers that will result in a positive for paying down the debt. There are still some calculations that are being worked on.
Again, we are speculating on the numbers here, but I think it’s something that we have to do at some point, realizing that we have two options. One is to increase the tolls. The other is that the government will have to put more revenues in to offset the costs associated with paying down the debt. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation, do we have any accurate numbers today on exactly what the traffic volumes are now and projected going forward, including the possibility of losing 2,000 vehicles here off these numbers going forward due to the Taltson project moving forward and the effect it will have in the next couple of years? I’d like to ask the Minister if that in-depth analysis has been done in light of the existing traffic volume decreases we’re seeing today.
The Member is referring to something that we’re trying to avoid right now. There is no calculation for something that’s not concrete in terms of a project that is certain. The Taltson project has not been something that’s been committed to and is not part of our forecast and has not been calculated in the traffic results. However, we expect that the formula that was used that has traffic volumes requiring tolls or paying tolls, commercial trucks, and the cost of operations of the current services, such as the ferry and ice bridge, along with a subsidy would suffice for covering the debt, which is $7.9 million in debt service plus the operational costs.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a final supplementary question. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a calculation this government has to do. We’re talking about 2,000 B-Trains taken off the system, which is tens of thousands of tonnes per B-Train, calculated by the $6 a tonne. That is a major means of revenue for the Deh Cho Bridge in tolls. If you lose that, it means you’re going to have to make it somewhere else. I’d like to ask the Minister if he could get his department to analyze that, hopefully consider that and bring it back to the House before we conclude our debate on this situation this week.
I suppose it’s possible to go through that exercise. Right now our calculations are based on the base amount of commercial traffic that comes through regardless of what the industry is requiring, especially the mines, which is fairly stable. We recognize that it’s probably down this year. We also measure the mine traffic which, again, fluctuates on a year-to-year basis, and we understand that number is down this year too.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time to try to incorporate a project that has not yet been brought forward for final approval or recognition is difficult. We also are in a difficult predicament when it comes to what new projects are going to be brought into the fold by the time the Taltson project kicks in. So there are a lot of things that would be very broad estimates that we are not calculating at this point. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to Written Question 1-16(5), asked by Mr. Bromley to Human Resources Minister Robert R. McLeod on March 1, 2010, regarding direct appointments to staff positions.
Later today, at the appropriate time, I will be tabling Direct Appointments for April 2008 to March 2009. This document lists the number of direct appointments made in each department during the fiscal year to date and fiscal year 2008-2009.
Departments request Cabinet’s approval for direct appointments under the relevant guidelines found in Appendix 4, Guidelines and Format for Recommending Direct Appointments of the Executive Council Submissions Handbook. Cabinet approval is required prior to any direct appointments to the public service.
The Department of Human Resources is unable to keep a record of the number of vacant positions by the dates a direct appointment is made.
While the Department of Human Resources reviews direct appointments, Ministers responsible for departments submit them to Cabinet for approval.
The Department of Human resources also does not keep a record of the number of direct appointments made after the staging of competitive staffing actions. As per Cabinet’s Guidelines and Format for Recommending Direct Appointments, departments must demonstrate why the open competition process is not expected to maximize benefits to the Government of the Northwest Territories with respect to the staffing of a position.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document entitled Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Minister responsible for Human Resources, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, further to my Return to Written Question 1-16(5), I wish to table the following document entitled Direct Appointments, April 2008 - March 2009, and April 2009 - February 2010. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to table an article from a magazine called Bridge Design and Engineering. It’s a UK magazine and someone had brought it to my attention, so I’d like to table the article regarding the Deh Cho Bridge Project. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I wish to table correspondence dated March 4, 2010, from the Premier of the Northwest Territories conveying the government’s request to reconvene the House for the period of March 23rd to the 26th, 2010.
Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project, and Tabled Document 8-16(5), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures), with Mr. Krutko in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. In consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project, and Tabled Document 8-16(5), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the committee today would like to deal with Tabled Document 8-16(5), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures).
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
With that, we’ll take a short break and begin with Tabled Document 8-16(5), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures).
---SHORT RECESS
I would like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Prior to the break we began with Tabled Document 8-16(5), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). With that, I would like to ask the Premier if he has any opening comments. Mr. Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today to present Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). This document outlines a request for $165,439 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2010-11 fiscal year.
This supplementary appropriation seeks authority to record the work completed on the Deh Cho Bridge Project and to record and use the remaining cash available to complete the project.
This appropriation authority is required as the project will now be recorded directly as a GNWT asset in our financial statements. Up to now, the project has been recorded on the GNWT’s consolidated financial statements. However, by assuming direct responsibility for the project, as well as for the project debt, the GNWT will now be recording the project on our non-consolidated statements and project expenditures will now be made from the GNWT’s consolidated revenue account.
In other words, the project will now be a GNWT capital project and will be recorded as if it had been one from the start. The project cash will now form part of the consolidated revenue account and thus requires the Department of Transportation to seek authority to draw it down in order to pay for phase 2 of the project. This is similar in process to the way our government flows money from the federal government for infrastructure projects such as Building Canada projects and the recently approved funding for the project description reports on the Mackenzie Valley Highway, where the department required an appropriation to draw down federal funding.
As Members are aware, the lenders in the Deh Cho Bridge Project have notified the GNWT that they are exercising their rights to oblige our government to assume the project debt. Because assuming this debt could result in the GNWT exceeding our borrowing authority, we have sought federal authority for this debt. Federal Finance Minister Flaherty has committed to accommodate the GNWT’s ability to manage fiscal pressures within a borrowing limit, prompted by the short-term requirements associated with the Deh Cho Bridge Project. This will likely take the form of a temporary increase in the borrowing limit. Discussions with Finance Canada on the specifics are ongoing.
The Minister of Transportation will be joining me at the witness table. I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary appropriation document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. At this time I would like to ask the Premier if he will be bringing in any witnesses. Mr. Premier.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Does the committee agree that the Premier brings in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in.
Mr. Premier, can you introduce your witnesses for the record.
