Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member is aware, this government has taken the unprecedented initiative of identifying $60 million over three years in order to look at alternative energy opportunities so that we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. As part of that $60 million, we have identified approximately something in the neighbourhood of $4 million to $6 million over a three-year period to develop a biomass strategy and to implement that strategy which includes utilizing wood pellets and manufacturing wood pellets et cetera. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the feasibility study has been concluded, as I said. The ability of the business to support all of the initial start costs, which I believe would be in the neighbourhood of $3 million, this work has now been done with the support of this government. So going forward, what would the next steps be to see if any of the funding that Mr. McLeod has referred to could be allocated for the establishment of a pellet mill in Hay River? Thank you.
I should also point out that my colleague the Minister of ENR, who is not here, is the lead with regard to biomass and forestry. I guess the single most important requirement in this project would be the ability to secure a supply of timber. That would be the first consideration. Secondly would be power, as the Member has indicated. Thirdly, we think our tool kit of business programs would allow us to be able to work closely with the proponent so that we can provide funding or to work with him to identify and attempt to access other sources of funding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have very recently met with the person who would like to be the proponent for this project, understanding, though, that it may need to be a government project so to speak, but then the economy would come in where we would have a savings on the fuel and the economy could be created by the people who would be participating in the harvesting of the material to make the wood pellets.
Mr. Speaker, this has been quite a long while in the works and I had just recently met with Mr. Patterson, Mr. Patterson Jr., and he had asked me to request the Minister if we could have a sit down, face-to-face meeting about next steps and how we can get what could be a very valuable project on the go. I would like to, at this time, publicly invite Minister McLeod to come to Hay River to meet with the proponent and the MLAs and see if we can get this off the ground. Thank you.
I’d certainly be quite pleased to come to Hay River and to meet with the proponent and the other MLAs and whoever else could add to the project, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to written question asked by Mr. Hawkins on March 3, 2010, regarding addiction treatment options available in the NWT.
The Nats’ejee K’eh (NJK) Treatment Centre is the territorial residential addictions treatment centre and is located on the K’atlodeeche First Nation Reserve near Hay River. It is a 30-bed facility which offers gender-specific alcohol and drug treatment programs as well as follow-up programs (relapse prevention) for adult men and women. The Department of Health and Social Services (HSS) funds NJK through a third-party contract in which the Deh Cho Health and Social Services Authority (DHSSA) receives core funding annually to support NJK. For the 2008-09 fiscal year NJK received $2.043 million in funding to operate the treatment centre and treated 156 clients.
The Community Counselling Program (CCP) addresses the areas of mental health, addictions and family violence. The CCP specifically provides community-based addictions treatment programming as well as prevention, assessment, referrals for residential treatment, counseling and aftercare. The CCP addresses all addiction areas such as substance abuse, gambling and other compulsive behaviours.
HSS provides $6 million annually to the CCP via the eight health and social services authorities. The CCP serves all NWT residents, either directly through the health and social services authorities or through contributions to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). A breakdown of the funding provided to support NGO community-based addictions treatment programming is as follows:
Through the Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority, the following addictions programming is provided:
$351,026 is provided to the Tree of Peace in Yellowknife for addictions, counseling, community wellness and the coordination of treatment referrals and aftercare.
$63,093 is provided to the Yellowknives Dene First Nation for addictions counseling and community wellness in Ndilo and Dettah.
$468,000 is provided to the Salvation Army in Yellowknife for their Withdrawal Management Program. There are a total of six beds for this program.
$276,249 is provided for Lutselk’e Mental Health and Addictions for counseling, intake, referral services and cultural coordination in the community.
$78,775 is provided to the Deninu Kue First Nation for addictions counseling and community wellness in Fort Resolution.
Through the Beaufort-Delta Health and Social Services Authority, the Tl’oondih Healing Society receives $75,000 to provide mental health and addictions counseling services in the community.
The DHSSA provides $73,500 to Zhahti Koe Friendship Centre in Fort Providence for Family Life Program for counseling and family violence. In addition to funding NJK as mentioned above, the DHSSA is working in partnership with NJK through an agreement between HSS and Health Canada to fund a youth treatment project.
As part of its regular funding from HSS, the Fort Smith Health and Social Services Authority also provides a 16-week community-based treatment program called Matrix in Fort Smith. The program’s objectives are as follows:
For those who do not want to or cannot go out to a residential treatment centre, the program seeks to educate, in a group setting, the facts of the potential harm and damage caused by living an addictive lifestyle.
To educate facts and reinforce them of healthy alternatives.
For clients to understand their personal triggers/co-dependencies and understand the patterns of unhealthy-dysfunctional behavior.
To enable clients to live within their social/family setting and reduce their addictive behavior, by developing healthy coping skills.
The program is based upon cognitive behavioural skills and enhanced motivational skills.
The program works on harm reduction as an initial step, leading to long-term abstinence.
All addiction behavior has similar roots and causes and these are identified to clients before education on specifics such as alcohol, all illegal substances including drugs, prescription drugs and gambling. A client may then deal with their specific addictive issues within the mandatory “one-to-one” counseling session each week with a therapist.
Attendance rates are around 12 clients at each Matrix. Both adult and teen Matrix programs are run.
HSS has been working closely with the Gwich’in Tribal Council (GTC) and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) to establish and pilot community-based, culturally relevant addictions programming in the Beaufort-Delta region. Through the “Building Our Future” investments, HSS will provide $600,000 over three years at $100,000 each to the GTC and the IRC for community-based addictions programming beginning with the following 2009-2010 projects:
The IRC intends to begin work by supporting parents who are struggling with addictions by offering community workshops.
The IRC is also leading comprehensive community-based consultations to identify needs for mental health and addictions services in the Beaufort-Delta region in partnership with the BHSSA. Following these community consultations, the IRC plans to take the information gained from their research and support an addictions aftercare pilot project in the community of Tuktoyaktuk.
The GTC plans to establish a youth worker position in Inuvik to provide prevention and promotion activities around addictions targeted to youth. The GTC also plans to support the Tl’oondih Healing Society in Fort McPherson to enhance existing community-based mental health and addictions counseling and support services.
This work is unique in that community-based organizations are being provided the opportunity to design their own mental health and additions programming based on their understanding of their needs and their unique understanding of solutions that will work for them. These pilot projects will be offered in addiction to mainstream HSS programming, such as the CCP and residential addictions treatment, to broaden the continuum of services.
Individuals requiring highly specialized addictions treatment and support services that are unavailable in the NWT are referred to the Out-of-Territory Review Committee (OOTRC). The OOTRC approves all referrals for alcohol and drug treatment outside of the NWT.
There are no statistics in regards to success rates. Relapse is a normal part of recovery from addiction as individuals attempt to make changes within their lives. Therefore, it is difficult to measure “success” in terms of “relapse.” Many other indicators of success would be broad in scope and also difficult to capture and/or attribute to a particular program such as lower rates of substance abuse, suicide, family violence, impaired driving, addictions-related health issues and so on.
HSS is committed to offering quality mental health and addiction services to all residents of the NWT so that all people are supported to achieve optimal mental health and personal wellness. Therefore, I have directed HSS to conduct a review of the system of service delivery for mental health and addictions. HSS staff will be meeting with and speaking to community-based staff to gather their input around what can be done to improve the current system and what can be done to make it flexible enough to meet the needs of all NWT communities. The results of this review will be utilized to inform the development of an action plan for mental health and addictions services delivery. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table two documents. The first one is from Imperial Oil dated March 15th to the National Energy Board relating to economy feasibility studies of the Mackenzie Gas Project.
The second one is from Lawson Lundell on behalf of GNWT to the National Energy Board dated March 22, 2010. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a letter that has been sent to Minister Sandy Lee. It is from the Hay River Seniors’ Society regarding supplementary health benefits and signed by John Brockway, president. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. I wish to table the Summary of Members’ Absences for the Period from February 27, 2010 to March 22, 2010.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Friday, March 26, 2010, I will move that Bill 6, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS Members of this and previous Assemblies have expressed numerous concerns about the economic viability of the Deh Cho Bridge Project and the far-reaching impacts of this project on the financial well-being of the Northwest Territories;
AND WHEREAS the Deh Cho Bridge Project has been described as a public/private partnership between the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and a private builder;
AND WHEREAS the fundamental features of this partnership, including the long-term liabilities and obligations of the Government of the Northwest Territories, are included in a concession agreement that was executed in the final days of the 15th Legislative Assembly and has never been made public or scrutinized by the Legislative Assembly in a public forum;
AND WHEREAS the increasing costs, changing responsibilities and the uncertainty over the status of the signed partners to the concession agreement have led to serious uncertainty as to the potentially grave long-term implications of this project on the financial health of the Government of the Northwest Territories;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that this Legislative Assembly requests that the Auditor General of Canada undertake a special audit of the Deh Cho Bridge Project and report thereon to the Legislative Assembly;
AND FURTHER, that this audit investigate the long-term financial implications of the partnership arrangements, compliance with the Financial Administration Act, Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act and the financial policies of the Government of the Northwest Territories, value for money considerations, control, appropriation authority, reporting and adherence to standard public procurement practices;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Auditor General investigate and consider any other factors that, in her opinion, she feels relevant;
AND FURTHERMORE, that all employees and officials actively cooperate with the Auditor General in providing all appropriate documents, papers and information;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government inform the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and all relevant contractors of the nature and purpose of the special audit;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Auditor General is requested to complete the special audit as soon as practicable and provide a report to the Legislative Assembly;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Speaker formally transmit this motion and the content of our proceedings today to the Auditor General of Canada for her consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A motion is on the floor. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion that comes before us today I believe is very timely. I’ve often stood up in this House and asked for some responsibility and accountability when it comes to this project. I’ve questioned this project since becoming a Member of this House back in 2001.
The deal, and I won’t give a long history lesson here as we talked at length yesterday about this project, but it was signed off three days prior to the last territorial election. This project did make some sense at one point in time when the project in its entirety was self-financing. That wasn’t the case when the former Premier came to the Regular Members and said he had a contractor, it was going to cost $165 million and, by the way, folks, we’re going to have to ante up another $2 million a year on top of our already agreed to commitment of the ferry operation money and the ice road crossing money, which was about $1.8 million a year.
So when that happened, this project changed. The complexion of this project changed immensely. It became a different kind of project. Members of this House, up until just recently when we approved the $15 million supplementary appropriation, had never had a chance to debate the merits of the project, to debate any of the financial implications of the project, and that is something I do believe we need to take a look at. We need to have the Auditor General come in and have a look at it.
I still don’t fully comprehend how the government could agree to proceed with a project that judging by the most up-to-date cost-benefit analysis would indicate that we’d be facing a negative $53 million cost if we proceeded with the project. But the government proceeded with it. You’re left wondering why we ventured down that road.
We had no support from the federal government. All along the path the former government and the former Premier kept saying that the project wasn’t going to go ahead unless we had some substantial capital dollars coming from the federal government. Those never materialized. The federal government did not come to our assistance to help us with the project. My belief is that is because they realized the negative cost-benefit analysis, they realized that this type of expenditure to service 25,000 people who are inconvenienced a few weeks out of the year just because we wanted a bridge, I think the Government of Canada didn’t come to the table for a reason. I think eventually they would have under a different set of circumstances, that would have seen them be a partner with our government and the aboriginal governments that are or were, who knows what the disposition is currently, involved with the project. I think under different circumstances the federal government may have come around on that.
This project certainly has the possibility of crippling our finances. That is a real and present situation that we find ourselves in. One hundred sixty-five million dollars, whether we take five years or 10 years to have that specially accommodating by the federal government if and when that happens, that’s out there as well whether in fact that is going to happen. Eventually we’ll have to pay for this bridge. I know some of it is self-liquidating. Some of it will come off as a matter of course over time. Initially we are going to have to pay the price for this bridge.
Getting back to the responsibility and accountability that comes with being in a position where you can exercise your authority, you can exercise decision-making, and decisions are made in our government by Cabinet Ministers around the Cabinet table. This decision was made by the previous government, as I mentioned earlier, in the very dying days of the last government, on information that anybody looking at it on the surface would question whether or not that was a good deal to be getting ourselves into. We all know full well the situation that the government currently finds itself in.
I think we need to put closure to this project. We need to finish the project. We need to conclude that. But at the end of the day I think the residents of the Northwest Territories, the people who elect us here to this Assembly, deserve and have the right to get to the bottom of the responsibility and the accountability side of this.
My hope in bringing this motion forward today is that the Auditor General of Canada can help us get some of those answers, can help us get some recommendations that moving forward this government can look back on and make better sound decisions on behalf of the residents and the taxpayers here in the Northwest Territories. The Auditor General should have the unfettered ability to get into the details of this project so that as a government, again, we can use this information and the recommendations that will fall out of it as a way to make better decisions.
That, in a nutshell, is what the motion is saying. I hope Members can support this motion. I think it’s a step in the right direction. It will help us put some closure on this even though the bridge is only... Well, it’s debatable whether it’s halfway constructed or 35 or 40 percent constructed, but we’ll go with the Minister and say it’s half constructed. Again, I hope Members do support this motion and I thank them very much for their support.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Ramsay, for the motion. I will be supporting the motion. I want to say that in the history of this Deh Cho Bridge Project that the federal government wasn’t there due to other things that they had to deal with. We certainly want to involve them in this project here; however, they had their own reasons for not stepping forward and helping out with the start-up of this whole project here. They had dealt with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the community of Fort Providence and they worked with them on some equity issued there, so in a sense they did come, in terms of steps, they did give baby steps, so to speak, in terms of their involvement with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation.
I want to also say that when the Deh Cho Bridge, as has been put, and we’re out of the water, however, we were left high and dry, so to speak, and we’ve dealt with this yesterday in terms of the federal government now coming to the table on the word of the Finance Minister to increase our limits on the borrowing for the GNWT. So their involvement has been very soft in terms of what we really wanted them to come forward to.
However, I do support the motion because it raises a bunch of concerns. I look at this motion as more of a really hard learning lesson for the whole GNWT, people in the Northwest Territories and also it gives you a clear picture as to our relationship with the federal government in terms of megaprojects like this, in terms of how our relationship has been with the federal government, in terms of our aspirations and wishes for the Northwest Territories. It raises a number of concerns in terms of when we want projects to go ahead and what things that we have to do, what things that we are challenged with, and also I see this motion to see some strength in terms of our P3 initiatives if we are to move forward on those types of discussions and we certainly need to be accountable and transparent in terms of this public government and it should be scrutinized and we should have that discussion in this Assembly in terms of our obligations to our people and to the Northwest Territories. This also gives a clear picture of some of the things that went right and some of the things that didn’t go so right here. So, for me, I look at now finding, hopefully, the Auditor General giving me a clear picture to really say what happened again. But there’s another clear picture after that so, you know, I hope that the Auditor General does have some flexibility in terms of how do we go forward in this type of project and having a clear picture.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having someone outside the glasshouse to look at some of the projects that we’re doing here and that she could offer her valuable opinion as to how things maybe could be looked at and give us something to look at in terms of putting some solid information on documentation that could go forward in terms of building the infrastructure this size or bigger here. For example, I hope that we do get some support for the Mackenzie Valley Highway construction. This type of information would be so valuable in terms of going forward with this type of information. Or even the Taltson Hydro Project, this is another area that we need to look at in terms of what can come out here in terms of us going forward.
So I just want to say in closing that I look forward to the support from Members. I thank MLA Ramsay for bringing this motion forward, and also just to say let’s take this motion here as a lesson in how to go forward and learn from it. Otherwise, we may be back in this situation again with some other projects that we just recently had some discussions about. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this motion. We’ve talked a lot about this particular project, certainly in the last day and a half. The impacts of the recent events regarding this particular project are many, and they are far-reaching, and I think they are well known to all of us.
I’d like to thank my colleagues for bringing this motion forward. I have spoken earlier about the need for an audit of the Deh Cho Bridge Project, and I think this goes a bit beyond that. We’re formally asking the Auditor General to do that for us. I think everyone in the House knows that there are many, many questions that surround this project. Many of us, on this side of the House at least, feel that this project has been circumspect from the start, from the very signing of the concession agreement and onwards until where we are today.
Anytime something breaks down it’s my belief that the reasons for that breakdown should be investigated and should be analyzed, and that, to me, is what this motion will do. It’s going to look at the project from the very beginning of the establishment of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act and following it forward until where we are now.
I feel that we need to know why we had such problems with the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I think each of us in the House has our own beliefs as to the why, but we don’t have the expertise to go there, and we’re asking somebody else to do that for us. We need to know if the public/private partnership that we entered into was a good one. Was the P3 relationship the fault of our problems? Maybe, maybe not. If not, what was? Was the right project oversight in place? Were the financial controls adequate? Did the project, as established, follow GNWT legislation, regulations, policies and so on?
All of this and more can be looked into for us by the Auditor General of Canada and in a truly non-subjective or objective way. In my mind, there’s no more thorough or respected organization or person or department, for lack of a better word, who does this kind of evaluative work, and I believe that we need to get this work done. The recommendations from the Auditor General’s office, to me, will help us to fix what is broken with our system, and I do believe that we have something that is broken or else we wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
I think it’s in the best interests of all Members of this House to support this particular motion. We need to learn from our mistakes. You’re probably going to hear that from every one of the Members as we speak, but we need to learn from the mistakes that we’ve made on this project and make the necessary changes to our policies and procedures to ensure that we don’t end up in our current situation sometime in the future.
So as I said at the outset, I certainly support this motion. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to support the motion. I think Cabinet Members should vote on this. There really is nothing in the motion which requires the government to do anything. We’re asking the Speaker to contact the Auditor General, and I would encourage all Members to vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise in support of this motion that’s put before us on the floor here today. I believe one of the primary reasons that I’ll be voting in support, certainly, is that the members of the public and the members of the Nahendeh public certainly do want to see more detailed information on the bridge project. Constituents are really worried about the impacts that it will have throughout the North and this will just be another, I believe, good forum in which to provide as much information to the public once it’s completed and it’s tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion. I think quite a number of points have been raised by Members of this Assembly, at least since the beginning of the Assembly, and presumably in previous Assemblies as well, that have not been resolved satisfactorily and an audit such as this can go a long way to doing that. Some of the important concerns that are still ongoing in our current situation are the long-term implications with taking this on our debt, what prevention measures can be conceived of and put in place, and, as has been mentioned, the value of P3 projects, lessons and cautions to be learned.
The amount of debt that we’re taking on, Mr. Speaker, is 33 percent of potential debt limit and after five years of payments it will be 31 percent of our debt limit. This is a long-term situation we’ve entered into here, we are entering into, and I think that needs to be part of the consideration. So there are a number of things that could be included in the Auditor General’s investigation and we’ve provided for that possibility. I thank the authors of this motion for that in some of the paragraphs they’ve provided.
I am looking forward to seeing the results of this. I hope it is timely. I hope it gets broad support. I think we all agree it has been a rough road. There are lessons to be learned. The best way to do that is with an objective look. I don’t think that should preclude the government looking at many of the questions, looking and responding to the many questions that have been raised this week. However, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the Members have raised continuously, since the start of this Assembly, the concern about the Deh Cho Bridge and the project, to the point where we dealt with the item yesterday and will continue to deal with it for the next couple of days.
On this particular motion, one of the things that I must put out there clearly, although it is a furthermore within the motion, that we officials acted and appointed officials actively cooperate with the Auditor General. That is bordering on stating we don’t. In fact, we do. Every year we work with the Auditor General cooperatively in providing information. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on the Deh Cho Bridge Project, we have worked with the Auditor General on the public accounts for 2007-08, 2008-09.
The Department of Finance provided the Office of the Auditor General documents. That is the concession agreement and the audited statements of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation for the two fiscal years. The Department of Finance also provided the Office of the Auditor General with access to review all Financial Management Board records and decisions that relate to the Deh Cho Bridge Project.
The Auditor General’s office obtained selective working papers from independent auditors for the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation in relation to the financial statement audit, and in August 2009 the Auditor General’s office met with representatives of the departments of Transportation and Finance to receive a briefing on the project at the time that the Auditor General’s office requested and provided additional documents, and that is Ravi Associates production report, a report on key lessons learned after the first 12 months and recommendations for improvements going forward; KY Lin International design report recommendations to improve the design of the bridge, BPTEC and DNW Engineering Limited design report recommendations to improve design of the bridge and the Department of Transportation’s threat risk analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. On top of that, the concession agreement, the cost-benefit analysis and other relevant documents posted on the Department of Transportation’s site. In fact, when the Auditor General’s report on the GNWT public accounts was tabled with the accounts on February 9, 2010, the report did not mention the Deh Cho Bridge and the Auditor General has yet to indicate whether a comprehensive audit of the Deh Cho Bridge project would be initiated.
Needless to say, if the Office of the Auditor General does do an audit specifically on this project, we would cooperate fully with their office, as we have done to date, to ensure that any areas of concern are addressed by that. We wait to see the results of that.
We feel, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, through the Minister of Transportation, through the Minister of Finance, through providing all the documents and the meetings we have had with committee on this, that we have provided the full gambit of information there and dealt with this to the level that we have come to this House with. Unfortunately, in the sense that the supp document that this House has yet to deal with. On that basis, feeling that we have already provided a lot of information and will continue to work cooperatively, we will be abstaining from the vote on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier points out the furthermore that all employees and officials actively cooperate. I think that raises an interesting point, not to suggest that this government has not or would not fully cooperate with the Auditor General. However, Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual project where much of the activity was undertaken by a third party, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. That information and that documentation are things that were not always readily available to this government perhaps, but certainly not to this side of the House.
I think it is important that if we are going to be looking at this fully, the folks at the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation would also be fully participating and cooperating in their compliance in handing over of information so this can be assessed. It has been an unusual practice of this government. It is really the first time that we have undertaken a major project through this process. It is important, I think, that we fully evaluate what the positives and what some of the weaknesses were of going about a project of this nature through this manner. I think that is the kind of information that this will bring out.
For me it is not about the government isn’t withholding something and it is a big secret and we have to get the Auditor General to go and rip it out of their hands. To me it is not about that at all. It is about looking at this as a large, major capital project which we undertook to procure in an unusual manner that we have never done before. It is basically a debrief that is a post mortem on the process. I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have thought about this motion quite a bit actually. I think to myself, why couldn’t I support a motion that requests an audit? I have no issue with that on that principle, because many projects deserve a second look going over and whatnot. I think it deserves probably that respect and due, especially considering, respectfully, the number of questions that have come out of this whole process.
Mr. Speaker, I also question the value of this, considering that the Auditor General has already been requested once before and rejected doing the special audit. As the Premier has mentioned, this has been on the public accounts for a number of years. They have been forwarding information to review. They did not pursue it. I can’t speak to why they chose not to, but I think ultimately we know all of the problems already. I stress respectfully, of course, but a lot of the problems had to do with the organization and how this was put together. We don’t need a special audit to tell us that.
I stress respectfully again, but the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation I think was a little over their head in this particular project. We don’t need a special audit to say that, when we got what we thought was a fixed price, a guaranteed contract and certainly a completed design, to find out later it was a design that was completely inadequate and that could not be built safely in any manner. We had a report like TY Lin International that says that. Do we have to look at long-term financial implications? I think we understand that today. We discussed at length about adding this to our books and the difficulty that will arise and certainly the challenges before this. I am not against an audit that wants to put all of this information together once again, but I think we already do know and fully understand the implications of this.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is I am of great belief that the Department of Finance and the Department of Transportation probably worked quite aggressively and honestly with good steward of our policies, to make sure that they did comply fairly and honestly, but I just worry and I caution, sort of, the House on this. Is this an exercise just to continue to keep taking punches at the Deh Cho Bridge and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation throughout this process? I think we are well aware of the failings that have come about from this. We are all well aware of people who worked very hard to make this process go forward and bring it back on the rails. Further investigation, although I certainly won’t stop it in any way by arguing against it, I think it is just going to continue to find out what we already know.
It is a sad case. I will definitely say it is sad to say that this could be a scar on our Territory’s finances for many years to come that we will have to find ways to avoid. This is a project that the train has left the station long ago. It is up to this Assembly to make wise decisions, as well as obviously it is up to many other Assemblies to figure out how to balance them out.
Just in closing, I’ll vote in favour of the motion. I don’t believe in abstaining. I believe you either vote in favour or against. But I will certainly vote in favour of it because I’ve never believed in abstaining. In this particular case I don’t see any reasonable way of standing against it. I’ll allow it to pass in my view. I definitely think this information is already before us and we’ve heard a lot of details.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. I’ll allow the mover of the motion closing comments. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sorry, Mr. Ramsay. Before closing comments. I’ll go to the Minister of Transportation, Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has already outlined the scrutiny that this project has been under since inception. This motion that has been put forward by the Member is really a call for what already occurs. The Auditor General already conducts an audit of the Deh Cho Bridge Project through the consolidated financial statements. We as a department, as well as other departments, cooperate fully with the Office of the Auditor General as they perform this audit. In the past year we’ve already provided reports and other information requested by their office and will continue to do so.
I think it’s pretty clear in the last couple of days that our focus has been on moving forward with the completion of this project, the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I’m a little concerned that it would not be very helpful to impede some of the good work by initiating an audit midstream. These reviews, audits of this type, are usually done at the end of a project to ensure that all decisions that have gone into a project are taken fully and considered.
I’ve already made commitments in this House to do a thorough review of this project when it is completed. Of course I would certainly support further review by the Auditor General, if the Auditor General thinks it’s appropriate. However, she makes her own decisions to that end and decides which projects and programs warrant further scrutiny. The question is not whether or not there should be a performance audit by the Auditor General but rather when that audit should occur. Should it be now or should it be at the usual time when projects are at their completion? Having said that, we would welcome any opportunity to demonstrate how we as a government have been working at this and managed this project and made decisions related to this project.
I do want to point out, however, that I’m a little concerned that there is some suggestion by the wording of this motion as to all employees and officials actively cooperating. It almost implies wrongdoing by our department officials. I take offence to that. I think if that’s the intent, then we need to have some evidence to that front. Maybe the wording should be changed. I don’t think that’s very appropriate to say that we almost suggest that we would not cooperate. That is something we would do and have done in the past. I think the staff, our staff that work very hard, would take some offence to that and I certainly do.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion, because I believe that the situation we find ourselves today, this is one of the largest P3 projects that we’ve taken on. We’ve established legislation that was supposed to protect us, that being the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act. We had a concession agreement we were hoping spelled out the terms and conditions and now we find ourselves in the situation we’re in today where we have to take on $165 million into our books and deal with the effect that is going to have going forward.
Not having a P3 policy in place that clearly identifies these type of arrangements, I think it’s better to learn at the front end from your mistakes than find out down the road that you’re well over your head in regard to these types of scenarios. I think it’s important that we take the time and allow for those questions to be asked by the Auditor General and review those documents that we have in place whether it’s the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act and exactly what was in the concession agreement and how the financing of this was handled.
Yes, there were some things out of our control, but at the end of the day we are now burdened by a project that totally ended up being out of control. I think it’s important that we can direct the Auditor General from this House to consider certain matters that we feel are important and that she takes the time to assess those particular matters. That’s what this motion is doing.
It’s important to realize that we, if anything, want to ensure not only ourselves here in this House but the public that we are doing due diligence by allowing this project to be scrutinized by the Auditor General to ensure that everything was done in our power so that next time we get into these type of arrangements we have the legislative tools in place to protect the public purse and ensure the transparency that is required and that we are able to avoid these type of situations to happen in the future.
With that, I will be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion. I will allow the mover of the motion closing comments. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First off I’d like to thank all the Members that have stood up and indicated they will support the motion that we have before us today.
Just to a few of the comments I heard, yes, the Auditor General was too busy to look into the process that allowed the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the relationship between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. That was a few years back. We all know much has changed in that time. For example, the contractor of record, ATCON Construction, of which we had a $165 million negotiated contract, is gone. The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, for all intents and purposes, is finished. The $165 million is on the back of the residents of the Northwest Territories. That is a lot that has changed.
Again, I think, for me, responsibility and accountability and transparency are words I do not take lightly and I do not use lightly. I’ve been after answers and trying to hold people to account for making decisions they have made. I hope through an effort like this with the Auditor General of Canada we can hopefully put some closure to this, get some recommendations from the Auditor General of Canada that will point us in the right direction on what went wrong so that we can learn lessons as we move forward.
I’m very disappointed that the Premier and his Cabinet are going to abstain from this vote. This motion is not calling on this government to do anything. I feel badly that my colleagues across the way cannot stand up here today with their colleagues across the floor and support a motion like this knowing full well that mistakes were made, that there were major issues with our relationship with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, the process that allowed it to happen, and the fact that we were here for I think it was over five hours yesterday debating a supplementary appropriation for $165 million. Again, I think you’re making a mistake by not standing up here. I really do believe that. I think you should stand up. I think you guys should have the courage to stand up and vote with us on this motion. That’s how strongly I feel about this motion.
The other thing I heard from some of my Cabinet colleagues across the way was the word “cooperate” was causing them some consternation. I believe they’re reading too much into the motion. The word “cooperate” is a nice word. I think all of our officials, whether they were working for contractors or the Department of Transportation, there’s nothing, there’s no negative connotation to the word “cooperate” in this motion. It’s not implying anything. I think these guys are again reading too much into this motion. I would encourage them to vote in favour of it. It’s the right thing to do. It’s the responsible thing to do.
I thank those that are going to have the courage today to hopefully direct the Auditor General of Canada to have a good look into the Deh Cho Bridge Project and the troubles that it’s caused this government and the people in the Northwest Territories. We don’t even know the future ramifications of those problems yet.
I’d also like to request a recorded vote.
Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand. All those abstaining from the motion, please stand.
