I didn’t hear an answer to the question there. If a department brings forward a proposal, there must have been some basis on which a decision is made to go on one side or the other. I didn’t hear an answer as to what basis that decision was made on.
I’d like to know also from the Premier, when this decision was being considered, was there an evaluation of the risk to the project, for instance, cost overruns, if the project went ahead to construction without approval of bridge design?
The process of any construction project coming forward, number one, the specific department would have to do a number of analyses in coming forward with a request for a decision. In this case, the Department of Transportation looked at many of those options and came forward with their paper. Decisions were made based on that.
Now, as well, I must say, as we’re talking about a decision made back in February at the request of Members of this Assembly to myself, I had authorized the Department of Executive to work with the departments involved, that was Transportation, Justice and Finance at the time, to do a review. We submitted that paper to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure on March 3, 2008, going over a number of the concerns that were raised by Members at that time.
I didn’t really hear an answer to my question about what kind of evaluation was done at the time that the decision was made so I guess I’m not going to get one.
I’d like to ask the Premier, in February of 2008 as well we’ve understood from the Auditor General’s report that regulations to the Financial Administration Act were amended and at that time the requirement for 14 days’ advance notice to Members was also waived. I’d like to know from the Premier why Members were not advised of the waiving or the amendment to the regulations even if it had to be after the fact.
There was no waiving of notice of Members. It is a natural part of the decision to provide an exemption to indemnification where the process that was followed is a standard practice and has been in place since 1999. This decision to do that as a normal part of business -- and governments across the land use this as a tool -- was to address the need to indemnify, in the initial case, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and then follow up with the lenders. We could read out exactly what that indemnification meant. Again, in the paper, in the response that I gave to committee we did reflect on the need to adjust the current processes going forward and reference the work that was ongoing, for example, in the Financial Administration Act. That work is still ongoing that would look towards those issues.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for that response. I guess maybe if that information went to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure I did not see it as I’m not on that committee. I’d like to ask the Premier if he would commit to providing the information that went to Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure relative to the amendment of these regulations. If he could commit to provide that to me and Members on this side of the House.
Again, the notifications particular to what the Member just stated about the amendment to indemnifications, the list is attached to the regulations. The Minister of Finance can provide a list of those that are included in the regulations. Again, this process does not, it is a normal part of business and it foregoes the 14-day process that we’ve gone through. That was discussed with Members. In fact, again, the letter I wrote to the chair of Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure and the attachment highlighted the need for looking at a modernization of the Financial Administration Act and the area of loan guarantees and indemnities.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I spoke about the P3 policy that government is working with the Priorities and Planning committee to develop. I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance, we had seen it I think it was last fall and we hadn’t had any more discussion on it. I’d just like to ask the Minister where the P3 policy is right now.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re still working on the document we’ve had. As the Member indicated, we visited committee and we presented the work that we’ve done. We presented the work that was coming out of Canada in terms of their thresholds and how they approached the issue.
As I recall, it was quite an extensive document and given the context of the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge Project, when establishing P3s that’s something that should be real and tangible. Does that document speak to that?
The Member has touched on a key point in terms of the risk and the tangible benefits. We do have an extensive list of feedback from the committee that we received in December and that work is still being reviewed in looking at how we can incorporate it into the policy going forward.
That’s something certainly this side of the House would like to support and engage once we come down to a good policy that will protect us in the future and give us positive benefits not only for ourselves but for all Northerners. I’d like to ask the Minister what the next stage is. I think our side of the House is waiting for government’s response on what the next steps are in developing our P3 policy.
In the next number of weeks we will conclude looking at what feedback we got from committee and we will look at how we can adjust the policy which we will then send back to committee for their review.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Working with the P3 policy I think the next step is to sit down with committee. I’d just like to ask the Minister, I don’t know how much detail is in there, but what would be the size of the projects that are actually listed in there by financial value? What is the minimum for a P3 project?
That’s going to be part of the challenge. As we look at, for example, the federal approach to P3s, they have a fairly high threshold of $50 million. We’ve heard the concerns from the committee that in the North that’s going to put most projects out of reach. That’s one of the areas where we have to come to a final agreement on.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services and follow up on my Member’s statement earlier today where I talked about mental health issues and Stanton.
I’m wondering if the Minister could tell me how often and what criteria is used for reviewing internal policies to ensure safety and security of staff, patients and public within Stanton.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s a pretty broad question. Being a facility that it is and the services it provides, there are any number of processes in place to review incidents and happenings at the hospital. If the Member wants to be more specific, I can try to address those.
I’ll try to be a little bit more specific. I’m talking primarily about the psychiatric unit. In November last year a young lady was released on a weekend pass and she disappeared over the weekend and nobody has seen her since. In the last couple of weeks we’ve heard a number of reports of patients from the psychiatric unit coming and going almost as they please. I’m wondering what it takes for us to get in there and review the policies, protocols and procedures of that unit so that we can ensure that when people do leave, that we know they’re coming back, or that there’s some requirement for them to be supervised while they’re released so that we don’t get these situations where people walk out of their homes on a November day and don’t come back, as well as, you know, our patients who are going down for a cigarette or something, we have confidence that our procedures allow or ensure that they come back safe. What does it take?
I acknowledge that we have had some incidents at the hospital in that specific unit. In general, every pass, the patients in the psychiatric unit are allowed to have temporary passes depending on their conditions and situations. It’s a rare situation where patients are held there without having any passes. There are medical assessments and lots of work done to make sure that one can and is allowed to have a temporary pass, whether it is to go out for a cigarette or sometimes they are allowed to go to visit families. The primary objective for that service is to eventually be able to integrate these patients back into the community. It’s on a case-by-case basis but the staff and providers do constant assessment of the patients on leave.
Thanks to the Minister for that response. I accept the need and encourage the use of temporary passes. My concern is more along the lines that over the years -- and we can go way back to the beginning of Stanton -- we’ve had situations where people have gone who were supposed to come back and were never able to come back. I’m curious; at what point do we do a bit of an internal review on those passes and whether or not we have to have situations where families have to be a supervisor or guardian of a person who is released? We want to help these people. I know the Minister wants to help these people. I’m more concerned about the processes right now to make sure that these unfortunate situations don’t happen.
We need to learn from the unfortunate situations that have occurred and fix our policies and procedures so that they work in the best interest. I’m still curious; will she commit to doing a review, of having Stanton doing a review of the policies and procedures in that unit within Stanton to make sure that we have a greater sense of security and greater sense of confidence that our patients and public and our staff will be safe?
We are talking about I think two things here. On both counts we are doing a review. One, the Member is aware of the mental health and addictions review that we are undertaking as an entire mental health programming at the hospital as well as in communities. We acknowledge that there is room for improvement in that area and we have hired a study team, consulting team who have been here and talked to the stakeholders. We’re looking forward to having recommendations on that to improve our Mental Health and Addictions Program as a whole.
With respect to the psychiatric unit, every incident where they’ve had situations that the Member describes, yes, we have done the review and they are working and put safeguards in place to prevent those incidents from happening again. It is acknowledged, though, that the patients do get to go on a pass without having an escort at all times. I mean, in many cases the passes work and the patients benefit from that. It’s just that we have unfortunate situations where mishaps do happen.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister for that response. I’d be interested in seeing the recommendations that have come out of those reviews of the psychiatric unit to learn what lessons we have learned and what changes have been made to improve the services and protect our staff, patients and the public. Can the Minister share those recommended changes with the Members of this House so that we have some confidence that things are being done in that unit for the safety of our patients, staff and public? Thank you.
Yes, I will do that.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I raised again the issue of a hotel tax. I feel very strongly that that could be one method our government could do to empower municipalities and give them a chance to raise new revenues to help encourage the tourism industry in good partnership with NWT Tourism. My question would be directly to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, because any modification for the municipal statutes, obviously, would be directed at him. Does the Department of MACA have a position on the possible amendments to the municipal statutes that could allow municipalities to achieve this type of authority and if they so chose to implement a hotel tax they would be enabled to do so? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the NWTAC, as the Member had mentioned in his Member’s statement, had passed a motion asking for the municipalities to have the authority to levy hotel taxes. That being the case, we obviously have to listen to that and do our consultations and see what support is out there. This was something that was tried, I believe, in 2000, to levy a hotel tax, and a lot of the stakeholders that were opposed to it at that time are now speaking out in support of it. It’s one obviously we’d have to have a look at and see how we can go forward from there. Thank you.
Clearly, with that great answer you can tell that the Minister is obviously having a very good birthday, because that was a very good answer.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to continue in the same positive vein in the sense of the answer he provided. He is correct; back in 2000, actually it was groups like the Hotel Association that were completely against these types of things, as well as others, but just to name one in this particular case. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be willing to commit to doing a review on this particular initiative that is being jointly proposed by individual municipalities, the NWT Association of Communities, and certainly is being supported by the hotel industry and NWT Tourism? We’ve got a lot of partners that would like this particular initiative, certainly the authority. I should highlight, Mr. Speaker, that not everyone wants this and this is not something everyone would use, but it’s about empowering those municipalities who would like this. Would the Minister be willing to take that type of initiative on and do some work on it right away? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this is one that does seem to be picking up steam and it’s one that we’d definitely have to have a look at. I will commit to the Member that we will take up the discussion. It is one where there is going to be some consultations that need to be done. All interested stakeholders that have something in this will have to be consulted and I’m not sure if during the life of this Assembly we would have time. It’s one issue that we could put in the transition document for the 17th Assembly to have a look at.
Mr. Speaker, with the research that I’ve done on this particular issue I’ve seen that the Manitoba government has empowered their municipalities to make these types of amendments. What I’m wondering is, first, I appreciate the commitment provided by the Minister thus far, but I’m wondering if he can take it a little further. If I’d provide that example and perhaps maybe if other people from industry support by providing other examples, would the Minister empower his own officials to see if they could do some work on this in advance of the upcoming NWT Association of Communities meeting, which is in about three months from now? It would certainly be a good particular issue for them to evaluate among their peers of what work can be done and what work could be done and see what type of feelings and perhaps support around the room when they actually see the type of wording that could be considered. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the department has already started some of the work in comparison to some of the other jurisdictions in the South and how they deal with the issue that we’re discussing today. I’m sure as they go into the NWTAC annual general meeting to be held in Tuktoyaktuk this year that they’ll have some information, because obviously they’re going to get questions on it, and as they normally do, they go there very well prepared and I believe they will be on this one too. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister seems to be quite well on top of this particular issue and it’s good to see. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister, finally, on a particular issue, be willing to commit to provide me a summary of the work that’s been done to date? I have a number of interested constituents on this particular matter and I want to assure them that the work is being done, as well as I want to see what work is being done from my own point of view to help support the department if that’s the direction that they end up going, as this is an important issue for the City of Yellowknife as well as other municipalities, the NWT Tourism, Hotel Association, as well as many others. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister be willing to commit to sharing that information? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, there has been some preliminary work done on what some of the other jurisdictions are doing and I would be willing to provide what I have to the Member so he can see what other jurisdictions are doing. Then again, as I said before, the NWTAC AGM, the department will probably be expecting some questions on this and they’ll be doing more research, so they’ll be well prepared to answer any questions that they may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of MACA. It has to do with an issue that was brought up in the House on March 1st, with Mr. Bromley and the Minister, an exchange of the Norman Wells land sale, land base. The comments I’ve read and the exchange that I’ve read, it was pretty brutal and the people of Norman Wells we’re pretty well taken back and very hurt about this deal and they really are hurt about the comments made in this House.
I want to make it clear to the Minister here, when this deal was going through and this history of this deal, did MACA exclude the interests of the Town of Norman Wells in this land deal?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Norman Wells Land Corporation identified a piece of Commissioner’s land that they were interested in. They approached MACA and made application. They were hereby approved for it, and I assure the Member, as I did the other Member, that all the proper processes were followed. The municipal government in Norman Wells had some concerns with it. I met with them personally. The deputy has met with them and the lands people have met with them. They’ve expressed their concern. But at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the Norman Wells Land Corp followed all the processes as it’s laid out in acquiring Commissioner’s land; therefore, we entered into a deal with them. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, again, reading the comments it seemed like something shady was happening and I take offence to that, Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister is an honourable man whose department is a good department and that they follow policies and practices. I know it takes a lot of good work there. I was appalled by the comments here. I want to ask the Minister, did we, as the government, violate our own policies, as a comment was made that we violated our own policies and put together a secret deal that saw a benefit to a corporation that had their own interests in this land here.
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We followed all policy as it’s laid out in the acquisition of Commissioner’s land. Thank you.
