Again, as I read further into the comments, I don’t know what to make of it. I want to ask the Minister, in this transaction that happened between the Norman Wells issue here, the Land Corporation and MACA, when the Minister is taking a look at it will he do a review to satisfy some people out there that we did follow policy, all transactions happened in a fair manner and that this deal here is one that should never be questioned again to the extent that I saw in the Hansard?
Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with municipal government on a number of occasions laying out the process that we use and the process that was followed. Having said that, I really see no need for a review of this situation and how the deal went down. There will still be opportunities for input because there are still some conditions that they have to meet in the next little while, so there will still be opportunity for input. I am sure the community government would be prepared for that and take up every opportunity they can to voice their displeasure on how this transaction went down. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Within the transactions of this deal here, did the Town of Norman Wells have opportunities throughout the application process or the interest of the process of this deal? Did they have opportunities to voice their interests? Did MACA note their interest? However, as it has been stated in the exchange, they weren’t taken very seriously. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Norman Wells Land Corporation made application for the property and we entered into an agreement with them. The Town has had opportunities to voice their concerns with the deal. They have done so on a number of occasions. I pointed out to the Member before, I had personally met with council and my senior officials have met with council, so they have had ample opportunity to voice their concerns on the deal that was made with the Norman Wells Land Corporation on acquiring the Commissioner’s Land. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about the carbon tax. The carbon tax government revenue option paper in 2008 indicated that the GNWT, when they did the assessment stating that carbon tax would increase the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. This goes contrary to one of our goals to reduce the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. I want to ask the Minister of ENR with the carbon tax that is coming up for some discussions here, we need to protect seniors and low-income residents and recognize the regional cost of living. How is the Minister going to propose to look at supporting our goal but also looking at this issue here where it says it is going to increase the cost of living?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The intent has been and continues to be right from the start, that any taxes that we were looking at, but in this particular case, the carbon tax, it was premised on the assumption that we would be looking at it within the context of making it revenue neutral so it didn’t raise the cost of living. It would look at dealing with carbon emissions and such but making very carefully structured if it was going to be considered, but it was always within the context in the North. Anything we do with taxes, anything we do in terms of revenue generation, we have to be very sensitive to the issue of driving up costs, especially in the smaller communities. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the cost of the carbon tax, I am having a hard time because in our region, we depend on fossil fuel. We do not have a hydro facility like some of the other regions. The cost of living is very high. My people depend on fossil fuel, so this would bring the costs up in my region. How is the Minister going to look at it if it is being considered to bring in the carbon tax and how do we look at some regions and communities that fully depend on fossil fuel?
Mr. Speaker, first, to reassure the Member, tomorrow we are going to give third reading to the budget bill and it is going to get assent by the Commissioner. In that bill, there are no new taxes.
There is work being done, as we discussed it in the House today with Member for Weledeh, in terms of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy. There was a roundtable held by the group Mr. Bromley was part of on looking at having further discussions on the carbon tax. All that work is going to be pulled together and it will be there for the consideration for the 17th Assembly and then there will be very careful consideration as there was, for example, during the Electrical Rate Review. We tried to come up with a way that is sensitive to the differences in Electrical Rate Review case between thermal communities and hydro communities, small communities and large communities. I am assuming the 17th Assembly would fully follow that same type of process. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, with our small population, compared to the province of Alberta, I want to ask the Minister, does it make sense to have any type of carbon tax in the Northwest Territories going forward in the 17th?
Mr. Speaker, the issue of our carbon emissions targets taxes has to be seen within the broader context in which we are trying to do through the Greenhouse Gas Strategy and the recognition that we all see as Northerners, the majority of us Northerners see of the rapid and dramatic and visible effect of climate change and what is driving that climate change in terms of world population and, of course, the anthropogenic or human-caused emissions.
In the North, we are very carbon dependent, as the Member indicated. The question is, what do we do in order to be responsible citizens of the country of the North, of the globe, to deal with those emissions which we know are, in fact, aggravating and leading to some of the problems that are facing us with permafrost, with climate change, with ice melting, extreme weather events, diminished snow caps, water flows, all of these types of things. We have to look at it within that broad context and have the discussion of how do we collectively put our minds to do all the right things and to bring in the resources to do those things. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I had indicated before, our region is very dependent on carbon and fossil fuel. Mr. Speaker, we do not have the luxury of having hydro power in our communities. Just recently INAC issued one of the largest land bids in the Northwest Territories: 11 parcels. There are a few more up in the Beaufort-Delta. We depend on fossil fuel in the Sahtu. Until we see some hydro initiatives coming into the Sahtu to lower our costs and to look at carbon tax, I cannot support this carbon tax issue right now. What is the Minister doing on a going forward basis to show that we are bringing down our cost of living in the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Speaker, the most immediate example I can give is the electrical rate restructure was done that, in fact, lowered the price of commercial power in the Member’s communities in his riding by many cases 30, 40 or 50 percent and would have, in our hope and our plan, to have an effect on the food basket costs. That is probably one of the single biggest things in the life of this Assembly that has been done, an issue that has bedevilled Assemblies since before the 13th Assembly where we have tried to deal with the issue of the power rates to push for a one-rate zone but that particular decision had a dramatic impact in terms of the cost of commercial power, for example, in thermal communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few more questions today for the Minister of Transportation getting back to the Auditor General’s report. Honestly, this bridge is being built in a very challenging environment across the Mackenzie River, one of the great rivers of the world, and in a very remote location of the Northwest Territories. Construction costs, Mr. Speaker, would seem to me to be a risk that would be evident from day one. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation how the Department of Transportation is managing the risks on construction costs on that project going forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve put together a team of experts from across the country, I should say across the world, that are very experienced, probably the best in their field and they’ve put together a risk matrix that identifies all the potential challenges that are out there. Anything that may happen, they develop an action plan that would require a response and this is the area that the Auditor General has flagged as having some concern.
Mr. Speaker, we should, I guess, put into perspective first of all what risk means to the Auditor General and everybody else, the ordinary person on the street. The Auditor General assumes risk to mean potentially delaying a project by a month. I would assume when people hear the word “risk” -- and I’ve had a few comments -- it’s an issue with the construction and then maybe the bridge will fall down. That’s not the case, Mr. Speaker. We have a team that’s put together a very good plan. We’ve identified all the risks that could be attached to this project. There are certain areas that have some risk having been identified that are considered low. I mean, we’re not going to put a risk to identify an action plan if a buffalo walks into a construction yard. Those types of things are not realistic. I think we have a very good team, a very good plan and a very good response program. Thank you.
Thank you and I thank the Minister for that. It would be easy to identify risks. Risks are easily identifiable and in the Auditor General’s report she calls the department’s risk matrix weak. It’s how you manage those risks, Mr. Speaker, and that’s what I want to ask the Minister about. The Department of Transportation seems to figure that by including a delivery date in the contract, that that transfers that risk to the general contractor. The Auditor General found no information on this transfer in the risk matrix, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister how he accounts for that omission. Thank you.
The Auditor General identified the risk matrix as being weak. It didn’t cover some areas that we consider as low. There’s also been concern from the Auditor General that the wording itself was too general when we used the best efforts or best practices and those types of terms, she figured that we should have it word-specific to an actual response, Mr. Speaker.
We have a contract, we have a plan to deal with any issues that come forward and there may be issues that are unforeseen, but for the most part, Mr. Speaker, we’ve engaged risk management experts to put this plan together, they’re the best in the country, best in the world and they’ve put together... I’ve put together a very efficient project management team. We have engaged more project managers than we had historically. We require industry best practices for quality control, quality assurance and we now do and have spent a lot of energy identifying any potential risks and incorporated tracking mitigation measures to ensure that it's followed. So, Mr. Speaker, we’ve done everything we can possibly. I’m not sure what more we can do. Maybe there could be some suggestions from the Member that has taken the Auditor General’s recommendations and raised the concern. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired. I’ll allow the Member a short supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d have to wonder whether the team that the Minister speaks of was hired before the audit was conducted or they’ve recently been hired to address the weaknesses that the Auditor General identifies in her report. Mr. Speaker, obviously one of the most important risks going forward is the construction costs on this and in that matrix it does not address the risk the department might face should the bridge be completed late, and we’ve talked numerous times about this. I’d like to ask the Minister specifically about that question. How is the department going to handle that project should the costs come in over what they’re scheduled to be? Thank you.
Thank you. I’m glad the Member pointed out risks. Mr. Speaker, this is the risk of asking for an Auditor General operational audit a few days after we assume the project completely in the responsibility of the government. The Auditor General did a lot of this work as we were putting our team together, as we were putting our plans together, and this document reflects that, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate. Our preference would have been to have the final audit at the end of the project. I stated many times before that it’s really stretched our resources. We’ve been audited for eight months out of the 12 months that we’ve had this project in our hands. However, we are managing and we are moving forward.
As to the question about who would pay for this project, Mr. Speaker, this is a government project. We’ve assumed full responsibility for this project and if there is a cost overrun, if we go into December or into January, for that matter, we would have to see if there are any dollars left in the construction budget. Failing that, we would have to look internally to see if there’s any slippage on any other projects, and worst-case scenario we would have to come back to this House through supp. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could sum it up concisely, I just want to get a better idea on whose responsibility it is should the project go past November of 2011 and cost more. Is it the general contractor or is it the Government of the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, if there was any potential loss of revenue due to the contract going past the completion date, we would seek recovery on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr, McLeod. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to return to item number 6 on the orders of the day.
---Unanimous consent granted
The Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to recognize a few people in the gallery with us today: Margaret Leishman, Judy Desjarlais, Susie Tsetso, Beverly Bagnell, Faith Embleton, Lynn Doan, Darrell Beaulieu, and even though he’s already been recognized, I’ll recognize him again because I love him, my dad, Dick Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize a former resident of Fort Simpson, Ms. Susie Tsetso. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize Darrell Beaulieu as well, a resident of Weledeh.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wanted to recognize Margaret Leishman. This is her second visit here during this session and I’d like to welcome her here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Welcome everyone in the gallery. I hope you’re enjoying the proceedings.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Executive.
1.
Please provide details of the content of the department’s gender-based training program, a copy of materials provided to participants, and a copy of the instructor’s training module.
2.
Please provide a summary of the results of any evaluations completed by participants in the department’s gender-based training program.
3.
Please provide some examples of policies that have been modified or updated as a result of the gender-based analysis lens, noting specific changes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to Written Question 19-16(5) asked by Mr. Bromley on February 10, 2011, to the Honourable Sandy Lee, Minister of Health and Social Services, regarding obstetrical and midwifery care.
While the average length of out-of-community stay varies, most women will spend between four and five weeks away from home if they travel to Yellowknife or Inuvik to deliver their baby. The majority of pre and post-natal care is provided by their local health care provider. Later today, at the appropriate time, I will table Number of Hospital Discharges of New Mothers In and Outside of the NWT.
The Department of Health and Social Services cannot accurately estimate the average cost of care and travel for mothers who deliver at home under the care of a midwife versus those that travel to Inuvik or Yellowknife for delivery in a hospital.
Fort Smith is the only community offering home births. Very few women choose the home birth option. Of the 42 births in 2009-2010 there was only one home delivery and none so far for 2010-2011.
While midwives in Fort Smith provide all pre and post-natal care to all pregnant women, they only deliver about 50 percent of the babies. The other approximately 50 percent choose to travel to Yellowknife or another health facility out of territory to deliver and as a result would still incur travel costs.
