Debates of March 30, 2004 (day 11)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the department is aware there was some concern raised by the town of Hay River over the proposed consultation schedule in this first, preliminary consultation. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Delorey.

Supplementary To Question 109-15(3): Involvement Of Hay River In The Pipeline Consultation Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform this House if this board has a fiduciary responsibility to consult with all affected parties when a review is undertaken? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 109-15(3): Involvement Of Hay River In The Pipeline Consultation Process

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the board is simply going around to assess whether or not there is significant public concern and, if so, that would trigger the joint panel review. I think we probably all know that phase of the review is inevitable. This preliminary screening and work that they’re doing now is just to confirm and hear from some of the people in the Northwest Territories what those concerns might be. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Delorey.

Supplementary To Question 109-15(3): Involvement Of Hay River In The Pipeline Consultation Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what action is the government willing to take or the Minister willing to take to ensure that the residents of Hay River have an opportunity to be heard by this review board? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 109-15(3): Involvement Of Hay River In The Pipeline Consultation Process

We are making sure that we follow the process and sit in on the meetings in order to hear public concerns, but I certainly take a lot of comfort in knowing and believing that this will go to phase two and there will be a joint panel review and, at that point, there will be significant opportunity not only for the residents of Hay River…I take the Member’s point that Hay River stands to benefit hugely from a development of this nature and I think they’re poised quite well to do so, but the board will hear from the residents of Hay River, it will hear from residents across the Northwest Territories and I’m certain will take their input and give it a lot of weight. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Mr. Delorey.

Supplementary To Question 109-15(3): Involvement Of Hay River In The Pipeline Consultation Process

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to hear that the Minister has confidence that the concerns will be addressed in phase two. But, Mr. Speaker, in the work plan for the environmental assessment of the Mackenzie Valley gas project it states very clearly that phase one of the review board will hold a series of public hearings in the Mackenzie Valley to gather evidence of any public concerns and determine which issues will be examined in detail during phase two. So if communities haven’t got a chance to voice their concerns during phase one, how are they going to get in on phase two when it’s specifically phase one that addresses what issues will be looked at in detail during phase two? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 109-15(3): Involvement Of Hay River In The Pipeline Consultation Process

Thank you. I believe that there will be a chance in phase two for all residents to bring forward their significant concerns and I will acknowledge that the concerns of Hay River may not be identical to the concerns of other communities. There are going to be issues specific in nature, but they won’t be from left field. They are going to involve business opportunities, employment opportunities, environmental impacts and those sorts of things. I think the broadest categories of issues are being documented at this point. There will be plenty of room. As well, I’m certain that our department or the Government of the Northwest Territories will make an intervention and we plan to do so. We are an interested party in the cooperation plan. We will certainly make an intervention on behalf of all residents across the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to my Member’s statement, my question today is for the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, as I stated, there have been lots of less-than-good behaviour on the part of the Cabinet and the Housing Corporation in the way they have dealt with this. Mr. Speaker, I think that exempting BIP, exempting themselves from their own policy, requires a justification. We still have not been provided with any evidence that proves that to us. We still do not have any documents, although the Ministers have promised for the last week or so.

Second of all, I’m providing the Minister with information that tells us there are at least two, if not more, northern businesses who could do this, who could deliver the goods on time with or without BIP, who would have maximum economic spin-offs by creating jobs and building our tax money here and everything. So I would like to know -- the only thing I think they need is more time than three weeks to put together a plan for 45 homes -- if the Minister would consider extending the contract time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Return To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my information tells me that we have had over 30 tenders picked up today and of those 30, 17 are from the North. Now we will consider, we have committed in yesterday’s question period, to reviewing this whole initiative with Cabinet on Thursday. There is going to be some concern because there are a number of tender documents being processed right now. However, if there is a concern raised by the Member needing more time, how much more time that is I’m not sure, we do have a real tight time frame in this situation. A portion of these units are intended to go onto the barges and we need to have them in place by September. We may be able to defer a portion of it. I can’t say that with any certainty. We can certainly look at it, but at this point I can’t make that commitment. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Among many anomalies in this process, one of the things I’ve learned also is that the tender documents that were put out for this contract did not even have specifications as to what exactly the Housing Corporation was looking for. They didn’t even have square footage that they were looking for. I have no idea how the Housing Corporation or Cabinet do their calculations if they don’t even know those kinds of assumptions or don’t put them out there. I don’t know how they expect the businesses to apply for it.

Anyway, okay. Thank you. Mr. Speaker…

---Laughter

I have been here long enough to know that the pressure on Cabinet is considerably lessened if we’re not here to push them. I don’t know if we’re going to be here tomorrow. I am not going to take the word from the Minister. I would like to know if the Minister is really open and Cabinet is open to revisiting this situation, changing their minds and to extending this contract by two weeks. I’m asking for two weeks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we’re taking note of the concerns raised in Committee of the Whole and certainly in this House. We take all the questions very seriously. The question to defer by two weeks we will put forward. Our tendered document that the Member has referenced as not having a lot of detail, I’d like to point out to the Member that this document is something I’m prepared to table. It’s a supply tender for commodity. It is not a construction contract. We are looking for a lowest-priced tender in this case. It does meet the technical requirements. The question again for the two weeks is something we may be able to accommodate. I would certainly take it seriously and bring it forward and respond as soon as possible. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister mentioned there are lots of businesses that have picked up the tenders, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that as many businesses are going to be able to actually meet the bidding requirements and have them back on April 2nd, because my understanding is the notice for this sort of project for these houses was so short and it was only for three weeks. Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to still know when he’s prepared to give us the background information on which the Cabinet decided to waive the BIP. We still don’t have that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just got the package and it’s being copied right now and will be distributed to the Members. It’s in the works as we speak and I apologize for being late by a day. The commitment for Monday was a tough one to meet.

---Laughter

Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think he’s at least four days late on that information. Mr. Speaker, I accept that the Minister is an honourable Member and I’m willing to trust his commitment, but I want to know from the Minister and I want him to clarify that he would, in fact, go to Cabinet and ask for a two-week extension. Not just, I will see what I can do, but would he commit to asking for a two-week extension? Yes or no, please, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 110-15(3): Justification For Waiving The Business Incentive Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will run that through the Housing Corporation to see if we can deal with the deadline. That is the biggest concern at this point. I will guarantee the Member that I will take this issue to Cabinet and indicate the different arguments that have come forward on why we should extend the tendering process for another two weeks. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are for the Premier. They relate to the whole area of our government’s application of policy and the measures by which we apply that. It was interesting yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from my colleague, Mr. Hawkins, that the Premier said the following, and I quote from the unedited Hansard, “Mr. Speaker, I have to say that policies are policies. They’re general directions and guidelines. They’re not one of the Ten Commandments. They’re not laws. There is room for some exception there where we can warrant it.” So I’m a little confused and I guess I’d like to start by asking the Premier if he could give us this afternoon Cabinet’s definition of policy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Mr. Speaker, a policy outlines an intention and a direction that the government is going to take. It basically describes a purpose, it describes some basic principles that we’re going to work through, it describes the scope of what we will do and what’s covered by the policy and what it’s impact will be. It also includes some background on how the policy will be implemented, what the authority and accountability is.

As well, Mr. Speaker, it also includes a section which says that the prerogative of the Executive Council, which if I may read says, “…nothing in this policy shall in any way be construed to limit the prerogative of the Executive Council to make decisions or take actions respecting the provisions in the policy.” So, Mr. Speaker, it’s a statement of what we are intending on doing. There are times, Mr. Speaker, where there are conflicting or two different objectives and we have to determine which is the highest priority. There are times and there have been cases in the past where exceptions have been made to policies and it will probably continue in this government and future governments. We try to limit it and only do it where we really haven’t got much choice in weighing alternatives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s a helpful discussion of the fluid realm in which policy is stated. I’m not challenging that Cabinet should have the authority at times to make exception. I think that is a valuable part of our institution. However, as the Premier said yesterday, where we can warrant it. Principles like this come into play very dramatically, especially when you’re a business person. So, Mr. Speaker, what I’d like to ask now is, what criteria are in place. Can the Minister put some shape and some form and some scope to what the criteria are that would guide Cabinet when making an exception to a rule becomes warranted? Thank you.

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that in the cases in my experience where the government has had to make an exception to a policy have been driven by competing objectives where we have more than one objective. In the case that the Member is referring to, it has to do with the need for affordable, adequate housing in communities as opposed to ensuring maximum northern benefits. Which one is going to be weighed more highly? We often, Mr. Speaker, make exceptions in another area. Another area as an example is on negotiated contracts. We have a policy on tendering everything and putting it out and advertising it, but we often have negotiated contracts. Again, we have an objective there: a northern benefit, a local benefit versus getting the best price.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have policies is that we need to have some direction. We want to give the public clear direction of how we’re functioning as a government. At the same time, we don’t give a policy the same sort of stature we would have to a law, for example. If we don’t want to make exceptions to it, then make it into a law. If we want to leave ourselves some flexibility on competing objectives, keep it as a policy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Mr. Speaker, then to the business community doing business with this government, and we are a major part of the economy here, how then do I take that kind of an explanation and work it into my business plan so that I know that there’s going to be some consistency, some predictability, some stability to how I operate my business and how I do business with the GNWT? Thank you.

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, there are times when it is necessary to make an exception to a policy. Those times we like to keep to a minimum. We very seldom make exceptions. In fact, if we take the business incentive policy, for example, to my recollection there have only been three exceptions made to it. On tendering, we do that much more frequently. The business community is very aware that we have the BIP. They’re very aware that we tender a lot of things, but also very aware that we negotiate some contracts, we do some as sole source, we do some as standing offers. They know there are a variety of ways and depending on their interest they may promote one more than another one. The environment cannot be absolutely certain for them, but at the same time they know we have a policy that generally and by far that most of the time we are going to follow the policy. There will be opportunities or situations where we feel we need to make an exception. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Would the Minister commit to developing and putting to this Assembly and the business community some list of criteria that would help the business community make some judgments about when it is or is not a good idea to get into business with this government? I’m not getting a whole lot of security really that this Cabinet wants to do business on a level playing field. Can you tell us how you might go about setting out those rules more clearly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 111-15(3): Consistent Application Of Government Policy

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the Member is asking me to have the government do a policy on when we make exceptions to policies.

---Laughter

That might confuse the whole thing even more. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development is working on a contract registry. They’re doing some work in the whole area with BIP and how we do our business. We are going to continue to work on that. We’re going to continue to try to improve on our communications when we need to make an exception. I can assure the business community that by far we will find that we are following our policies. If we need to communicate where we need to make exceptions or exceptions are necessary, then I hope that we can communicate that very well. The business community, I don’t think, would find that there are many exceptions at all and will generally find that doing business with our government is a great opportunity for them in many cases. Of course, there are some companies that probably do very little business with us. Most of their business is with the private sector. That’s going to continue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll pick up where some of my colleagues have left off with my line of questioning. I guess the first question I’ll ask to the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation -- and I’ll get right to the point, Mr. Speaker -- is why were northern manufacturers not consulted in this process? Thank you.

---Applause

Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. McLeod.

Return To Question 112-15(3): Consultation With Northern Manufacturers

Mr. Speaker, in this whole initiative, our goal was to provide affordable housing to the non-market communities and our intention was to bring it to a cost where it would be affordable and people would like to utilize it. We contacted a number of different organizations and boards and agencies across the North and we did have a very positive response. We felt because we had an open bidding process that we would go that route. The manufacturing community does have an opportunity to bid on this, as does everybody else. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 112-15(3): Consultation With Northern Manufacturers