The Member has made a lot of assertions here, which is his prerogative. I have responded to his request that ENR will take a course of action. I will follow through on that.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister of MACA a question on O and M funding for communities. I met with Mayor Sean Whelly of Fort Simpson and Deputy Mayor Tom Wilson earlier this week. They have advised me that O and M funding for the 2010 fiscal year has been reduced. They showed me a chart that they are actually one of two communities that will be reduced. I’d like to ask the Minister why there is a reduction. What is the rationale for the reductions of O and M for the community of Fort Simpson?
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The formula funding for O and M funding takes into account population and the community’s ability to raise some of their own revenue. They are assessed land value and the Member is correct that the community has seen a slight decrease in the amount of O and M funding that they had because of a slight decrease in population. I’d like to point out to the Member, though, that both communities’ O and M funding actually increased. So there is not really a net loss to the communities.
The Minister references two communities. Actually, the second community that did receive a reduction in O and M is in my riding as well. That’s the community of Wrigley. Those are the only two out of 33. That leaves me to question why only those two communities. Why did everyone else get an increase in funding? Once again, I don’t understand the rationale. Other communities experience population declines as well.
There is one other community that received a slight decrease in the O and M funding. Oh, not the O and M; the water and sewer funding. There was a slight population decrease in both communities and that affects their formula funding. The numbers that we’re considering are very minor, but with the increase in the O and M funding to the one community they’ve actually made quite a substantial net gain.
Perhaps if the Minister could explain where that net increase is, because I only see a reduction in the figures there.
I’m provided with a chart from the department that I would be willing to sit down with the Member and show him the numbers. With all the different formulas or funding that we have, the community, both communities have seen a net gain. It takes into account all the others. But I do have the documentation. I’d be willing to sit down with the Member and we can have a look at the documentation, and if he has any questions, I would be pleased to get him some answers.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be pleased to take the Minister’s offer on reviewing those documents. If he could commit to get them to me as soon as possible.
I’d be willing to sit down with the Member as soon as we’re done today and that way he can have some comfort in knowing that the overall funding has increased. I can explain the rationale of the formula funding. I would be pleased to sit down with the Member and discuss that.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve had many questions over the past six years related to the Deh Cho Bridge Project. Today I want to direct my questions to the Minister of Finance. I mentioned it previously, and I mentioned it again today, that this project certainly has the ability to cripple our government’s finances not just in the immediate future but well into the future. I would like to ask the Minister how exactly the Department of Finance is working with the Minister of Transportation and the Department of Transportation on trying to get a handle on what the real impact of this project is going to mean to our finances.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been working very closely with myself and the Minister of Transportation and Cabinet. By my rough estimation, I think I’ve spent about 10 hours this session before committee on various aspects of the bridge where we’re engaged fully with committee on a plan coming forward that we believe will help in due course and allow us to get this project on the final footing that needs to get completed, recognizing that it is going to be a self-liquidating investment. It will be paid back through the tolls that are raised. This is a huge priority, as the Member has pointed out, and we are working together to come to a process that we can finally focus on the construction and get the bridge completed.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance what would an additional $165.5 million do to our debt wall and our ability to borrow for other projects.
Keeping in mind once again that the $165 million is for the most part self-liquidating, but, as the Member well knows, if we add that number to the debt that’s already available, it would put us past our borrowing limit if that was a worst-case scenario.
It wouldn’t be the first time that I ask questions in this House for the benefit of the public. I do already certainly have an understanding of what’s at play, but again I think the public has the right to know. I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance what the status is of our relationship with the lenders on this project.
First let me say that we as well are in the accountability business that the public has a right to know. The discussion in the House has always been in terms of the information that is available at what time to allow and the appropriate time, so that the government in fact is able to complete the work on whatever the issue may be and not be in a situation where the confidential information is discussed in the House. Our relationship with the lenders is one where we’re continuing to work with them within the terms of the agreement to make sure that this bridge gets built.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned in my statement, the contract with Ruskin was signed off I believe just yesterday. Considering that contract has been signed off, I’m wondering why the government is reluctant to let the public know the details behind their relationship with the lenders and the disposition financially of this project.
The Member is aware of the process that we have before us that we’ve agreed to. We will be coming forward once we finish the necessary work and take all the steps that are necessary for a full debate and discussion and disclosure. Until that time we need the time to be able to conclude that process in due course and in a manner that befits the complex nature of the process. We are fully intending to have that discussion. There is no hesitation. We just want to make sure it’s done appropriately when we have all the pieces in place that we can stand up and lay it all out.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about some of the downside of consensus government. Maybe it isn’t that consensus government is all bad, but maybe the Territory has evolved and maybe a change from consensus government would be a natural stepping stone, a natural evolution in the way that we govern ourselves here in the Territory.
I am not sure where changes to the way we govern ourselves would actually begin. I’m hoping that the Premier could help me out with this, because all of our systems and committee structures and rules of the House and everything are currently premised on a style of government called consensus government. If we wanted to transition to party politics in the Northwest Territories, certainly it would take a great deal of public consultation. It would take a signal from the public that this would be a more effective way to govern. But I would like to ask the Premier where the starting point would be on that kind of discussion and transition.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the very beginnings can start just as they have with a Member raising the issue of consensus government and our processes. We have touted much about our consensus style of government when we go to other jurisdictions and meet around the issue of consensus government. Many Members from other governments from the opposition parties are very impressed, let’s say, with the ability to gain information from the governing body or Cabinet, so to speak, and share that up front. That also places restrictions on Members when you get that information to hold that in confidence until decisions are made and we can bring them to this level of debate in this House. I, as well, starting as a Regular Member, was rather pleased with my ability to get information up front. That also hampered my ability to speak to issues at certain times.
But we fully recognize that the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Northwest Territories itself is evolving when you talk about self-governments, you talk about the evolving governance structures. One of the areas I’ve engaged in is a political development forum with aboriginal leaders leading towards the possibility of a constitution. I would say debate would be good to have on consensus government, because there are times when we really need to move and make decisions on subjects that are time sensitive, that need to move ahead, and we find our processes do slow that down when it comes to decision-making.
So I would say the start of it would be a debate at this House. We could carry it out to a referendum to the public of the Territories to end in a vote and give direction, for example, to the next Assembly. It could be as straightforward as that. But one of the avenues I’ve initiated with regional leaders is a political development forum to begin to look at how we set a common vision for the North. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful Territory full of amazing opportunities. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has alluded to going to other jurisdictions, and I’ve been in that same situation where they’re almost in awe, you know, that we get together and we make it sound like we hammer everything out until everybody agrees when, in fact, that’s not exactly the way it is. Maybe it sounds a little more rosy than it is.
From the government’s side, normally the government is a governing party and they have party discipline and they have party protection, they have a party platform going into an election campaign, but, Mr. Speaker, from the governing side, even of this consensus government it’s been alluded here today in discussions about the Deh Cho Bridge, the government, it’s an untenable situation to have to be caught between sharing information with trying to accomplish a goal at the same time knowing full well that that information that you share could be used as a stick to beat you with. I mean, that’s basically what it boils down to. It creates an untenable situation for this side and that side. So, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to know what means does the Premier have at his disposal, or this government has at its disposal to begin this dialogue and debate. He talks about the Northern Leaders’ Forum, but in the general public what means do we have to begin a debate on the pros and cons of consensus government? Thank you.
Let me first recognize and appreciate the Member’s recognition of the times and challenges we face when we share information on initiatives that we’re thinking about going down and initiating and sharing that information and at times being held to account for information in its earliest days of forming and coming to setting direction as a government. We’ve got examples of that during this government itself, the 16th Assembly, which leads to huge challenges. When other governments in a party system want a direction set, a platform is set at a general election and the governing party can come in and then begin to make changes as it progresses and does its time. I would say the tools that we have before us, one, I’ve initiated a process with the regional leaders on political development forum, but we could, as well, at this forum put a motion on the floor for open debate for the public to hear and have it recorded about the discussion around consensus government or political structures. Thank you.
I do apologize. This is a big topic and maybe it was the wrong time to start it on the last day of session, but, Mr. Speaker, the idea of party politics, unfortunately, we have little snippets of party politics mingled, hybridized with this consensus government. For example, Cabinet solidarity; you know the Cabinet is always going to stick together. When you come over to this side, we’re not allowed to be called the opposition, just the accountability side of the House, Mr. Speaker. It’s an awkward situation, because that solidarity does not exist on this side of the House. And the balance of power with the number of Members we have. Mr. Speaker, 19 Members to represent the Northwest Territories, I’m sorry, may not be enough of a critical mass of people to really have the kind of balance of power that you need to have effective government. What kind of discussions would the Premier have with other leaders in the Territory about the idea of perhaps expanding the number of Members who sit in this House? Thank you.
The size of our House, we go through the general election and there’s the 25 plus/minus seat structure that’s in place. Again, it’s a standard across this country that we follow. There are a lot of similarities we have with other jurisdictions that have party politics. In fact, the Member has talked about Cabinet solidarity and though there’s is no official opposition, it’s always understood there’s an unofficial opposition, which has worked rather well, I’d say, during the 16th Assembly and other Assemblies in the past. But at the same time, we do need to have a look at how we go forward.
Again, the regional process of political development is one approach that we have before us that we can initiate that, and probably more to this Assembly, to this arena, is a motion for debate that could begin that discussion publicly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement today I talked about programs and services and the need to make sure that they’re fairly distributed throughout the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, it does bother me when I hear about a community, whether it’s in Wrigley or it’s Tsiigehtchic, that they don’t have fair services, because the first thing they do is look to Yellowknife and assume that we have everything, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the truth. But I also feel for the communities and want to support them when they need their services. That’s why my Member’s statement was sort of crafted in its way, because I’m concerned about fair distribution in a transparent way. So, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier today is: what transparent Cabinet policy drives the measures of equal and fair distribution of programs, services and capital investment in the NWT?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors that come into view as we talk about distribution of services throughout the Northwest Territories and evaluation of those programs and services. For example, there’s the capital standards process the Member alluded to in his Member’s statement of what type of construction that is permissible. In the past, the government also had, under that capital planning process, the size of the community. For example, what type of a water treatment plant fell into a community of 100 versus 500 versus 10,000. Those were in place as well, and there are remnants of that in the system.
One of the other things we are looking at, for example in Health and Social Services, is the Foundation for Change and looking at how we distribute our services and program delivery across the North. So that’s one of the other tools we do as an evaluation of that as we go forward.
We can’t always hold the same standard, for example, if we stuck to a dollar figure per person, then we probably couldn’t afford... Well, we know we couldn’t afford our smallest communities across the North. But our goal is to come up with a best level of services and programs, and that’s why, for example, there are territorial facilities, regional facilities and then community facilities, for example. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the Premier, but I’m not hearing a guiding principle or a Cabinet policy that guides this. I hear factors, but the issue, really, I’m talking about is building a framework so then it’s transparent. It’s transparent amongst Members so then we can help advocate, so if you are a community and needed a particular issue or one Member’s particular riding needed a particular focus and we were able to hold it up against the planning process that’s fair, transparent and equally understood.
Now, I know the Premier is going to respond only to this next point, but the fact is sometimes it does feel like the only people that get anything done in this House is either the people who whine and complain the most or, furthermore, you’re in Cabinet. But the reality is I’m trying to play those factors down and say that what framework could the Premier develop as a Cabinet policy that we could use as a formula for fair and reasonable distribution of services amongst regions. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this whole Assembly decides, whenever we pass our budget, just how we deliver services in our communities. One of the things that we heard for many years was that communities needed to make their own decisions more often, much like tax-based municipalities do. So the New Deal that was established that is now into, I believe, its third or fourth year of delivery, that allows communities to make decisions. When you look at base-plus funding, that was incorporated in that so that it helped the smaller communities be able to deal with some of the higher cost issues and you look at our health care services, again that’s another initiative. Members have that information before them as we go forward.
I think that I’d be concerned if we were to come up with one policy fits all. We say that we’re unique when it comes to the Canadian institution and that needs to be recognized; well, we need to recognize that too. I’m sure there’s a way of coming forward with a process much like we did in our capital planning process that lays out the issue of need, of population, of safety and affordability as ways of gauging just what we could afford to do in all of our communities. Thank you.
Respectfully, the Premier talks about a budget as the framework, but ultimately once that budget is presented to us in the private context of consensus government when we do our review and then it comes to the House, there’s extremely very little that ever gets changed and we know that. So the reality of changing or approving, I mean, really we’re just here to sort of echo off the ideas of what Cabinet’s already made the decision on. So, Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about guiding principles and framework, because if a community like Wrigley doesn’t have a nurse, that seems completely unfair and I think it’s important for all of us to play a role to make sure that they do get one.
So, Mr. Speaker, my point continues to be: would the Premier be willing to look at developing guiding principles and frameworks so we can make sure that all regions have fair services and programs delivered where it makes sense? Thank you.
The Member uses an example of Wrigley, for example, of having no nurse located in that community, but there are medical services provided to residents within that community, not the same as Yellowknife residents, not the same as residents from Inuvik, but on a level that we can provide those services with an aim to improve them. For example, that’s why the Foundation for Change comes into mind. It is through the business planning cycle -- and that’s a four-year cycle that we’ve initiated in this government -- to look at the way we deliver programs and services across the North and how we would engage residents in that delivery and trying to enhance that.
Ultimately, it comes back down to sustainability. That’s one of the factors we have to take into consideration. There are far more requests on the table than we have resources to be able to implement, so we have to come up with that right balance.
Is there a policy that could be developed? Well, Mr. Speaker, there is potential for that, but I would not say it should be a Cabinet coming up with that. That needs the direction of a government commitment overall in our consensus style. That means Members need to also put on the table and we know, for example, when we set our vision and goals to try to compromise to all the needs of 19 Members as we come forward, it’s very difficult to come up then with specific measures that we can all be held to account on. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m trying to understand the Premier’s apprehension to coming up with a guiding principle and working with this side of the House to help formulate it into a long-term policy and a strategy. Mr. Speaker, would the Premier be willing to draft a policy that helps to develop this type of framework I’m raising here today and bring it to all Members to have some type of discussion to ensure that there’s a fair, equal distribution of resources and services, as well as programs throughout the Northwest Territories that help serve all our people? Not just here in Yellowknife, but throughout the Territory as a whole, because I really feel strongly that services throughout the Territory are good for everyone no matter where we live. Thank you.
Thank you. We need to be careful what we ask for. For example, communities have been telling us up and down the Northwest Territories, north, south, east and west, they want more authority in making those decisions for what they feel are priorities in their community. We can set the standards and tell them what they can have and can’t have. That’s the way it used to be. Members calling for those days to come back I think will have the NWT Association of Communities making some calls rather quickly as to how we’re starting to pull it back to the centre, as some would say.
So I’m prepared to sit down with Members. If there are Members across the floor and we sit down and we want to actually do this and there’s support for that, then we can put the energy into it and discuss how we would do that, but right now I would say let’s be careful what we ask for. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are addressed to the Minister of Finance and I would like to ask some questions in regard to the Deh Cho Bridge. Over the last month the government has made a number of announcements with regard to the bridge. They seem to indicate, or at least they do to me, that in terms of management changes and responsibilities within the project changing they indicate that the government is taking over this project. I’d like to ask the Minister what the financial implications are for this change in management of the project and responsibility for the project. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
