Debates of May 25, 2018 (day 29)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I lost Cabinet with my earlier statement, so I'll try and get them back with a compliment here. The Department of Infrastructure, at least the transportation portion of it, does a pretty good job of informing the public and stakeholders of fee increases, and they've had a lot of practice lately, so I'm sure they are getting better day by day. Maybe I lost them again. The Department of Lands hasn't been around as long as Transportation, and maybe that's why they're not quite as adept as Transportation in getting that type of information out. The recent changes to the cost of territorial land is one example where there could have been better communication, and that's received quite a bit of attention as of late. Another example is the doubling of the quarrying fees that occurred on April 1, 2018. I did some research, and I found that the increase was mentioned in the House by the Minister once in early 2017 and once in early 2016, but, beyond that, it wasn't conveyed to the public in any meaningful way.

When a business is bidding on a job and they use materials from quarries, it needs to know what its costs are, and, as a result of this change, some small businesses are out thousands of dollars. So now, what's done is done, but I'm sure the Department of Lands will increase fees again in the coming years, so my hope here is that we can improve their communication process to avoid these types of incidents in the future. So, first, I'd like to ask the Minister of Lands if he could explain how this 100 per cent increase in quarrying royalties was conveyed to the public and the stakeholders? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Lands.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we do communicate with the public as well as MLAs. There are several processes that we follow, which were also followed with respect to the changes in the lease fees. In this case, with respect to the specific question, the department in late 2016 engaged SCOPP with our intent and duty to consult Indigenous governments on the proposed fee changes. This consultation included changes to fees for administrative services, quarry royalties, and lease rent minimums. This was followed up in November 2016 with consultation letters to IGOs to inform them of the department's intent to change fees and royalties, as well as to hear any impacts that the proposed changes may have to their organizations. The NWT Chamber of Mines engaged the department in February 2017 specifically on the subject of the granular resource fee increases. There was concern with respect to the proposed change and impacts on the mining sector. Department officials advised the chamber that their concerns were noted and that there would be a pre-gazetting period when written submissions could be submitted. So we followed a similar process with respect to the changes in lease fees. So there has been consultation, therefore, with the IGOs, and there also has been direct communication with the mining industry through the Chamber of Mines.

So did the Minister say that they brought the information to the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning in 2016, and they consulted with Indigenous governments, and the Chamber of Mines actually approached them regarding these fees? That's in contrast to the Department of Transportation, or now Infrastructure, which will put on Facebook and Twitter and the radio that there are changes to the fees to cross the Deh Cho bridge for commercial vehicles. So that's the type of communication that I'd like to see coming out of Lands to avoid these types of issues that I've been talking about. So will the Minister commit to reviewing their communication policy and updating it so it's something similar to what Infrastructure does?

Yes. Certainly, Infrastructure has set a very high standard. I would be prepared to look at their processes and see if they are applicable to our situation. Clearly, we want to communicate with the public when there are changes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.

Question 296-18(3):

Ingraham Trail Maintenance Schedule

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today, I spoke positively about the Ingraham Trail. My questions today are for the Minister of Infrastructure. I have a few questions relevant to some of the maintenance issues with regard to the road.

First of all, we still have a section of the road here that has been maybe somewhat forgotten. It goes from the turnoff at Highway No. 3 out to the Old Giant Mine town site. It is still used quite regularly by those that use the boat dock there and go to the mine heritage exhibit as well as the city solid waste management facility and the skiing lodge.

I would like to ask the Minister if he has been down that road recently and seen the conditions of that road. It is really pitted with potholes. I am just wondering what the maintenance schedule would be for that section of road for this coming year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I have travelled that road as of a couple of nights ago with Member McNeely when we were out having a look around town. There are a number of potholes on that section of highway. I suspect that the maintenance crews that will be looking after and maintaining all highways across the Northwest Territories, as all Members know, have to wait until the road thaws out and get on these situations.

I believe this section of highway is ours at this point. I think we are having discussions with the City of Yellowknife in taking over that section of highway. We can keep the Members abreast on that. I will look into what the maintenance schedule is of fixing these potholes on that section of highway.

Thank you to the Minister for that commitment. I look forward to him getting back to me so that I can inform constituents. The department has done some really good work recently with regard to visibility on the Ingraham Trail. They have done significant brush clearing. However, this brush clearing has raised some concerns with residents and other users.

I am wondering if the Minister can maybe indicate to us what process it was that they undertook to do the brush clearing. Would there be improvements in the future? Specifically, could residents or others get access to some of the wood that was cut during the brush cutting so that it could be utilized in wood stoves and for other means, possibly?

I am not aware of the brush cutting that took place out there recently, but I can certainly have a look into it. If there is an opportunity for residents along the Ingraham Trail to access some of that wood, we will certainly consider that. I will get back to the Member.

Thanks again to the Minister for that commitment. I appreciate him looking into that and look forward to getting the feedback. Thirdly, I have been asking for a couple years now to make an investment with regard to some guardrails in a couple sections of road that still appear to be unsafe as it relates to the steepness of the road going into sharp corners. I won't reiterate where they are. The Minister knows where and what I am referring to. I would just like to ask the Minister what the update would be in terms of the work being done for those guardrails. Are they expected to come this construction season?

Last year, we replaced three guardrails at kilometre 33.8, 37.6, and 45.5. The department has here in my note that we are doing a planning and survey, and design work is underway for possible installation of guardrails at kilometre 13.5 and kilometre 18.7 for the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, I think that, it is in the main estimates that we are making this commitment to these guardrails, is my understanding. I will take "possible" as a soft commitment from the Minister for now. I will certainly keep on him.

Lastly, I did take a drive out on the road recently, all the way to the end. In fact, the paving of the road is almost done. It is already up to Cameron River, I believe. I would like to ask the Minister what other funds and investments are going to be made for the remainder of the Ingraham Trail. Can we look forward to it being completed up to Tibbitt Lake possibly in the next year or two? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For Members who aren't aware, on Bundle 1 from the BCIP money, we spent $8 million, roughly, on the Ingraham Trail. I am glad to say that, on Bundle 3, the approval that we had from the federal government here recently, we will have an additional $10 million that we will be able to spend on Ingraham Trail between 2019 to 2024. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Question 297-18(3):

Slave Geological Province Road

Merci, Monsieur le President. While we are on the subject of roads, my questions are for the Minister of Infrastructure, who is the proponent for the Slave Geological Province Road. A business case for the project has not been completed. There is no independent cost-benefit analysis, either. The federal government has denied funding in our most recent application. Can the Minister tell us what is the status of this project? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member stated, we were denied funding in the first round of the National Trade Corridors Fund. One thing I want to make light of that is there were over 300 applicants right across this country for this funding and a $2 billion fund, which I have always said at the FPT tables we could spend the whole $2 billion. We are competing against all of Canada for a small pot of money. That is not saying our project is any more or less desirable than any other one, just that there is a limited amount of funding.

We believe there is a second round of funding for this pot of money coming out this fall. It will be specific to the three northern corridors to carve out of the $400 million. We will be resubmitting our application to that when that call comes out. We believe that our application will have a very positive chance of being accepted through that process on the second round.

The other thing I think we need to be well aware of is that we have an opportunity now. I don’t know if all the Members have seen that as of yesterday, they have appointed a CEO to the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. This project has a revenue-generating potential. We believe it has a good fit in the Infrastructure Bank. We will continue to pursue those opportunities as things move forward.

Thanks to the Minister for that. Earlier today, I questioned our government's fiscal capacity to take on this $540 million project. Given our borrowing limit, competing infrastructure priorities, what evidence can the Minister provide that our government has the fiscal capacity to initiate the SGP road within the term of the 18th Assembly?

It is very unlikely that construction of the Slave Geological Province would happen in the life of this Assembly. The project is dependent on, as I have said, securing federal funding. It also needs to have fully considered the social and economic impacts through an appropriate environmental impact review and permitting process. We know that is going to be a very lengthy process. We will take advantage of funding opportunities that become available to us. As I have said, in the second round, we will submit our application.

With that said, though, the Government of the Northwest Territories' borrowing limit would have to be increased for our fiscal capacity to be able to do the Slave Geological Province. I believe the Minister of Finance has initiated some initial discussions around that.

I would like to thank the Minister for that new information. Earlier today, I referred to the incomplete and unfunded work on the Bathurst caribou herd, that there is no land use planned for this region. As the lead Minister on this project, can the Minister explain to the public how Cabinet applies the Land Use and Sustainability Framework to the Slave Geological Province road?

As most Members know, this Slave Geological Province access corridor is currently in the very early planning stages. The application of the Land Use and Sustainability Framework will be the key next step to advancing and planning of this project once federal funding has been secured.

As we move forward, we know that we have to have considerations for land use, protection of wildlife, economic opportunities for this project. We will provide involvement of Indigenous organizations and ongoing development of this project as we move forward on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I would like to thank the Minister for that. I might be able to help him with that with my next question here. I mentioned that the Government of Nunavut and even the Kivalliq Inuit Association have stopped work on the Grays Bay Road and Port Project so they can cut their losses short. When will our government cut our losses short and stop the use of public funds for the Slave Geological Province Road?

With that said, we know the Kitikmeot organization is still very interested. There has been some discussion going on, how they want to participate and support not only their road but ours. I wouldn't say that it's totally dead on that side of it. We know that the Government of Northwest Territories has identified the Slave Geological Province in our mandate. We are all well aware of that and around our 25-year transportation strategy, we heard from Northerners that this is a high priority. Most members agree with me that this is a key to the future of our territory around economic development and support residents to adapt to impacts of climate change, to help create economic growth and prosperity for residents in the Northwest Territories and Indigenous governments. We are committed to making this project a reality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.

Question 298-18(3):

Highway No. 1 Road Safety Concerns

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up with my statement and ask some questions to the Minister of Infrastructure, but, before I do that, I just wanted to highlight some things. Humboldt, Saskatchewan, I think everybody is aware of the tragedy that transpired over the recent months. The community of Enterprise, there's an intersection that runs through the community. There's a lot of traffic that goes through there, and we have a looming industry, the Aurora Wood Pellets, once it gets into operation, you will probably see a lot of traffic go through there. Safety concerns have been raised by the community in terms of how it is that traffic goes through their community. At the same time, there was a letter sent to the department. At the May 7th meeting, it was clear, loud and clear, that there are ongoing concerns. I understand that the department was supposed to assess some of the steps that it could be taking.

My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure: what action is the Minister of Infrastructure taking to address the safety concerns of the intersection of the local residents of Enterprise? Mahsi.

Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let's start with what we have done previously, already. We have lowered the speed zone through that area. Every time there is an accident at any place on the highway, the NWT system, we review it with the RCMP and take steps needed to help mitigate that. Safety barriers and guardrails were also installed a couple of years ago along the riverbank system there, along the Enterprise intersection.

As of the meeting that we had during the Deh Cho tour with Michael Nadli, we gave the letter to the mayor of Enterprise stating that we will be sending our staff in there to do a review of their concerns and meet with the local authorities to discuss their concerns going forward.

I want to thank the Minister for his reply and, plus, his attendance of our recent Deh Cho tour of the Deh Cho riding. In the letter to the Department of Infrastructure, the Hamlet of Enterprise recommends the installation of rumble strips at the intersection. What is the Minister doing to address this recommendation by local residents?

Yes, in the letter to me, they have mentioned rumble strips, lower speed limits, signage, pedestrian crossing, and, like I said at the time of the meeting there, when we were doing the Deh Cho tour, that I would send our staff in there to do an assessment and meet with the committee and then make an assessment and get back to me and we can discuss that with the community and the Member from the riding.

I think what we all could sense is that there needs to be some action taken. When can the residents of Enterprise expect or see safety improvements to the intersection that runs through the community of Enterprise?

As I have said, I have directed our staff to go in there and meet with the community and do an assessment. Once that assessment is complete, a consultation with the residents and whatever recommendations come out of that going forward, I can keep the Member abreast of the timelines when the improvements will be made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister commit to a specific date that he will have the staff meet with the community leadership so that at least they can get a heads-up and ensure that they are prepared for the meeting?

Well, I will check with the department and see what the planning was around the date that we want to meet with the community. I know summer is coming and a number of the Member's riding people on council may be on holiday, so we have to get that date straightened out. I will let him know the exact date. We want to go in there sooner than later, hopefully. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.

Question 299-18(3):

Marriage of Underage Minors in Marriage Act

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I spoke about the issue of marriage of minors in the Northwest Territories. I know the department reviewed this legislation in 2017, and I know they do a very thorough job when they do these legislative reviews. Could the Minister of Health and Social Services advise as to why section 16 of the act, which permits marriage of those aged 16, why that wasn't removed? What was the justification at the time to retain that section of the act? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the previous act was actually repealed and replaced. During the life of this Assembly, we did have an opportunity to bring that bill before committee and also before this House, where it received unanimous support from all Members in the passage of that bill.

The bill actually brings us in line with the federal Civil Marriages Act. It removed the ability for minors and people younger to get married. With minors, there is the exception where they do get consent from their legal guardians. We did have debate on this bill in the House, and I have reviewed OpenNWT's Hansard earlier today, when the Member brought it up. I did not see any indication that the Member had raised this concern during the debate of that bill. I do recognize that the Member was one of 18 Members who unanimously supported that bill at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I did not serve on the standing committee on the review of the bill, and I'm not aware if this section of the act was actually within the scope of the bill that the department was proposing, but I certainly did support the changes that brought the act in line with the federal Civil Marriages Act, and I apologize for going on at length, but, regardless of what happened then, this is still an issue. Is it something the Minister is concerned about, or is this not a problem that is worth addressing? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, just a note, just so we are clear, the bill was discussed in Committee of the Whole clause by clause and did receive unanimous consent in this Assembly from all Members.

As per our normal process, the bill did go to committee, who had an opportunity to do a thorough review of the bill. We did get a letter from committee expressing some questions around this particular issue. The issue is the ability of a minor to marry. The legislation requires that, if a minor does desire to get married, they must still obtain a marriage licence. To obtain a marriage licence, they must get consent from their legal guardians. If their legal guardians are not present or do not exist, they do have the ability to get an order from the Supreme Court that allows them to move forward with the acquisition of a marriage licence, regardless. Issuers are required to communicate with potential applicants to ensure that they understand the nature of the marriage licence, the nature of entering into a marriage contract, and getting married.

We feel confident that there are checks and balances to ensure that individuals will not be coerced into marriage, are not forced into a marriage, that they are entering of their own free will, and understand the nature of the arrangements they are entering into. So, no, Mr. Speaker, we do not see any concerns at this time.

If the Member is aware of any situations, I would be happy to review those situations, but, at this time, given that we have gone through this process and we have unanimous consent, we are not intending to change the legislation again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of any marriages that have occurred since 2006, at least, of minors in the Northwest Territories. I am just wondering why, again, this is required. It seems like the department has put a lot of thought into putting safeguards around it, but, if no one is using this section of the bill, why does it need to be there?

The legislation has only been live and active for one year. Actually, it will be one year on June 1st. It is consistent with the Civil Marriages Act from the federal government, and we want to be prepared, should and if any minors do desire to get married, that there is a process that is fair and open to them, so we are not planning to change the legislation at this point.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we are on the subject of this bill, I have received some correspondence from several marriage commissioners in the Northwest Territories who feel that there are sections of the bill that don't speak to the changing regulatory environment they are working in, specifically around marriage fees. Can the Minister confirm if marriage commissioners were consulted on the bill and if their concerns were taken into account when the bill was brought forward to the House? Thank you.

As with most of our legislation, we did go out and consult with stakeholders who had an interest in that legislation, individuals who were involved in issuing licences and others. We did talk to clergy who have the ability to provide marriage licences within the legislation. Committee did have an opportunity to conduct a review of that legislation. We were working to comply with federal legislation, as I have indicated several times, the Civil Marriages Act. That is a federal piece of legislation.

If the Member has some specifics, I am always open to hear about those specifics, concerns raised by his constituents, and to work to address those where appropriate. At this point, we have no indication that a piece of legislation that received unanimous consent in this House just over a year ago and has now been active for just under a year requires changes, but, as with all legislation, I am open to anything. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.