Mahsi. Mr. Speaker, like I said, there is a review undertaken right now. The communities want to have some input into this review.

On the trades sector, the programs that are being delivered, the trade apprenticeship programs, the management programs and distance programs are out there. We want to find out what’s working. What kind of programs are we delivering successfully? We are getting input from the students and program staff about how to deliver effective programs to our communities. We are listening to people out there in the community. We serve 33 communities, and we are certainly taking into consideration all their recommendations. Mahsi.

Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it very clearly: MLAs want input on this survey. Rather than doing a survey without any consultation in this House…. It’s nice to hear that a survey is going on, but I didn’t hear when this was going to come forward. I didn’t hear about consulting MLAs or any details about that. These are some important issues that need to be decided in this House, and if we are going to do a survey, we should be having input from this side of the House to make sure it is effectively done.

Would the Minister ensure that MLAs such as myself have input on this survey? If this is done in isolation and we’re handed a report — and even if we are handed any reports — by that time there is no chance for input and there’s no way we can influence some of the direction it should be looking into.

Mr. Speaker, we accept recommendations and input from our Regular Members as well. We very much appreciate their input.

This review has been undertaken for just under a year now. It will be brought to the attention of the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. The results of these recommendations will be brought forward. Any recommendations and advice from Members will certainly be taken into consideration in our discussion. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask some questions today to the Premier in regard to the Deh Cho Bridge project again. I listened with interest to the comments he made previously with Mrs.

Groenewegen. Yes, he is right: the last

government could have looked at rescinding the Deh Cho Bridge Act. But I disagree with him on his take on the information being free flowing between the last government and Regular Members. If it was so free flowing, why would Regular Members have to pass not one but two motions calling on the government to disclose an updated cost-benefit analysis, and also to let us know what was contained in the concession agreement? So I just wanted to get that out there.

I also want to ask the Premier today if he would look at striking a peer review of the financing of the Deh Cho Bridge project.

Mr. Speaker, once again in this debate, those are actions of the 15th Legislative

Assembly in terms of those motions that were passed. But in the life of this government, the 16th Assembly, the information has flowed. We’ve showed that information. We know where the dollars are. Those dollar marks haven’t changed since the last update to Members.

With the request for a peer review, this project…. The lenders have been involved with our lawyers and looking at all documentation; the process has undergone quite a review in the sense of where it is required to go.

Yes, the Member quoted the cost-benefit analysis, but let me say that as the Government of the Northwest Territories, if we used that business case for all of our communities, many of our communities would have shut down, because we would not have afforded to build in our communities. The Mackenzie Valley highway is something that at least a number of us were talking about in the 16th Assembly. It would never get built. Highway expansion in the Northwest Territories would never happen. So we are going to have to look at other ways of doing business as the Government of the

Northwest Territories, and look at other options available to us.

I don’t know what it would require to do an active peer review on the financing of this, but we have had some of the largest lending agents in Canada, the Ontario teachers’ association, as well as the Sun Life Group. They are the largest lenders. They’re doing due diligence along with us. So do you want a peer review of what they’ve decided, if they decided to proceed or not.

The Members of the 15th Legislative

Assembly put a lot of faith in what the government was telling them at the time. The former Premier said he would come forward with information that was going to be contained in that concession agreement before it was signed off. That never happened. The concession agreement was signed on September 28, 72 hours before the election, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier if he is aware of whether or not the former Premier and cabinet had access to the cost-benefit analysis when Regular Members first found out any information — a little bit of information — on November 17 of last year.

Mr. Speaker, all the Member has to do is look at the date when that report was published, and he can answer his own question.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe the date

stamped on that thing was December of 2007, which would lead me to believe that the government — the 15th Legislative Assembly —

signed a $160 million deal on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories without that cost-benefit analysis, which says that we’re going to go from a positive $38 million impact to a negative $50 million impact. Is that true?

Mr. Speaker, once again the Member wants to debate what the previous government did, what the previous Premier did; I’m talking about the 16th Assembly and what we’ve

done. We’ve provided all the information Members have asked for. They may not like it, but they’ve got the information. We’ve committed to and honoured the delivery of what they’ve asked for, and I say let’s now get on with business.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the previous government was signing on to a $160 million infrastructure deal, I’m wondering what role the Finance Minister would play in that. The impact that’s going to have for 35 years to come is $242 million. The former Finance Minister is still the Finance Minister, and I think he has some explaining to do, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t know if that question is in order or not. I will allow the Premier to answer, if he would like.

Mr.

Speaker, as Finance

Minister for the 16th Legislative Assembly, the

requirements that have been made upon myself to provide information have been provided. Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, we face many

challenges getting women’s voices to the table because of the way we have set up our society of the day. We have some opportunities to do that a little better in this government. I’d like to ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: does this government have a policy in place that ensures that a gender lens is brought to the development of public policy?

Mr. Speaker, first I’d like to thank the Member for the statement, which sounded like music to my ears.

Mr. Speaker, on the question the Member is asking, I have to say that my understanding…. I don’t have all the detailed information with me on the gender-based analysis, but it’s something that has been going on in many different jurisdictions. Also, there has been some work been going on by previous governments. I’m going to have to make a commitment now that I’d be happy to look into that and come back to the Member to see where we are with that.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you to the

Minister for that response. I’m well aware of the Minister’s personal interest in this issue — and appropriately so, of course.

I would also like to know if the government will look into bringing gender-based analysis in on all of the legislation that we contemplate, as well, as a routine matter?

Mr.

Speaker, it is my

understanding that there has been quite a bit of work and analysis that has been done on this and on how the policy could come about, how that would be implemented and how we could lay that out. I have to get the details of that to see what work, exactly in detail, has been done and where we are with that. I just haven’t had the time to look into that further.

But I do want to assure the Member that a lot of work has been done on this issue by this government. I’d just like to look into that further, get back to the Member and then maybe we could have more discussion at that time.

Thank you again to the Minister on that. It’s good to hear that there has been a lot of work done. I’m looking forward to hearing the

results of that. I think we are early in our four-year term. It would be great to see this put in place as early as possible so that it could become a routine part. We’ve got lots of legislation, I’m sure, that we’re contemplating. So thank you for that response.

Of course, following the formula, when might the Minister get back to me with the details on that?

We’ve been very busy with a lot of things. One of the things we are working on is some new initiatives and new ideas in time for the next business plan process. As a new Minister in a new government and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, it’s something that I’d like to look into further. Hopefully within the next two or three months we can have some documents to review and discuss.

I came into this Assembly with rose-coloured glasses, thinking I could make a difference. After a week I left them outside. It’s frustrating, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, hearing from constituents who run into one road block after another. It’s equally frustrating because it seems like there’s nothing you can do about. You can bring your concerns to Members across the floor, who’ve all shared our concerns before. They’ve heard these before, and I’m sure a lot of them have spoken to our issues before.

I don’t know what’s changed. You’re in a position now to provide direction to the departments. You know what it’s like being on this side, so start providing that direction to the departments so the constituents will be the first people we look after, not the departments.

I’d like to direct my questions today to the Minister of HR. I’d like to ask him if the regional offices are the ones that determine the qualifications for job ads that go out.

The departments determine the qualifications for the job.

I’d like to ask the Minister if there are standard requirements across the N.W.T. so that an admin assistant in Hay River or Fort Smith would need the same qualifications as an admin assistant in Inuvik.

Our job-evaluation system and process does provide for that. At one point we had a great number of job-evaluation committees. We’ve now reduced the number so we would have more consistency between the different regions for similar jobs. We regularly undertake reviews and clarifying exercises.

I think that’s part of the problem. I’d like to ask the Minister if he would commit to looking into the review and having the standards…. I know there are a lot of jobs where the qualifications are different in each region or for each job. That’s not what I’m questioning. They are some where the standard requirements could be the same across the N.W.T.

I’d like to ask the Minister if his department would consider having the job requirements for certain positions standard across the N.W.T. so, like he said, there can be some consistency.